www.nprec.us
JUNE 2009

NATIONAL PRISON RAPE ELIMINATION COMMISSION REPORT

C O N T E N T S iii

.

Contents

Preface .v

Commissioners. vii

Commission Staff and Contributors.......................................................xi

Acknowledgments.. xiii

Executive Summary .............................................................................. 1

Introduction........................................................................................ 25

PART I: UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE. 31

1. A Problem that Must Be Solved. 32

2. Leadership Matters 50

3. Unequal Risk: Vulnerability and Victimization 68

4. Inside and Out: Strengthening Oversight 82

PART II: RESPONDING TO VICTIMS AND PERPETRATORS 99

5. Reporting, Investigation, and Punishment 100

6. Treating Trauma 124

PART III: SPECIAL POPULATIONS. 139

7. When Children Are Involved. 140

8. Community Corrections: The Next Frontier 160

9. On the Margins: Immigrants in Detention 174

APPENDICES 189

A. Endnotes.. 191

B. National Standards. 215

C. Recommendations...................................................................

....

........................

.......................................................

.......................................................................

237

D. NPREC Standards Development Expert Committee Members 239

E. Standards Implementation Needs Assessment. 243

F. NPREC Hearing Witnesses 245

G. PREA Initiatives 251

P R E F A C E v

Preface

On behalf of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, 

I am pleased to submit the following report on our work toward the elimination of sexual abuse in correctional and detention facilities nationwide. 

In the years leading up to the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act and since then, the work of corrections and detention professionals 

to address the problem of sexual abuse has been significant and laudable. 

They have established new policies and programs in some facilities, and 

expanded and refined existing practices in others. Their determination 

and commitment has led the way and informed the work of our Commission. Even more important, as a result of their efforts, we have seen ideas 

transform into actions that by all accounts have the potential to improve 

safety and security for those living and working within correctional and 

detention facilities. 

Despite this important progress, much remains to be done. Although 

many correctional systems and individual facilities are ahead of the curve, 

others lag behind. Some corrections leaders enjoy the full cooperation and 

support they need from the policymakers who oversee their systems; others struggle to secure necessary resources and political commitments. The 

problem of prison rape and other forms of sexual abuse is too serious and 

far-reaching, too devastating to the individuals and communities that it ultimately affects to be left to evolve unevenly. The Commission’s report and 

national standards create a mechanism for advancing the field uniformly, 

requiring the participation of all to protect people under supervision in 

every corner of our Nation.

Congress conferred upon the Commission an enormous responsibility: developing national standards that will lead to the prevention, 

detection, and punishment of prison rape. Yet Congress also and appropriately required us to seriously consider the restrictions of cost, differences among systems and facilities, and existing political structures. We 

have endeavored to comply with these directives, sometimes struggling 

to find the correct balance among competing considerations. This report 

describes the scope and seriousness of the problems, ways of solving them, 
vi N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

and what is at stake. The report also includes inspiring examples of good 

practices, demonstrating that Congress’ goals can be achieved and that the 

Commission’s standards are a realistic blueprint for progress and change.

In our work, the Commissioners have learned more than any of us 

expected at the outset. We have been challenged to examine problems that 

we wish did not exist and confronted with accounts of sexual abuse that 

shocked and saddened us, partly because the pain of the experience was 

still evident in the victims’ voices as they testified before the Commission. 

At the same time, we have had the opportunity to witness remarkable 

examples of human resolve, creativity, and strength among survivors of 

sexual abuse as well as corrections and detention professionals. Through 

it all, we have questioned our own assumptions and perspectives to fully 

understand the far-reaching nature of the problems and the potential for 

solutions. 

As we near the end of our time of contribution and deliver our report and standards, I offer my sincere gratitude to Commission staff and 

others who contributed to this important effort. And for my fellow Commissioners who joined me in this challenging endeavor, I have not only 

gratitude but also great admiration. This diverse group has never flagged 

in its determination to complete its task with integrity, thoughtfulness, 

and respect. Through countless days of working together and hours of difficult and sometimes heated discussion, we have come to know each other 

well. Our diverse perspectives, insights, and talents and the debates we 

embraced have enhanced our work. 

It has been my honor and privilege to serve as the Chair of the Commission. Along with my distinguished and committed colleagues, I am 

proud to offer this report and our standards as the next step toward creating correctional and detention settings that are safe and free of the danger 

and shame of sexual abuse. 

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton, Chair
C O M M I S S I O N E R S vii

Commissioners

Chair Reggie B. Walton 

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton is a Federal district judge, appointed by President George W. Bush to the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia in 2001. In June 2004, President Bush appointed Judge Walton 

Chair of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. 

Before joining the bench of the U.S. District Court, Judge Walton 

was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to be Associate Judge of the 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where he had served as Deputy 

Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division. When called upon by President 

George H.W. Bush to become Associate Director of the Office of National 

Drug Control Policy in the Executive Office of the President, Judge Walton 

resigned his Superior Court judgeship to assume the Associate Director’s 

responsibilities. Later, Judge Walton served President George H.W. Bush as 

Senior White House Advisor for Crime. President George H.W. Bush reappointed Judge Walton to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 

where he thereafter served as Presiding Judge of the Family Division and 

Presiding Judge of the Domestic Violence Unit. 

Judge Walton earned his Bachelor of Arts from West Virginia State 

College in 1971 and his Juris Doctor from American University’s Washington College of Law in 1974.

Vice-Chair John A. Kaneb

Commissioner John A. Kaneb is Chairman of the Board of Directors 

of HP Hood LLC. He is also President of The Catamount Companies and a 

partner in the Boston Red Sox baseball franchise. 

In addition to his other duties, Mr. Kaneb is a Trustee Emeritus of 

the University of Notre Dame. He is also an Emeritus Trustee of the Massachusetts General Hospital and Emeritus Trustee and former Chairman 

of the Board of McLean Hospital. Mr. Kaneb has served numerous other 

boards, committees, and task forces, including the Board of Fellows of the 

Harvard Medical School. 
viii N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Mr. Kaneb earned his Bachelor of Arts in economics from Harvard 

College. He holds Honorary Doctor of Laws degrees from Saint Anselm 

College and the University of Notre Dame. 

Commissioner James E. Aiken

Commissioner James E. Aiken, President of James E. Aiken &

Associates, Inc., consults with attorneys and testifies as an expert witness 

in death penalty and civil cases. 

Mr. Aiken has more than 33 years of experience in correctional 

administration, facility operations and management, inspection and assessment of facility performance, and technical assistance consulting. 

Mr. Aiken has served every level of government—Federal, State, county, 

and local—in the areas of correctional leadership, organizational development, management of prison disturbances, system productivity, cost containment, prison security system enhancement, management of violent 

youthful offenders in adult prisons, gang and security threat group management, new wardens’ training, super-maximum security facility management training, assessment of prison security/operational performance, 

prison staffing analysis, reduction of prison critical security, and development of prison classification systems designed to better protect inmate 

populations. 

Mr. Aiken earned his Bachelor of Arts from Benedict College in 

Columbia, South Carolina, and his Master of Arts in criminal justice from 

the University of South Carolina. 

Commissioner Jamie Fellner 

Commissioner Jamie Fellner is Senior Counsel for the U.S. Program 

of Human Rights Watch. The U.S. Program focuses on human rights violations in the United States. 

In addition to her own research and writing, Ms. Fellner works 

with researchers and advocates in the areas of excessively high criminal 

sentences; over-incarceration; prison conditions, including treatment of 

mentally ill offenders, prison rape, and super-maximum security confinement; ex-offender reentry problems; mistreatment of immigrants; and human rights abuses resulting from antiterrorism policies.

Ms. Fellner served as Director of the U.S. Program at Human Rights 

Watch from 2001 to September 2007 and as Associate Counsel from 1994 

to 2001. Before beginning work on U.S. criminal justice issues, Ms. Fellner worked as a researcher and advocate for the organization’s Americas Division, focusing on several South American countries. Additionally, 

Ms. Fellner has worked with several U.S. foundations that operated Latin 

American social justice programs. 
C O M M I S S I O N E R S ix

Ms. Fellner earned her Bachelor of Arts from Smith College and 

her Juris Doctor from Boalt Hall at the University of California, Berkeley. 

She also completed doctoral studies in Latin American history at Stanford 

University and has practiced law in the District of Columbia. 

Commissioner Pat Nolan 

Commissioner Pat Nolan is the President of Justice Fellowship, the 

public policy arm of Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries. Mr.

Nolan is also the author of When Prisoners Return, describing the important role the church can play in helping people lead healthy, productive 

lives following their release.

Mr. Nolan brings a unique background to Justice Fellowship. He 

served for 15 years in the California State Assembly, including four years 

as the Assembly’s Republican Leader. Mr. Nolan has long been a leader on 

crime issues, particularly on behalf of victims’ rights, and was one of the 

original sponsors of the Victims’ Bill of Rights. Parents of Murdered Children awarded Mr. Nolan its Victims’ Advocate Award, and many groups 

named Mr. Nolan “Legislator of the Year.” Then, as part of a Federal Bureau 

of Investigation sting operation, Mr. Nolan was prosecuted for a campaign 

contribution he received and pled guilty to one count of racketeering. He 

served 25 months in a Federal prison and 4 months in a halfway house, and 

that experience changed the course of his life and work forever. 

Mr. Nolan earned his Bachelor of Arts in political science and his 

Juris Doctor from the University of Southern California. 

Commissioner Gustavus A. Puryear IV

Commissioner Gustavus A. Puryear IV is Executive Vice President, 

General Counsel, and Secretary of Corrections Corporation of America. As 

General Counsel, Mr. Puryear is responsible for Corrections Corporation 

of America’s legal and regulatory affairs, including its litigation and risk 

management, contract management, labor and employment issues, corporate governance matters, and compliance with Federal securities laws. 

Additionally, Mr. Puryear supervises the company’s compliance and ethics 

program as well as its quality assurance program. 

Mr. Puryear graduated from Emory University with highest honors 

in 1990. He earned his Juris Doctor with honors from the University of 

North Carolina School of Law in 1993. 
x N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Commissioner Brenda V. Smith 

Commissioner Brenda V. Smith is a Professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, where she teaches community and economic development law, legal ethics and women, and crime and law. Her 

research interests center on women in conflict with the law and on sexual 

abuse of individuals in custody. Professor Smith is also Project Director 

and Principal Investigator for the U.S. Department of Justice’s National 

Institute of Corrections Cooperative Agreement on Addressing Staff Sexual 

Misconduct with Offenders. She is an expert on issues affecting women in 

prison, a topic about which she has widely published and spoken. 

Before her appointment to the faculty of the Washington College 

of Law, Professor Smith was Senior Counsel for Economic Security at the

National Women’s Law Center. She has also served as the Director of the 

Center’s Women in Prison Project and its Child and Family Support Project. 

Professor Smith earned her Bachelor of Arts from Spelman College 

and her Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center.

Commissioner Cindy Struckman-Johnson

Commissioner Cindy Struckman-Johnson is a Professor of Psychology at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion. For nearly 25 years, Professor Struckman-Johnson has taught social psychology, sex roles, sexuality, 

and prejudice classes. Together with her partner, David Struckman-Johnson, 

a Professor of Computer Science, she has researched sexual coercion in 

prisons since 1994 and has received two national awards for her work in 

this area. To date, Professor Struckman-Johnson has studied sexual coercion rates in 10 male and four female prison facilities. 

Professor Struckman-Johnson earned her doctorate in social psychology from the University of Kentucky.
C O M M I S S I O N S TA F F A N D C O N T R I B U T O R S xi

Commission Staff and Contributors

Staff

Margaret M. Chiara, General Counsel and Executive Director (Acting)

Jenni Trovillion, Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer

Julia Dempewolf, Program Associate

Sobha Ketterer, Administrative Officer

Joya Taft-Dick, Research Associate

Organizations

The Moss Group, Inc.

National Academy of Public Administration

Palladian Partners, Inc.

The Raben Group

Vera Institute of Justice

Individuals

Sarah Alexander 

Justin Barasky

Isra Bhatty

Amanda Bosquez

Michela Bowman

Angela Browne

Sharon Brett

Taavona Brooks

Christopher Britten

Alexander Busansky

Alissa Cambier

Christopher Campbell

Sherry Carroll

Kathleen Dennehy

Mara Dodson

Erica Drucker 

Robert Dumond

Christopher Erlewine

Kathryn Fanlund

Rachel Farbiarz

Nicole Garnett

Mark Glaze

Tara Graham

Haley Griffin

Gabrielle Guzzardo

Allison Hastings

Jennifer Haymes

Kristen Henning

Jane Hereth

Richard Hoffman

Meaghan Hohl

Katharine Huffman

Henry Huggins

Leonard Jackson

Juliene James

Anita Khashu

Jessie Kirchner

Christy Lopez

Tony Marks

Pamala Micheaux

Marcia Morgan

Anadora Moss

Steven Newman

Emily Niedzwiecki

Robert Raben

Thomas Santaniello

Margo Schlanger

Kerri Sherlock Talbot

Jeff Shorba

Nina Siulc

Jessica St. John

Richard Tewksbury

L. Jackson Thomas, II

Jennifer Trone

Jaime Yarussi

Jason Zeidenberg

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S xiii

Acknowledgments

T

he Commission’s work would not have been possible without the 

significant contributions of a wide array of individuals and entities. 

Foremost, Senators Edward Kennedy and Jeffrey Sessions, with 

their colleagues Senators Mike DeWine, Richard J. Durbin, and 

Dianne Feinstein and Representatives Frank Wolf and Robert C. “Bobby” 

Scott, sponsors of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, have never wavered in their dedication to eliminating sexual abuse in confinement and 

their support for the efforts of this Commission. 

The Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice has 

provided able administrative support to the Commission throughout its 

tenure. The Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the National Institute of Corrections, and 

the National Institute of Justice have been spirited collaborators as we each 

labored to fulfill our mandate under PREA. 

The National Institute of Corrections/American University, Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape has provided 

a valuable service to the Commission by identifying legal resources and 

subject matter experts and by keeping the Commission abreast of emerging trends in the area of prison rape.

Professional organizations and associations in the field of corrections have provided significant input to the Commission throughout the 

development of the standards and report. They include the American Correctional Association, the American Jail Association, the Association of 

State Correctional Administrators, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the 

American Probation and Parole Association, the International Community 

Corrections Association, and several labor unions, among others. The 

Commission is also grateful to the many individual corrections professionals who helped inform us about current policies and practices intended to 

prevent and respond to sexual abuse. 

Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape) played a 

pivotal role in our public hearings by identifying survivors of sexual abuse 

willing to testify and also by providing emotional and other support to 

those survivors throughout the process. And to the courageous individuals 
xiv N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

who shared their stories of abuse with us, we hope you realize how much 

your voices and experiences shed light on a problem that is misunderstood 

by many. In this way, you helped protect others from the kinds of harm 

you have suffered. 

Many generous and gracious hosts provided space for our public 

meetings and hearings. They included the University of Notre Dame Law 

School in Indiana; the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC; 

the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California in San Francisco; the 

Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida; the John Joseph Moakley U.S. 

Courthouse in Boston, Massachusetts; the Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, 

Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit; the U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles, 

California; the University of Texas School of Law in Austin; and the U.S. 

Federal District Courthouse, Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. 

Finally, the Commission is deeply indebted to the many corrections leaders, researchers, legal experts, advocates, and academics who 

shared their knowledge and experiences through public hearings, expert 

committees, roundtable meetings, and public comment on the Commission’s draft standards. We regret space does not allow us to acknowledge 

everyone by name.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 1

Executive Summary

Rape is violent, destructive, and a crime—no less so when the victim is incarcerated. Until recently, however, the public viewed 

sexual abuse as an inevitable feature of confinement. Even as 

courts and human rights standards increasingly confirmed that 

prisoners have the same fundamental rights to safety, dignity, and justice 

as individuals living at liberty in the community, vulnerable men, women, 

and children continued to be sexually victimized by other prisoners and 

corrections staff. Tolerance of sexual abuse of prisoners in the government’s custody is totally incompatible with American values. 

Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from 

sexual abuse by unanimously enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 

2003. The Act called for the creation of a national Commission to study the 

causes and consequences of sexual abuse in confinement and to develop 

standards for correctional facilities nationwide that would set in motion a 

process once considered impossible: the elimination of prison rape. 

This executive summary briefly discusses the Commission’s nine 

findings on the problems of sexual abuse in confinement and select policies and practices that must be mandatory everywhere to remedy these 

problems. It also covers recommendations about what leaders in government outside the corrections profession can do to support solutions. The 

findings are discussed in detail and thoroughly cited in the body of the 

report, where readers will also find information about all of the Commission’s standards. Full text of the standards is included as an appendix to 

the report.

In the years leading up to the passage of PREA and since then, 

corrections leaders and their staff have developed and implemented policies and practices to begin to prevent sexual abuse and also to better respond to victims and hold perpetrators accountable when prevention fails. 

They have been aided by a range of robust Federal initiatives, support 

from professional corrections associations, and advocates who have vocally condemned sexual abuse in confinement. The landscape is changing. 

Training curricula for corrections staff across the country now include 

information about sexual abuse in confinement and how to prevent it. 

Sexual abuse is “not part of 

the penalty that criminal 

offenders pay for their 

offenses against society.”

—U.S. Supreme Court
2 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Some agencies and facilities have formed sexual assault response teams 

to revolutionize their responses to sexual abuse. Despite these and other 

achievements, much remains to be done, especially in correctional environments in which efforts to address the problem of sexual abuse have 

been slow to start or have stalled. Protection from sexual abuse should not 

depend on where someone is incarcerated or supervised; it should be the 

baseline everywhere. 

More than 7.3 million Americans are confined in U.S. correctional 

facilities or supervised in the community, at a cost of more than $68 billion annually. Given our country’s enormous investment in corrections, 

we should ensure that these environments are as safe and productive as 

they can be. Sexual abuse undermines those goals. It makes correctional 

environments more dangerous for staff as well as prisoners, consumes 

scarce resources, and undermines rehabilitation. It also carries the potential to devastate the lives of victims. The many interrelated consequences 

of sexual abuse for individuals and society are difficult to pinpoint and 

nearly impossible to quantify, but they are powerfully captured in individual accounts of abuse and its impact.

Former prisoner Necole Brown told the Commission, “I continue to 

contend with flashbacks of what this correctional officer did to me and the 

guilt, shame, and rage that comes with having been sexually violated for 

so many years. I felt lost for a very long time struggling with this. . . . I still 

struggle with the memories of this ordeal and take it out on friends and 

family who are trying to be there for me now.”

Air Force veteran Tom Cahill, who was arrested and detained for 

just a single night in a San Antonio jail, recalled the lasting effects of being gang-raped and beaten by other inmates. “I’ve been hospitalized more 

times than I can count and I didn’t pay for those hospitalizations, the tax 

payers paid. My career as a journalist and photographer was completely 

derailed. . . . For the past two decades, I’ve received a non-service connected security pension from the Veteran’s Administration at the cost of 

about $200,000 in connection with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.” 

Since forming, the Commission has convened public hearings and 

expert committees, conducted a needs assessment that involved site visits 

to 11 diverse correctional facilities, and thoroughly reviewed the relevant 

literature. Throughout the process, corrections leaders, survivors of sexual 

abuse, health care providers, researchers, legal experts, advocates, and academics shared their knowledge, experiences, and insights about why sexual 

abuse occurs, under what circumstances, and how to protect people. 

The Commission used what it learned about the nature and causes 

of sexual abuse in correctional settings and its impact to develop mandatory standards to prevent, detect, and punish sexual abuse. Two 60-day 

periods of public comment were critical junctures in the creation of the 

Many of the Commission’s 

standards reflect what 

corrections professionals 

acknowledge to be good 

practices—and are already 

operational in some places—

or are requirements 

under existing laws. 
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 3

standards. The Commission tailored the standards to reflect the full range 

of correctional environments across the country: adult prisons and jails; 

lockups and other short-term holding centers; facilities for juveniles; immigration detention sites; and probation, parole, and other forms of community 

corrections. Many standards reflect what corrections professionals recognize as good practices—and are already operational in some places—or are 

requirements under existing laws. If correctional agencies incur new costs 

to comply with the Commission’s standards, those costs are not substantial 

compared to what these agencies currently spend and are necessary to fulfill 

the requirements of PREA.

The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and 

unusual punishment—a ban that requires corrections staff to take reasonable steps to protect individuals in their custody from sexual abuse 

whenever the threat is known or should have been apparent. In Farmer 

v. Brennan, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of sexual abuse violates an incarcerated 

individual’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. As the Court so aptly 

stated, sexual abuse is “not part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay 

for their offenses against society.”

F I N D I N G 1 

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse remains a 

challenge in correctional facilities across the country. 

Too often, in what should be secure environments, 

men, women, and children are raped or abused by other 

incarcerated individuals and corrections staff. 

Although the sexual abuse of prisoners is as old as prisons themselves, efforts to understand the scale and scope of the problem 

are relatively new. The first study specifically of prevalence—

examining abuse in the Philadelphia jail system—was published in 1968. 

The most rigorous research produced since then—mainly of sexual abuse 

among incarcerated men—has yielded prevalence rates in the mid-to-high 

teens, but none of these are national studies. 

With an explicit mandate from Congress under PREA, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (BJS) launched a groundbreaking effort to produce 

national incidence rates of sexual abuse by directly surveying prisoners. 

The survey results may not capture the full extent of the problem, but 

they confirm the urgent need for reform. The Commission recommends 

that BJS continue this important work and that Congress provide the 

necessary funding. 

A 2007 survey of State and 

Federal prisoners suggests 

that an estimated 60,500 

individuals were sexually 

abused during the 12 

months leading up to 

the survey.

Protection from sexual 

abuse should not depend 

on where someone is 

incarcerated or supervised; 

it should be the baseline 

everywhere.
4 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

BJS conducted the first wave of surveys in 2007 in a random sample of 146 State and Federal prisons and 282 local jails. A total of 63,817 

incarcerated individuals completed surveys, providing the most comprehensive snapshot of sexual abuse in prisons and jails to date. Four-anda-half percent of prisoners surveyed reported experiencing sexual abuse 

one or more times during the 12 months preceding the survey or over 

their term of incarceration if they had been confined in that facility for 

less than 12 months. Extrapolated to the national prison population, an 

estimated 60,500 State and Federal prisoners were sexually abused during 

that 12-month period. 

Although sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread, rates vary across 

facilities. For example, 10 facilities had comparatively high rates, between 

9.3 and 15.7 percent, whereas in six of the facilities no one reported abuse 

during that time period. More prisoners reported abuse by staff than abuse 

by other prisoners: 2.9 percent of respondents compared with about 2 percent. (Some prisoners reported abuse by other inmates and staff.) 

The rate of sexual abuse in jails appears to be slightly lower: 3.2 

percent of inmates surveyed reported that they had been sexually abused 

at least once during the prior 6 months or since they had been confined 

in that facility. Again, reports of abuse by staff were more common than 

reports of abuse by other incarcerated persons: 2 percent of respondents 

compared with 1.6 percent. BJS has not surveyed individuals in halfway 

houses, treatment facilities, and other community-based correctional settings or individuals on probation or parole. 

As the Commission’s report goes to press, BJS is conducting the 

first nationally representative survey of sexual abuse among adjudicated 

youth in residential juvenile facilities. In a preparatory pilot study, BJS 

interviewed 645 youth in nine facilities—sites that volunteered to participate in the pilot and were selected based on convenience. Nearly one out 

of every five youth surveyed (19.7 percent) reported at least one nonconsensual sexual contact during the preceding 12 months or since they had 

arrived at the facility. Youth were just as likely to report abuse by staff as 

they were to report nonconsensual sexual encounters with their peers in 

the facility. These preliminary results are not necessarily an indicator of 

rates nationally because more than a quarter of the youth interviewed had 

been adjudicated for perpetrating a sexual assault, compared to less than 

10 percent of youth in residential placement nationally.

In conducting this research, BJS has taken advantage of evolving 

survey technology, using laptop computers with touch screens and an accompanying recorded narration to guide respondents—especially helpful 

for individuals with limited reading abilities. This method increases the 

likelihood of capturing experiences of sexual abuse among individuals 

who would be afraid or ashamed to identify as a victim in face-to-face interviews. Prisoners still must believe strangers’ assurances of confidentiality,

The sexual abuse of prisoners 

is widespread, but rates vary 

across facilities—from a low of 

zero to a high of 15.7 percent.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 5

however—a huge barrier for some—so the likelihood of underreporting 

still exists. Researchers also recognize that prevalence levels can be artificially elevated by false allegations. BJS designs its surveys to ask questions 

of prisoners in several different ways and also uses analytic tools to assess 

data for false reports. 

F I N D I N G 2 

Sexual abuse is not an inevitable feature of incarceration. 

Leadership matters because corrections administrators 

can create a culture within facilities that promotes safety 

instead of one that tolerates abuse.

I

n 2006, the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections about their policies and practices on preventing sexual abuse and 

conducted in-depth case studies in several States. Not surprisingly, the 

surveys and case studies identified strong leadership as essential to creating the kind of institutional culture necessary to eliminate sexual abuse 

in correctional settings. The Commission has defined clear standards that 

corrections administrators can and must champion to prevent sexual abuse 

and make facilities safer for everyone—reforms in the underlying culture, 

hiring and promotion, and training and supervision that vanguard members of the profession are already implementing. 

To begin with, every correctional agency must have a written 

policy mandating zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse in all settings, whether it is operated by the government or by a private company 

working under contract with the government. Although not mandated 

under the standards, collective bargaining agreements should feature an 

explicit commitment from unions and their members to support a zerotolerance approach to sexual abuse. Without it, there is little common 

ground upon which to build when negotiating the many specific policies 

and procedures to prevent and respond to sexual abuse.

Ultimately, the culture of an institution is shaped by people not by 

policies. Leaders need the right staff to create a genuine culture of zero 

tolerance. In particular, administrators must thoroughly screen all new job 

applicants and make promotions contingent on a similarly careful review 

of each staff member’s behavior on the job to prevent hiring, retaining, or 

promoting anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse. Conducting criminal background checks, making efforts to obtain relevant information 

from past employers to the extent permissible under law, and questioning 

applicants about past misconduct must be mandatory. Rigorous vetting 

is not enough, however. Correctional agencies urgently need support in 

Leaders need the right staff 

to create a genuine culture 

of zero tolerance. Rigorous 

vetting is crucial; so are 

supporting and promoting 

staff that demonstrate 

commitment to preventing 

sexual abuse.
6 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

developing competitive compensation and benefits packages so that they 

can recruit and retain appropriate staff. Equally important, administrators should support and promote staff that demonstrate a commitment to 

preventing sexual abuse. 

Even qualified individuals need training on sexual abuse to fulfill 

their job responsibilities. Only through training can staff understand the 

dynamics of sexual abuse in a correctional environment, be well informed 

about the agency’s policies, and acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to protect prisoners from abuse and respond appropriately when 

abuse does occur. The Commission recognizes the corrections profession’s 

investment to date in training staff and the fruits of those efforts. The 

Commission designed its standards to ensure that no facility is left behind 

and that training everywhere meets certain basic criteria. Additionally, 

the Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections 

continue the training and technical assistance it has provided in the years 

leading up to PREA and since then and that Congress provide funding for 

this purpose. 

The corollary to staff training is a strong educational program for 

prisoners about their right to be safe and the facility’s commitment to 

holding all perpetrators of sexual abuse—staff and inmates—accountable.

Facilities must convey at least basic information during intake in languages and other formats accessible to all prisoners. Armed with this information, prisoners are better able to protect themselves and seek help from 

staff before abuse occurs.

Supervision is the core practice of any correctional agency, and it 

must be carried out in ways that protect individuals from sexual abuse. 

The Commission believes it is possible to meet this standard in any facility, 

regardless of design, through appropriate deployment of staff. Direct supervision, which features interaction between staff and prisoners, should 

be used wherever possible because it is the most effective mode of supervision for preventing sexual abuse and other types of violence and disorder. 

In addition, correctional facilities must assess, at least annually, the need 

for and feasibility of incorporating additional monitoring equipment. Technologies are not replacements for skilled and committed security officers, 

but they can greatly improve what good officers are able to accomplish. 

The Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections 

help correctional agencies advance their use of monitoring technologies 

and that Congress fund this assistance.

Cross-gender supervision is an area in which the Commission has 

set clear standards. Some of the widespread abuse that occurred in women’s prisons across Michigan in the 1990s was facilitated by rules that required officers, including men, to meet a daily quota of pat-down searches 

for weapons, drugs, or other contraband. Physical searches are necessary 

security procedures. The potential for abuse is heightened, however, when 

Direct supervision is the 

most effective mode of 

supervision for preventing 

sexual abuse and should be 

used wherever possible.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 7

staff of the opposite gender conduct them. In the Commission’s view, the 

risks are present whether the officers are female or male. Historically, few 

women worked in corrections, but this is rapidly changing. 

The Commission understands that cross-gender supervision can 

have benefits for incarcerated persons and staff. The Commission’s standard on this issue is not intended to discourage the practice generally or 

to reduce employment opportunities for men or women. However, strict 

limits on cross-gender searches and the viewing of prisoners of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions are necessary 

because of the inherently personal nature of such encounters. Court decisions have recognized that both male and female prisoners retain some 

rights to privacy, especially in searches of their bodies and in being observed in states of undress by staff of the opposite gender.

With proper leadership practices and clear policies, corrections administrators can foster a culture that promotes safety. The Commission’s 

standards are intended to support these efforts. In addition, the Commission recommends that the Bureau of Justice Assistance continue to provide 

grants to diverse correctional agencies to support the development of innovative practices and programs and that Congress fund this important 

work as well as continued research by the National Institute of Justice on 

the nature of sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

F I N D I N G 3 

Certain individuals are more at risk of sexual abuse than 

others. Corrections administrators must routinely do 

more to identify those who are vulnerable and protect 

them in ways that do not leave them isolated and 

without access to rehabilitative programming. 

Preventing sexual abuse depends in part on risk assessment. Unfortunately, knowledge in this area is still limited. Research to date has 

focused on vulnerability to abuse by other prisoners, rather than by 

staff, and on the risks for men and boys rather than for women and girls. 

This caveat aside, some risk factors do stand out.

Youth, small stature, and lack of experience in correctional facilities 

appear to increase the risk of sexual abuse by other prisoners. So does having a mental disability or serious mental illness. Research on sexual abuse in 

correctional facilities consistently documents the vulnerability of men and 

women with non-heterosexual orientations and transgender individuals. A 

1982 study in a medium-security men’s facility in California, for example, 

found the rate of abuse was much higher among gay prisoners (41 percent) 
8 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

than heterosexual prisoners (9 percent). A history of sexual victimization, 

either in the community or in the facility in which the person is incarcerated, tends to make people more vulnerable to subsequent sexual abuse. 

Unless facility managers and administrators take decisive steps to 

protect these individuals, they may be forced to live in close proximity or 

even in the same cell with potential assailants. When Alexis Giraldo was 

sentenced to serve time in the California correctional system, her maleto-female transgender identity and appearance as a woman triggered a 

recommendation to place her in a facility with higher concentrations of 

transgender prisoners, where she might be safer. Yet officials ignored the 

recommendation and sent her to Folsom Prison in 2006, where she was 

raped and beaten by two different cellmates. 

Some correctional agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, now 

use written instruments to screen all incoming prisoners specifically for 

risk of sexual assault. Evidence-based screening must become routine nationwide, replacing the subjective assessments that many facilities still 

rely on and filling a vacuum in facilities where no targeted risk assessments are conducted. The Commission’s standards in this area accelerate 

progress toward this goal by setting baseline requirements for when and 

how to screen prisoners for risk of being a victim or perpetrator of sexual 

abuse. To be effective, the results of these screenings must drive decisions 

about housing and programming. Courts have commented specifically on 

the obligation of correctional agencies to gather and use screening information to protect prisoners from abuse. 

The Commission is concerned that correctional facilities may rely 

on protective custody and other forms of segregation (isolation or solitary 

confinement) as a default form of protection. And the Commission learned 

that desperate prisoners sometimes seek out segregation to escape attackers. Serving time under these conditions is exceptionally difficult and 

takes a toll on mental health, particularly if the victim has a prior history 

of mental illness. Segregation must be a last resort and interim measure 

only. The Commission also discourages the creation of specialized units 

for vulnerable groups and specifically prohibits housing prisoners based 

solely on their sexual orientation or gender identity because it can lead to 

demoralizing and dangerous labeling.

The Commission is also concerned about the effect of crowding on 

efforts to protect vulnerable prisoners from sexual abuse. Crowded facilities are harder to supervise, and crowding systemwide makes it difficult to 

carve out safe spaces for vulnerable prisoners that are less restrictive than 

segregation. When Timothy Taylor was incarcerated in a Michigan prison, 

internal assessments suggested that he was likely to be a target of sexual 

abuse because of his small size—he was five feet tall and 120 pounds—

and diminished mental abilities, yet he was placed in a prison dormitory 

Evidence-based screening 

for risk of sexual abuse 

must become routine 

nationwide, replacing the 

subjective assessments that 

many facilities still rely

on and filling a vacuum

in facilities where no 

targeted risk assessments 

are conducted.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 9

to save bed space for new arrivals. Shortly thereafter, he was sexually assaulted by another prisoner.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 19 States and the Federal system were operating at more than 100 percent of their highest capacity in 2007. An equal number of States operated at somewhere between 90 

and 99 percent of capacity. When facilities operate at or beyond capacity, 

prisoners also have fewer or no opportunities to participate in education, 

job training, and other programming. Idleness and the stress of living in 

crowded conditions often lead to conflict. Meaningful activities will not 

end sexual abuse, but they are part of the solution. It is critical that lawmakers tackle the problem of overcrowding. If facilities and entire systems 

are forced to operate beyond capacity and supervision is a pale shadow of 

what it must be, our best efforts to identify and protect vulnerable individuals will be stymied.

Classification has evolved from little more than ad hoc decisions to 

an increasingly objective, evidence-based process. Although knowledge 

about the risk factors associated with sexual abuse is far from complete, 

corrections administrators can identify and protect many vulnerable individuals from abuse.

F I N D I N G 4

Few correctional facilities are subject to the kind of 

rigorous internal monitoring and external oversight that 

would reveal why abuse occurs and how to prevent it. 

Dramatic reductions in sexual abuse depend on both. 

T

he most effective prevention efforts are targeted interventions that 

reflect where, when, and under what conditions sexual abuse occurs. Sexual abuse incident reviews, as required under the Commission’s standards, produce the kind of information administrators need to 

deploy staff wisely, safely manage high-risk areas, and develop more effective policies and procedures. A number of State departments of corrections 

already conduct some type of review. 

Correctional agencies also must collect uniform data on these incidents, including at least the data necessary to answer all questions on the 

most recent version of the Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey on Sexual 

Violence. In aggregate form, the data can reveal important patterns and 

trends and must form the basis for corrective action plans that, along with 

the aggregated data, are released to the public. Transparency is essential. 

Even the most rigorous internal monitoring, however, is no substitute 

for opening up correctional facilities to outside review. The Commission 

Crowded facilities are harder 

to supervise, and crowding 

systemwide makes it difficult 

to carve out safe spaces for 

vulnerable prisoners that are 

less restrictive than solitary 

confinement and other 

forms of segregation.
10 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

requires detailed, robust audits of its standards by independent auditors at 

least every 3 years. The auditor must be prequalified through the U.S. Department of Justice to perform audits competently and without bias. The 

Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections design 

and develop a national training program for auditors and that Congress 

provide funding specifically for this purpose. 

The Commission also supports external oversight beyond the mandatory audits. In particular, the Commission endorses the American Bar 

Association’s 2006 resolution urging Federal, State, and territorial governments to establish independent public entities to regularly monitor and 

report on the conditions in correctional facilities operating within their 

jurisdiction. Oversight by inspectors general, ombudsmen, legislative committees, or other bodies would work hand-in-hand with regular audits of 

the Commission’s standards. 

Courts provide a crucial role, especially when other modes of oversight fail. Civil court cases can spark reforms reaching far beyond the individual plaintiffs to protect other prisoners. The Commission is convinced 

that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) that Congress enacted in 

1996 has compromised the regulatory role of the courts and the ability of 

incarcerated victims of sexual abuse to seek justice in court. Under the 

PLRA, prisoners’ claims in court will be dismissed unless they have exhausted all “administrative remedies” available to them within the facility. 

In testimony to a House Judiciary Subcommittee, Garrett Cunningham recalled, “At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . . I would 

have had to file a first prison grievance within 15 days [to begin the process of exhausting the facility’s administrative remedies]. . . . Even if I had 

known, during those first 15 days, my only thoughts were about suicide 

and. . . how to get myself into a safe place. . . so I would not be raped 

again.” The Commission recommends that Congress amend two aspects 

of the PLRA for victims of sexual abuse: the requirement that prisoners exhaust all internal administrative remedies before their claims can proceed 

in court and the requirement to prove physical injury to receive compensatory damages, which fails to take into account the very real emotional 

and psychological injuries that often follow sexual assault. In the meantime, correctional agencies must deem that victims of sexual abuse have 

exhausted their administrative remedies within 90 days after the abuse is 

reported—or within 48 hours in emergency situations—regardless of who 

reports the incident and when it allegedly occurred.

Corrections administrators need robust mechanisms and systems 

to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and implement reforms. They 

must apply that discipline internally and accept it from outside. The very 

nature of correctional environments demands that the government and 

the public have multiple ways to watch over correctional settings and intervene when individuals are at risk.

Even the most rigorous 

internal monitoring is no 

substitute for opening up 

correctional facilities to 

outside review.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 11

F I N D I N G 5 

Many victims cannot safely and easily report 

sexual abuse, and those who speak out often do so to no 

avail. Reporting procedures must be improved to instill 

confidence and protect individuals from retaliation 

without relying on isolation. Investigations must be 

thorough and competent. Perpetrators must be held 

accountable through administrative sanctions and 

criminal prosecution. 

Even when prisoners are willing to report abuse, their accounts are 

not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate 

officials within the facility. “When I told one of the guards I trusted 

how tired I was of putting up with abuse [by other youth in a Hawaii facility], he told me to just ignore it,” Cyryna Pasion told the Commission. According to a 2007 survey of youth in custody by the Texas State Auditor’s 

Office, 65 percent of juveniles surveyed thought the grievance system did 

not work.

Changing that dynamic begins by providing easy ways for individuals to report sexual abuse they have experienced or know about, backed 

up by clear policies requiring staff and administrators to act on every allegation. Although some correctional systems and individual facilities have 

made great strides in this area in recent years, the Commission’s standards 

guarantee that all prisoners can easily report abuse, that staff are required 

to report abuse, and that reports are taken seriously in every facility across 

the country. A serious response to every report of sexual abuse is also the 

best way to handle any false allegations. 

Victims and witnesses often are bullied into silence and harmed 

if they speak out. In a letter to the advocacy organization Just Detention

International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat she received from 

the male officer who was abusing her: “Remember if you tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the rest of your life.” Efforts to promote reporting must be accompanied by policies and protocols 

to protect victims and witnesses from retaliation. And because some incarcerated individuals will never be comfortable reporting abuse internally, 

facilities must give prisoners the option of speaking confidentially with a 

crisis center or other outside agency.

Facilities have a duty to thoroughly investigate every allegation of 

sexual abuse without delay and to completion, regardless of whether or not 

the alleged victim cooperates with investigators. Six years after the passage 

of PREA, many statewide correctional systems and individual facilities now 

We need to create 

correctional environments 

in which prisoners feel safe 

reporting sexual abuse 

and are confident that 

their allegations will be 

investigated.
12 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

have policies, protocols, and trained staff in place to investigate allegations 

of sexual abuse. Yet there are still facilities—particularly those that confine 

juveniles, those under the umbrella of community corrections, and smaller 

jails—that lag behind in this crucial area. The Commission’s standard 

establishing the duty to investigate is followed by a detailed standard to ensure the quality of investigations. Unless investigations produce compelling 

evidence, corrections administrators cannot impose discipline, prosecutors 

will not indict, and juries will not convict abusers. 

In particular, when the sexual abuse has occurred recently and the 

allegation is rape, facilities must offer female and male victims a forensic 

exam by a specially trained professional. An evaluation of sexual assault 

nurse examiner (SANE) programs published in 2003 by the National Institute of Justice found that they improve the quality of forensic evidence and 

increase the ability of law enforcement to collect information, file charges, 

and prosecute and convict perpetrators while also providing better emergency health care. Correctional facilities must also implement a protocol that dictates how to collect, maintain, and analyze physical evidence 

and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic examiner and other 

responders—drawing on “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical 

Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents” created by the Department of 

Justice in 2004 to improve investigations of sexual abuse in the community. 

To facilitate the implementation of this standard, the Commission recommends that the Department of Justice adapt the protocol specifically for use 

in correctional facilities nationwide. 

The work of investigating sexual abuse in a correctional environment is complex, requiring skill and sensitivity. According to a report published in 2007 by the National Institute of Corrections, many sexual abuse 

investigators are so unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional 

facility that they cannot operate effectively. Because the deficits in some 

jurisdictions are so great, the Commission’s standard in this area requires 

facilities to ensure that investigators are trained in up-to-date approaches 

and specifies certain minimum training requirements. And whenever correctional agencies outsource investigations to local law enforcement agencies, they must attempt to forge a memorandum of understanding with the 

agency specifying its role and responsibilities. Investigators do not work 

alone; any report of sexual abuse in a correctional facility must also trigger 

an immediate response from security staff; forensic, medical, and mental 

health care practitioners; and the head of the facility. To meet the needs 

of victims while conducting a thorough investigation, these professionals 

must coordinate their efforts.

No national data have been collected on how often correctional 

facilities investigate reported abuses, and there is no body of research 

describing the quality of those investigations. But correctional facilities 

Many individuals 

responsible for 

investigating allegations 

of sexual abuse lack the 

training to be effective. 

Unless investigations 

produce compelling 

evidence, corrections 

administrators cannot 

impose discipline, 

prosecutors will not 

indict, and juries will 

not convict abusers.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 13

substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates. According to the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, facilities substantiated just 17 percent of all 

allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment investigated 

in 2006. In 29 percent of the alleged incidents, investigators concluded 

that sexual abuse did not occur. But in the majority of allegations (55 

percent) investigators could not determine whether or not the abuse occurred. Substantiation rates in some states are considerably lower than the 

rate nationally. Standards that mandate investigations and improve their 

quality should increase the proportion of allegations in which the finding 

is definitive and perpetrators can be held accountable.

Despite that fact that most incidents of sexual abuse constitute 

a crime in all 50 States and under Federal law, very few perpetrators of 

sexual abuse in correctional settings are prosecuted. Only a fraction of 

cases are referred to prosecutors, and the Commission repeatedly heard 

testimony that prosecutors decline most of these cases. Undoubtedly, some 

investigations do not produce evidence capable of supporting a successful 

prosecution. But other dynamics may be at play: some prosecutors may 

not view incarcerated individuals as members of the community and as 

deserving of their services as any other victim of crime. 

Allegations of sexual abuse must also trigger an internal administrative investigation, and when the allegations are substantiated, the perpetrator must be disciplined. Until more cases are successfully prosecuted, 

many inmate and staff perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject 

only to administrative discipline, making sanctions especially important. 

Individuals conducting administrative investigations must base their conclusions on what the “preponderance of the evidence” shows—a standard 

less stringent than that required to convict someone of a crime but adequate to protect individuals from being labeled as perpetrators and sanctioned internally without cause. 

Sanctions must be fair, consistent, and sufficiently tough to deter 

abuse. It is crucial that labor and management reach agreements that allow reassigning officers during an investigation when safety is at issue 

and appropriate sanctions for staff perpetrators. Prisoners should never be 

punished for sexual contact with staff, even if the encounter was allegedly 

consensual. The power imbalance between staff and prisoners vitiates the 

possibility of meaningful consent, and the threat of punishment would 

deter prisoners from reporting sexual misconduct by staff. 

Everyone who engages in sexual abuse in a correctional setting 

must be held accountable for their actions. There has been too little

accountability for too long. The Commission’s standards in these areas 

encourage incarcerated individuals and staff to report abuse and require 

correctional facilities to protect those who speak out, conduct effective 

investigations, and ensure appropriate punishment.

Until more cases are 

successfully prosecuted, 

abusers will be subject 

only to administrative 

discipline, making it especially 

important for these sanctions 

to be fair and sufficiently 

tough to deter abuse.
14 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

F I N D I N G 6

Victims are unlikely to receive the treatment and 

support known to minimize the trauma of abuse. 

Correctional facilities need to ensure immediate and 

ongoing access to medical and mental health care and 

supportive services.

As corrections administrators work to create a protective environment 

in the facilities they manage, they also have a legal duty to ensure 

that when systems fail and abuse occurs, victims have access to appropriate medical and mental health services. Healing from sexual abuse is 

difficult; without adequate treatment, recovery may never occur. 

Although sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars, most victims report persistent, if not lifelong, mental and physical repercussions. 

After Sunday Daskalea was abused on multiple occasions by staff and 

other inmates in the District of Columbia jail, she became crippled by fear 

and anxiety. She slept only during the day, afraid of what might happen to 

her at night. Even after being released, Daskalea suffered from insomnia, 

struggled with eating disorders, and spent months emotionally debilitated, 

withdrawn and depressed. At age 18, Chance Martin was sexually abused 

while incarcerated in the Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana. “I’ve 

abused drugs and alcohol and tried to kill myself on the installment plan,” 

Martin told the Commission. 

The psychological aftereffects of sexual abuse are well documented. They include posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorders, fear of 

loud noises or sudden movements, panic attacks, and intense flashbacks 

to the traumatic event. Each of these consequences alone has the ability to 

re-traumatize victims for years. The trauma can also lead to serious medical conditions, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and a weakened 

immune system. Studies indicate that sexual abuse victims have poorer 

physical functioning in general and more physical ailments than nonabused individuals, even after controlling for emotional disturbances such 

as depression. In addition, many victims are physically injured during the 

course of a sexual assault. A study of incarcerated men showed that more 

than half of all sexual assaults resulted in physical injury. Moreover, the 

study found that internal injuries and being knocked unconscious were 

more common outcomes of sexual abuse than of other violent encounters 

in prison.

Exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections are other potential consequences of sexual abuse. Michael Blucker tested negative for HIV when he was admitted to the Menard Correctional Center in 

Illinois, but approximately 1 year later, after being raped multiple times by 

The psychological effects 

of sexual abuse can 

re-traumatize victims for 

years following an assault, 

and studies show that 

victims have more physical 

health problems than nonabused individuals.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 15

other prisoners, he tested positive. According to testimony before the Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) lacks data 

to assess the extent to which sex in correctional facilities, whether rape or 

consensual, contributes to the high prevalence of HIV in prisons and jails. 

One CDC study did find that individuals in confinement may contract HIV 

in a variety of ways, including sexual contact. 

Because of the disproportionate representation of minority men and 

women in correctional settings, it is likely that the spread of these diseases 

in confinement would have an even greater impact in minority communities. As such, the Commission recommends that Congress provide funding 

to appropriate entities for research into whether consensual and/or nonconsensual sexual activity in the correctional system plays a role in infecting populations outside of corrections with HIV/AIDS and other sexually 

transmitted infections.

It has been more than three decades since the Supreme Court established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate indifference to the health of prisoners is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Since then, correctional 

agencies have struggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results, to meet 

the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often ill prisoner 

population. Correctional health care is underfunded nearly everywhere, 

and most facilities are in dire need of additional skilled and compassionate 

health care practitioners. Recently, independent researchers analyzed the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2002 survey of jail inmates and 2004 survey of 

State and Federal prisoners and found that many prisoners with persistent 

problems had never been examined by a health care professional in the 

facility where they were incarcerated. The failing was much worse in jails 

than in prisons: 68 percent of jail inmates with medical problems reported 

never being examined, compared with 14 percent of Federal prisoners and 

20 percent of State prisoners. 

Given the potentially severe and long-lasting medical and mental 

health consequences of sexual abuse, facilities must ensure that victims 

have unimpeded access to emergency treatment and crisis intervention 

and to ongoing health care for as long as necessary—care that matches 

what is generally acceptable to medical and mental health care professionals. Because some victims feel pressure to conceal abuse, all health care 

practitioners must have the training to know when a prisoner’s mental or 

physical health problems might indicate that abuse has occurred. 

Health care practitioners working in correctional facilities, like all 

staff, have a duty to report any indications of sexual abuse and must alert 

prisoners about their duty before providing treatment. Confidential treatment 

is not in the best interest of the victim or the safety of the facility. At the 

same time, they must provide care regardless of whether the victim names 

the perpetrator. Without such a policy, sexual abuse victims may decide that 

the risk of retaliation is too great and choose not to seek treatment.

Correctional health care 

is underfunded nearly 

everywhere, and most 

facilities are in dire need 

of additional skilled and 

compassionate health 

care practitioners.
16 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Because some victims will never feel comfortable or safe disclosing 

their experience of sexual abuse to a corrections employee, agencies must 

give prisoners information about how to contact victim advocates and other support services in the community—underscoring that their communications will be private and confidential to the extent permitted by law. 

Collaborations with community-based service providers can also increase 

the likelihood that victims of sexual abuse are supported as they transition 

from a correctional facility back to their home communities. 

For some victims of sexual abuse, cost may be a barrier to treatment. In the majority of States, legislatures have passed laws authorizing 

correctional agencies to charge prisoners for medical care—fees as little as 

$5 that are beyond the means of many prisoners. Under the Commission’s 

standards, agencies must provide emergency care to victims of sexual 

abuse free of charge. Additionally, the Commission encourages correctional systems to define common and persistent aftereffects of sexual abuse as 

chronic conditions and to exempt them from fees. 

Financial barriers to treatment come in other forms, as well. Guidelines for distributing funds provided under the Victims of Crime Act 

(VOCA) prohibit serving any incarcerated persons, including victims of 

sexual abuse. Similarly, grants administered under the Violence Against 

Women Act (VAWA) cannot be used to assist anyone convicted of domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. All survivors of sexual 

abuse need and deserve treatment and support services. The Commission 

recommends that the VOCA grant guidelines be changed and that Congress amend VAWA. 

Unimpeded access to treatment by qualified medical and mental 

health care practitioners and collaboration with outside providers are critical to ensuring that victims of sexual abuse can begin to heal.

F I N D I N G 7 

Juveniles in confinement are much more likely than 

incarcerated adults to be sexually abused, and they 

are particularly at risk when confined with adults. To 

be effective, sexual abuse prevention, investigation, 

and treatment must be tailored to the developmental 

capacities and needs of youth.

Adaily snapshot of juveniles in custody in 2006 showed that approximately 93,000 youth were confined in juvenile residential facilities in the United States and more than half of them were 16 

years or younger. Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse in 

Victims are entitled to 

treatment whether or not 

they name the perpetrator 

of the abuse.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 17

these facilities demands age-appropriate interventions. The Commission’s 

set of standards for juvenile facilities parallels those for adult prisons and 

jails, with modifications to reflect the developmental capacities and needs 

of youth. 

When the State exercises custodial authority over children, “its responsibility to act in the place of parents (in loco parentis) obliges it to take 

special care.” Youth may pass through the justice system once or twice, 

never to return. Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with lifelong 

consequences that can include persistent mental illness and tendencies 

toward substance abuse and criminality. Juvenile justice agencies thus 

have a responsibility and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now, or risk 

long-term consequences for victims. 

Rates of sexual abuse appear to be much higher for confined youth 

than they are for adult prisoners. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics

(BJS), the rate of sexual abuse in adult facilities, based only on substantiated allegations captured in facility records, was 2.91 per 1,000 incarcerated prisoners in 2006. The parallel rate in juvenile facilities was more 

than five times greater: 16.8 per 1,000. The actual extent of sexual abuse in 

residential facilities is still unknown. BJS is currently conducting the first 

nationally representative survey of confined youth.

Juveniles are ill-equipped to respond to sexual advances by older, 

more experienced youth or adult caretakers. Based on reports of rampant 

physical violence and sexual abuse in a juvenile correctional facility in 

Plainfield, Indiana, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating 

conditions of confinement in 2004. Investigators were shocked by the age 

and size disparity between many of the youth involved. Youth as old as 18 

were assaulting or coercing children as young as 12; children weighing as 

little as 70 pounds were sexually abused by youth outweighing them by 

100 pounds.

Simply being female is a risk factor. Girls are disproportionately represented among sexual abuse victims. According to data collected by BJS in 

2005–2006, 36 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of sexual violence were female, even though girls represented only 15 percent of confined 

youth in 2006. And they are much more at risk of abuse by staff than by their 

peers. Pervasive misconduct at a residential facility for girls in Chalkville, 

Alabama, beginning in 1994 and continuing through 2001, led 49 girls to 

bring charges that male staff had fondled, raped, and sexually harassed 

them. Abusive behavior is not limited to male staff. In 2005, the Department 

of Justice found that numerous female staff in an Oklahoma juvenile facility 

for boys had sexual relations with the youth under their care. 

Youth are also vulnerable to sexual victimization while under juvenile justice supervision in the community. Nearly half (48 percent) of the 

more than 1.1 million youth who received some juvenile court sanction in 

2005 were placed under the supervision of State, local, or county probation 

Youth who are sexually 

abused may live with 

lifelong consequences 

that can include 

persistent mental illness 

and tendencies toward 

substance abuse and 

criminality.
18 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

officers or counselors. A 50-year-old man who had served as a youth probation officer for 11 years with the Oregon Youth Authority was convicted of 

sexually abusing boys in his care, including a 14-year-old mentally disabled 

boy with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Victims and their families 

had complained for years about this officer, but officials took no action.

Staff training and supervision are crucial. Staff need to understand 

the distinctive nature of sexual abuse involving children and teens and its 

potential consequences. Their responsibilities—including a duty to report 

any information about abuse—must be clear, and they must be informed 

that they will be held accountable for their actions and omissions. Administrators must uphold these policies and ensure that every report of abuse 

is promptly investigated.

Although research has yet to pinpoint the characteristics of youth 

who are at greatest risk of being victimized or perpetrating sexual abuse in 

juvenile facilities, many of the factors associated with vulnerability to sexual abuse among adults also appear to place juveniles at risk. In addition to 

screening all youth, facilities can take a simple step to protect youth from 

sexual abuse: encourage all residents during intake to tell staff if they fear 

being abused. This message, combined with affirmative statements about 

the facility’s commitment to safety and zero tolerance of sexual abuse, 

makes it more likely that vulnerable youth will seek protection when they 

need it—before an assault occurs. Youth may be segregated only as a last 

resort and for short periods of time when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them safe.

Reducing sexual abuse also requires creating conditions that encourage youth to report abuse. Internal reporting procedures must be 

simple and secure; victims and witnesses must have unimpeded access to 

their families, attorneys, or other legal representatives; and facilities must 

provide parents and lawyers with information about the rights of residents 

and internal grievance procedures. Because many youth fail to recognize 

certain coercive and harmful behaviors as “abuse,” juvenile facilities must 

improve sexual education programs and sexual abuse prevention curricula. 

Youth who perpetrate sexual violence in juvenile facilities present 

a challenge for facility administrators who must apply developmentally 

appropriate interventions. They may need treatment as much as, or more 

than, punishment. Studies have shown that youth who commit sexual 

offenses typically have a history of severe family problems. Correctional 

medical and mental health practitioners must be trained to recognize the 

signs of sexual abuse and to provide age-appropriate treatment. And because young victims may lack the confidence to seek help from corrections 

staff, they must have access to victim advocates in the community to ensure that they are not left without support and treatment.

More than any other group of incarcerated persons, youth incarcerated with adults are probably at the highest risk for sexual abuse. 

Simply being female is a 

risk factor: girls are over 

represented among young 

victims of sexual abuse.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 19

Community corrections 

agencies, just like prisons 

and jails, have a special 

responsibility to protect the 

individuals they supervise 

from sexual abuse.

According to BJS, 7.7 percent of all victims in substantiated incidents of 

violence perpetrated by prisoners in adult facilities in 2005 were under 

the age of 18. Data collected by BJS in 2006 show that on any given day, 

almost 8,500 youth under the age of 18 are confined with adults in prisons 

and jails. Civil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that 

80 percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in Michigan, 

Illinois, and Missouri reported that, within the first year of their sentence, 

they had been sexually assaulted by at least one adult male prisoner. Because of the extreme risk of sexual victimization for youth in adult facilities, the Commission urges that individuals under the age of 18 be held 

separately from the general population.

The Commission’s inquiry into the sexual abuse of youth in juvenile justice and adult corrections has revealed disturbing information 

about its prevalence, gravity, and consequences. Hope lies in the fact that 

necessary precautions and remedies are clear and rehabilitation remains a 

guiding principle in the field of juvenile justice. 

F I N D I N G 8

Individuals under correctional supervision in the 

community, who outnumber prisoners by more than 

two to one, are at risk of sexual abuse. The nature and 

consequences of the abuse are no less severe, and it 

jeopardizes the likelihood of their successful reentry. 

By the end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults under 

correctional supervision in the community, either on probation 

or parole, and the numbers are growing. They too are at risk of 

sexual abuse. As both Federal and State governments attempt to reduce 

incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, the number of individuals under some form of community supervision—before, after, or in lieu 

of confinement—is likely to rise. Despite the number of individuals under 

supervision in the community, there is a lack of research on this population, and responses to PREA have been slow to take root in this area of

corrections. The Commission has developed a full set of standards governing community corrections. 

Community corrections encompasses a diverse array of agencies, 

facilities, and supervision structures on the Federal, State, and local levels. 

Supervision can occur in halfway houses, prerelease centers, treatment 

facilities, and other residential settings. Nonresidential supervision can 

include probation, parole, pretrial supervision, court-mandated substance 

abuse treatment, court diversionary programs, day-reporting centers, 
20 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

community service programs, probation before judgment, furloughs, electronic monitoring, and home detention. 

As in other correctional settings, courts have found that sexual 

abuse in community corrections violates the Eighth Amendment of the 

U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, 

community corrections agencies, like prisons and jails, have a special 

responsibility to protect the people they supervise. Courts also have determined that the authority staff have over the individuals they monitor 

makes a truly consensual sexual relationship impossible. Community corrections agencies are accountable for sexual abuse incidents, regardless of 

whether the circumstances in which the abuse occurred were under the 

direct control of the agency or a separate organization working under contract with the agency. Anyone in a supervisory position can be held liable 

for abuse. For example, in Smith v. Cochran, Pamela Smith was in jail but 

participating in a work release program. Her supervisor on the job sexually 

assaulted her, and the court ruled that important “penological responsibilities” had been delegated to him.

Although individuals under correctional supervision in the community may experience sexual abuse at the hands of other supervisees, 

the dynamics of supervision make them particularly vulnerable to abuse 

by staff. Coercion and threats carry great weight because individuals under supervision are typically desperate to avoid being incarcerated. Staff 

also have virtually unlimited access to the individuals they supervise, 

sometimes in private and intimate settings. In Ramsey County, Minnesota, for example, a male community corrections officer visiting a former 

prisoner’s apartment to discuss her failure in a drug treatment program 

instead requested and had sex with her. 

The diverse roles and obligations of staff present risks. They operate 

as enforcement officers in the interest of public safety and also function as 

counselors and social workers. Drawing and maintaining boundaries is a 

challenge even for staff with the best intentions. Moreover, because community corrections staff operate with significantly less direct supervision 

than their counterparts in secure facilities, it is easier for them to conceal 

sexual misconduct. Clear policies rooted in an ethic of zero tolerance for 

sexual abuse coupled with good training can mitigate these dangers by 

giving staff the direction, knowledge, and skills they need to maintain 

appropriate relationships with the individuals they supervise. Of course, 

preventing sexual abuse begins with hiring the right staff.

Although community corrections agencies face significant challenges in preventing abuse, they may have advantages in responding 

to victims. By definition, community corrections agencies tend to have 

access to skilled professionals and other resources that are beyond the 

reach of many secure correctional facilities, especially prisons sited in remote locations. For example, coordinated sexual assault response teams, 

Drawing and maintaining 

boundaries is a challenge 

even for community 

corrections staff with the 

best intentions, and the 

autonomous nature of their 

work makes it easier to 

conceal sexual misconduct. 
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 21

widely recognized as an optimal way to respond to incidents of sexual abuse, exist in many communities and may be available to partner 

with local correctional agencies. Partnerships with victim advocates and 

counselors in the community also ensure that people under correctional 

supervision are able to disclose abuse and receive treatment confidentially, if they so choose. Some individuals under supervision will disclose 

abuse that occurred while they were incarcerated. Agencies must report 

past abuse to the facilities where the abuse occurred. This is necessary 

to trigger an investigation and also to improve the accuracy of facility 

records and provide insights on reasons incarcerated victims of sexual 

abuse remain silent.

The mission of community corrections is centered on helping offenders establish productive and law-abiding lives. Protecting them from 

sexual abuse and helping victims recover from past abuses is an essential 

part of that mission. 

F I N D I N G 9 

A large and growing number of detained immigrants are 

at risk of sexual abuse. Their heightened vulnerability 

and unusual circumstances require special interventions. 

Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse of immigrants 

in custody require special measures not included in the Commission’s standards for correctional facilities. These measures are contained in a set of supplemental standards that apply to any facility that 

houses individuals detained solely because their right to remain in the 

United States is in question. The Commission’s work in this area advances 

efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to protect detainees from sexual abuse. 

In the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the number of immigrants held 

in detention pending a judicial decision about their legal right to remain in 

the United States increased nearly 400 percent. For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE 

has budgeted enough money to detain 33,400 people on any given night 

and more than 400,000 people over the course of the year. The population 

of immigration detainees includes adults, thousands of “unaccompanied” 

children, and whole families confined together. 

The prevalence of sexual abuse among immigration detainees is 

unknown and has yet to receive the attention and research it merits, but 

accounts of abuse by other detainees and staff have been coming to light 

for more than 20 years. Many factors—personal and circumstantial, alone 

or in combination—make immigration detainees especially vulnerable to 

For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE 

expects to detain 33,400 

people on any given night 

and more than 400,000 

over the course of the year.
22 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

sexual abuse. One of the most pervasive factors is social isolation. Individuals are often confined far from family or friends and may not speak 

the language of other detainees or staff. Those who have already suffered 

terrifying experiences in their home countries or in the United States can 

be almost defenseless by the time they are detained and may even expect 

to be abused. 

Preventing abuse requires precautions beyond those mandated for 

other prisoners. In particular, when immigration detainees are confined in 

ordinary prisons, jails, and lockups—a common practice—they must be 

housed apart from the general population, but they should not be placed 

in segregation. Depending on the conditions in protective custody cells 

and units, the experience can enhance the feeling of aloneness already 

common among immigration detainees and lead to depression and other 

problems.

Families who are in ICE custody are currently detained in several 

facilities in the United States. Stays are not always brief: women with children, including babies and toddlers, may be detained for days, weeks, or 

even months. In testimony before a congressional subcommittee on immigration, Texas Representative Sheila Jackson noted that families in these 

facilities often are “deprived of the right to live as a family unit, denied 

adequate medical and mental health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary tactics.” Facilities face the challenge of protecting residents of all ages 

from sexual abuse while also preserving family unity. One specific challenge is ensuring that both adults and children can report sexual abuse 

in a confidential manner, which is especially important for situations in 

which children are at risk of abuse within the family unit. 

Because immigration detainees are confined by the agency with the 

power to deport them, officers have an astounding degree of leverage—

especially when detainees are not well informed of their rights and lack 

access to legal counsel. The Commission learned that officers have propositioned women whose cases they control, telling them that if they want to 

be released they need to comply with their sexual demands. The fear of deportation cannot be overstated and also functions to silence many individuals who are sexually abused. Those brave enough to speak out may face 

retaliation. After women detainees at the Krome immigration detention 

facility in Miami reported sexual abuse by staff, several of them wrote, 

“We are afraid. . . each time one of us is interviewed by investigating

officers. . . . [S]ome of the women who have given statements have either 

been transferred or deported to their countries.” Transfers can completely 

derail the complaint process, which has lasting consequences for victims 

who may be eligible for a special visa to remain in the United States. When 

staff cannot protect victims and witnesses in the facility where the abuse 

occurred, ICE must consider releasing and monitoring them in the community during the course of the investigation. 

The fear of deportation 

is a tool in the hands 

of abusive officers, 

both to coerce sex and 

to silence victims.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 23

There also are institutional barriers that block or discourage victims and witnesses from reporting abuse. Grievance procedures can seem 

impossibly complex, especially for detainees who speak languages other 

than English or Spanish. A 2006 audit by the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security’s Office of the Inspector General revealed that detainees often do 

not receive information on reporting abuse and other grievances in a language they can understand.

Although detainees have periodic contact with immigration judges, 

those judges have no jurisdiction over the conditions of their detention. 

Even advocacy groups in the local community may lack the language skills 

and cultural competency to assist them. Detainees need access to outside 

entities able and authorized to receive and respond to reports of sexual 

abuse. Specifically, facilities must provide immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General. They also must have access to telephones to contact diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of 

citizenship, along with a list of those phone numbers. 

Detainees who are victims of sexual abuse also need a lifeline to 

outside organizations with experience counseling immigrant victims of 

crime and assurances that their communications with outside advocates 

are confidential to the extent permitted by law. At the same time, facilities must still ensure that their own staff have the training to respond in 

culturally appropriate ways to sexual abuse. 

Protection for all immigration detainees and services for victims of 

sexual abuse are not what they should be. And little is known about this 

fast-growing area of confinement, one in which preventing, detecting, and 

responding to sexual abuse is especially challenging.

T

he Commission sunsets 60 days following the submission of its report and standards to Congress, the President, the Attorney General, 

and other Federal and State officials. The real work of implementation begins then, particularly on the part of the Attorney General and his 

staff. Within a year of receiving the Commission’s report and standards, 

the Attorney General is required to promulgate national standards for

the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of detention facility 

sexual abuse. 

The Commission recommends that the Attorney General establish 

a PREA Advisory Committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act of 1972. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the Attorney General with the promulgation of the PREA standards and thereafter 

assess their implementation and propose amendments as needed to increase their efficacy. The Commission also recommends that the Attorney 

More than other incarcerated 

victims of sexual abuse, 

immigration detainees depend 

on outside entities for help—

from consulates to counselors 

who specialize in assisting 

immigrant victims of crime. 
24 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

General create a full-time Special Assistant for PREA within the Office of 

the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant would have primary 

responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the standards as central 

to the national effort of eliminating prison rape. 

PREA represents a sea change in public consciousness and in national commitment to protecting individuals under correctional supervision 

from sexual abuse. Already, the Commission has seen ideas transformed 

into actions that by all accounts have the potential to improve safety. This 

is just the beginning. When the Attorney General issues mandatory standards, they will accelerate the pace of reform and ensure that the same 

fundamental protections are available in every correctional and detention 

setting. Our obligations, both moral and legal, require nothing less. 

The Commission has seen 

ideas transformed 

into actions that 

have the potential to 

improve safety. This is 

just the beginning.
I N T R O D U C T I O N 25

Introduction

S

exual abuse is among the most destructive of crimes, brutal and 

devastating in the moment and carrying the potential to haunt 

victims forever. In the recent past, our society often blamed victims of sexual abuse for being attacked, and many perpetrators 

were not held accountable. Americans now recognize sexual abuse as a violent crime with life-changing consequences. Yet the public has been slow 

to incorporate that perspective into its understanding of sexual violence in 

correctional environments. Many still consider sexual abuse an expected 

consequence of incarceration, part of the penalty and the basis for jokes; 

some people doubt that incarcerated victims of sexual abuse experience 

trauma or terror and may even believe they are willing participants in the 

assaults against them. 

In reality, sexual abuse in correctional environments is a serious 

concern with dire consequences, especially for victims. Individuals confined in correctional facilities or under supervision in the community must 

be protected from sexual predators. They do not relinquish their fundamental human rights when they are incarcerated or otherwise constrained. 

They still have the right to be treated in a manner consistent with basic 

human dignity, the right to personal safety, and the right to justice if they 

become victims of crime. Prisons, jails, and other correctional environments are part of the justice system, not apart from it.

More than 7.3 million Americans are in prison, jail, a residential 

facility for adults or juveniles, or supervised in the community, at a cost of 

more than $68 billion annually. These numbers reflect America’s increased 

reliance in recent decades on incarceration as a criminal justice tool. This 

tough-on-crime approach was intended to improve public safety, and some 

would argue that declining crime rates demonstrate its success. However, 

it has also resulted in the largest prison population in the world and has 

stretched correctional resources to their limits. 

Our society depends on correctional agencies to protect the public 

from dangerous individuals, to punish those who engage in criminal activity, and—most important for public safety in the long term—to change 

negative patterns of behavior among the incarcerated and supervised.

1980 Congress passes the Civil Rights 

of Institutionalized Persons Act, 

authorizing the U.S. Attorney General 

to investigate and litigate abusive 

conditions of confinement in Federal, 

State, and local facilities.

1984 Filing of Cason v. Seckinger. One of 

the first contemporary court cases 

to address widespread abuse of 

women prisoners by staff, it compelled 

significant reforms in Georgia.

1985 Activist and abuse survivor Stephen 

Donaldson becomes president of 

Stop Prisoner Rape. Renamed Just 

Detention International in 2008, 

it is the only organization in the 

United States dedicated exclusively 

to eliminating sexual violence in 

detention.

1994 In Farmer v. Brennan, the U.S. Supreme 

Court rules that corrections officials 

have a legal duty to protect prisoners 

from sexual abuse.

1994 In Women Prisoners of District of 

Columbia Dept. of Corrections v. District 

of Columbia, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia finds that 

a widespread pattern and practice 

of sexual abuse of women inmates 

violates the Eighth Amendment of the 

U.S. Constitution.

1996 The National Institute of Corrections 

begins working with corrections 

administrators to reduce staff sexual 

misconduct.

1996 The Journal of Sex Research publishes 

“Sexual Coercion Reported by Men 

and Women in Prison.”

1996 Human Rights Watch publishes All Too 

Familiar: Sexual Abuse of Women in 

U.S. State Prisons, detailing sexual abuse 

in the District of Columbia, Michigan, 

and Georgia.

1997 The U.S. Department of Justice sues 

the State of Arizona and intervenes 

in women prisoner cases in Michigan 

to challenge pervasive sexual abuse of 

women prisoners during cross-gender 

pat downs. Consent judgments the 

following year create moratoriums on 

cross-gender pat downs of women in 

both States.
26 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Institutional violence and sexual abuse in particular undermine the very 

purposes of corrections. They make facilities less safe for everyone, they 

consume scarce resources, and their consequences extend into our cities 

and towns as 95 percent of all prisoners are one day released. 

Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from 

sexual abuse by enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, taking 

the first national step toward a new understanding of the problem. Supported by the work of advocacy groups from diverse perspectives and political positions, the House and Senate voted unanimously to pass the Act. 

As part of that work, Congress created the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission to study the causes and consequences of sexual abuse in 

confinement and to develop standards for eliminating abuse. 

1999 The Association of State Correctional 

Administrators passes a resolution 

strongly encouraging each of its 

member agencies to adopt and 

enforce policies prohibiting all forms

of staff sexual misconduct.

1999 In Lucas v. White, three female inmates 

are awarded $500,000 in damages after 

male staff at a Federal prison “sold 

them as slaves.” The case prompted 

the Federal Bureau of Prisons to issue 

Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and 

Intervention, A System Response and 

Agency Plan.

2000 A coalition of religious and human 

rights groups organized by Michael 

Horowitz of the Hudson Institute 

presses for a Federal law to address the 

sexual abuse of prisoners.

2001 Human Rights Watch publishes No 

Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons.

2002 Stop Prisoner Rape mobilizes 100 

advocacy organizations to halt a 7UP® 

commercial that jokes about prison 

rape.

2002 Beginning in July 2002 and 

continuing through April 2003, 

Congress holds hearings on a 

“Prison Rape Reduction Act.”

2003 The American Jail Association 

passes a resolution to support the 

implementation of policies that 

prohibit staff sexual misconduct.

2003 On September 4, President Bush 

signs the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act.

2004 The National Institute of Corrections 

launches an intensive training and 

technical assistance program under 

PREA.

2004 The National Institute of Justice 

launches a series of research 

publications in response to PREA, 

beginning with Prison Rape: A Critical 

Review of the Literature.

2004 The newly appointed members 

of the National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission hold their 

first meeting in July.

S

ince its formation, the Commission has convened public hearings and committees of experts around the country. Corrections 

leaders, survivors of abuse, health care providers, researchers, 

legal experts, advocates, and academics shared their knowledge 

and experience with the Commission. We conducted a thorough review of 

the existing literature and tasked others to conduct new studies to resolve 

some of the unanswered questions about causality and intervention. 

At the center of this work was our effort to develop standards to 

prevent, detect, and punish sexual abuse in all correctional settings. The 

Commission customized these standards to address the specific circumstances under which sexual abuse occurs in facilities for juveniles, in the 

growing field of community corrections, and among immigrants detained 

in the course of removal proceedings. Persons on probation and parole 

or otherwise supervised in the community, either before or after their 

criminal case is adjudicated, are within the scope of the standards, which 

encompass staff sexual misconduct and sexual abuse between prisoners. 

Although the issue of prisoners sexually assaulting staff is a serious matter, it is not included within the statutory mandate of PREA and thus is not 

addressed directly in the Commission’s standards or report. However, the 

Commission believes that our standards and the requirements they outline 

to protect prisoners from sexual abuse will also make institutions and individual staff members safer. 

The Commission consulted informally with Native American leaders and heard distressing testimony at a public hearing about the conditions of tribal detention facilities (those operated by the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and other facilities where Native Americans are detained). Correctional facilities in Indian Country are certainly within PREA’s ambit. 

However, the time-consuming work of consulting with numerous and 

diverse sovereign nations and entities posed an insurmountable challenge. We encourage Native American leaders to adapt the standards to 
I N T R O D U C T I O N 27

their cultures and communities. The Commission also hopes that military 

detention facilities funded by the Federal Government and correctional

facilities in the territories will implement similar standards to protect prisoners from sexual abuse.

Two 60-day periods of public comment proved to be critical junctures in the development of the standards. The Commission received written comments from more than 225 institutions, entities, and individuals. 

Additionally, both during and after the periods of public comment, we 

convened a series of roundtable discussions involving key stakeholders, 

including representatives of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, associations of 

corrections professionals, diverse advocacy groups, law enforcement associations, large and small correctional facilities, community corrections 

agencies, and survivors of sexual abuse. In the course of these discussions, 

participants conveyed their particular concerns and offered important and 

useful suggestions for refining the standards.

During the public comment period, the Commission also conducted 

a Standards Implementation Needs Assessment (SINA) project. The Commission used the SINA process to elicit feedback on the standards through 

a series of “case studies” at particular facilities. More than 40 facilities 

from around the country applied to participate in the SINA process; the 

Commission selected 11 sites that reflected differences in capacity, populations, and geographic settings and that included jails and prisons; facilities 

for men, women, and juveniles; and community corrections facilities. Each 

site visit took place over 1-and-a-half days and included a facility tour and 

five structured interviews: one with the warden or superintendent, the 

others with small groups discussing general issues, training, medical and 

mental health, and investigations. With the exception of the meeting with 

the warden or superintendent, interviews involved a variety of staff with 

experience relevant to the particular interview topic. 

 The specific practical advice and constructive feedback we received 

throughout the standards review process were extremely useful and resulted in significant and substantial revisions. One outstanding area of concern was the anticipated cost of some changes required by the standards 

as originally drafted. Although concerns about cost are understandable, 

Congress, State legislatures, and county and city officials must provide 

adequate resources to ensure safe correctional and detention facilities. The 

Commission acknowledges that this is a formidable task, especially in the 

current economic climate. From the outset, we have been mindful of the 

statutory prohibition against recommending standards that would impose 

substantial additional costs compared to current expenditures. With the 

assistance of information provided during the public comment period, the 

Commission attempted to further limit potential new costs and to shape 

realistic standards that represent what is minimally required to meet Congress’ mandate to eliminate sexual abuse in confinement. 

2004 The American Correctional 

Association begins to adopt sexual 

abuse accreditation standards in 

response to PREA.

2004 The Bureau of Justice Assistance issues 

the first grants to States to support 

PREA reforms, ultimately providing 

funding to 34 States and one territory.

2004 In Everson v. Michigan Department of 

Corrections, a Federal appeals court 

approves barring male staff from 

supervising women prisoners to 

protect privacy and prevent custodial 

sexual abuse. 

2005 The Office of the Inspector General 

for the U.S. Department of Justice 

publishes Special Report: Deterring Staff 

Sexual Abuse of Federal Inmates.

2005 On March 31, the Commission 

holds its first public meeting at 

the University of Notre Dame Law 

School in Indiana to discuss the 

issue of prison sexual violence.

2005 On June 14, the Commission holds 

a hearing in Washington, D.C., 

examining the cost of victimization 

and why the country must confront 

prison rape.

2005 The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

publishes Sexual Violence Reported by 

Correctional Authorities, 2004, the first 

national look at reported incidents of 

sexual violence in custody. Updates for 

adult prison and jail populations were 

published in 2006 and 2007. 

2005 On August 19, the Commission 

holds a hearing in San Francisco on 

vulnerable populations at risk of 

sexual abuse.

2005 The California legislature passes the 

Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination 

Act, the first state law corollary to 

PREA.

2006 On March 23, the Commission 

holds a hearing in Miami exploring 

how corrections professionals view 

prison rape. 

2006 The National Sheriffs’ Association 

passes a resolution encouraging 

sheriffs to vigorously enforce explicit 

policies prohibiting all forms of sexual 

harassment and abuse between jail 

staff and detainees.
28 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Many of the requirements set forth in the standards reflect basic 

obligations already mandated by existing laws on the health and safety of 

confined persons, and many correctional systems and facilities currently 

meet those mandates. To the extent that the standards create new costs, 

those expenditures are necessary to fulfill the requirements outlined in 

PREA. And those costs are not substantial when compared to the significance of lives damaged or destroyed by sexual abuse and the broader costs 

of undermining the purposes of corrections in America.

T

he Commissioners invite readers of this final report to consider 

what we discovered about sexual abuse in confinement. Our core 

findings open each chapter. What follows is a discussion of the 

facts that led us to reach that conclusion and to formulate specific 

standards to ameliorate that aspect of the problem. The nine chapters are 

grouped into three parts, beginning with a look at the prevalence and nature of sexual abuse and broad strategies to prevent abuse, ranging from 

leadership, to screening, to oversight. It is followed by chapters on how to 

respond to victims and perpetrators. The final part of the report encompasses chapters exploring the problem of sexual abuse among three special populations: juveniles, people under supervision in the community, 

and immigration detainees. 

The Commission worked assiduously to ensure the accuracy and 

credibility of all sources of information. We have attempted to communicate complex concepts through a combination of personal accounts and reflections, many of them conveyed in sworn testimony to the Commission; 

historic and contemporary research; data; and information about current 

policies and practices provided by corrections administrators and staff. In 

the case of accounts of sexual abuse and other comments by survivors, the 

Commission held itself to a significantly high standard, typically requiring 

that information be drawn only from court cases, most of them resolved, 

or through sworn testimony to the Commission. As a result, several incidents of sexual abuse described in the report occurred many years ago. 

Nevertheless, the Commission believes they illustrate continuing problems 

and challenges in correctional facilities today.

Relevant standards appear in the margin of the report for easy reference and are briefly discussed in the text.* Neither the content of the report 

2006 The Vermont legislature criminalizes 

staff sexual abuse of persons in 

custody, the last State to do so.

2006 On June 1, the Commission holds 

a hearing in Boston on juveniles at 

risk of sexual abuse.

2006 A scandal at the Tallahassee Federal 

Correctional Institution involving 

officers allegedly smuggling 

contraband to prisoners in exchange 

for money and sex gains national 

attention when a corrections officer 

shoots and kills a U.S. Department of 

Justice Special Agent serving arrest 

warrants at the facility.

2006 On August 3, the Commission holds 

a hearing in Detroit on reporting, 

investigating, and prosecuting 

prison rape.

2006 December 13–14, the Commission 

holds a hearing in Los Angeles 

exploring staffing and labor 

relations as well as sexual abuse in 

immigration facilities.

2007 The Texas legislature forms a 

committee to investigate widespread 

sexual abuse in the Texas Youth 

Commission (TYC), ultimately 

discovering hundreds of allegations by 

youth against staff and implementing 

reforms that included creating multiple 

external mechanisms to oversee the 

TYC.

2007 March 26–27, the Commission 

holds a hearing in Austin to 

examine lockups, detention 

facilities for Native Americans, and 

conditions in correctional facilities 

in Texas for adults and juveniles.

2007 Beginning in November 2007 and 

continuing throughout 2008, the 

Commission holds roundtable 

discussions with corrections 

professionals and a wide range of 

other interested groups.

*The Commission developed four sets of standards: Adult Prisons and Jails (including supplemental 

standards for facilities with immigration detainees), Lockups, Juvenile Facilities, and Community 

Corrections. The standards referenced in the margins in Parts I and II of the report—chapters 

covering all correctional and detention settings—come from Adult Prisons and Jails. These 

standards generally have parallels in the other sets of standards. Standards referenced in the margins 

in Part III of the report—chapters exploring specific correctional populations and settings—come 

from Juvenile Facilities, Community Corrections, or the supplemental standards for facilities with 

immigration detainees.
I N T R O D U C T I O N 29

nor the discussion accompanying each standard modifies the mandatory 

nature of the standards. A complete list of standards is available as an 

appendix to the report. Separate volumes of each set of standards also 

contain helpful checklists and further discussion. Readers can learn more 

about policies, practices, and programs implemented in facilities across 

the country by consulting the sample of PREA Initiatives also included as 

an appendix. Despite fiscal and other constraints, conscientious administrators have made impressive progress in the facilities they manage both 

before and since the passage of PREA.

The Commission has formulated recommendations about what leaders in government outside corrections can do to support PREA. We discuss 

these recommendations throughout the report, and a complete list is included as an appendix. In particular, additional resources are needed to 

continue the research, training, and technical assistance begun and funded 

through PREA and to make the aims of the legislation a reality. Also, given 

the Commission’s own arduous journey, we are mindful of the resources 

the Attorney General will need on receipt of our report and standards. 

The Commission sunsets 60 days following the submission of our 

report and standards to Congress, the President, the Attorney General, 

and other Federal and State officials. The real work of implementation 

begins then, on the part of the Attorney General and his staff; corrections and detention professionals throughout the United States; and the 

many survivors, advocates, and service providers committed to this issue. 

Within a year of receiving our report and standards, the Attorney General 

is required to promulgate national standards for the detection, prevention,

reduction, and punishment of detention facility sexual abuse. 

The Commissioners remain ready to assist the Attorney General, 

Congress, our Nation’s many corrections and detention leaders and staff, 

and others as they move forward on this matter of moral and legal consequence to incarcerated individuals, those who are responsible for their 

safety, and the American public.

2007 December 5–6, the Commission 

holds a hearing in New Orleans 

covering medical and mental 

health care for survivors, abuse in 

community corrections settings, 

and oversight of correctional 

facilities and agencies.

2007 The Bureau of Justice Statistics 

publishes Sexual Victimization in 

State and Federal Prisons Reported by 

Inmates, 2007, the first national survey 

on the subject.

2008 The U.S. Department of Justice Review 

Panel on Prison Rape holds hearings 

over the course of several months on 

correctional facilities with the highest 

and lowest prevalence of sexual 

victimization according to the national 

survey results and publishes separate 

reports on rape in U.S. prisons and 

U.S. jails.

2008 On May 5, the Commission releases 

draft standards for adult prisons 

and jails as well as for facilities 

holding immigration detainees and 

seeks public comment through 

July 7.

2008 On June 16, the Commission 

releases three sets of draft 

standards covering lockups, 

juvenile facilities, and community 

corrections and seeks public 

comment through August 15.

2008 The Bureau of Justice Statistics publishes Sexual Victimization in Local Jails 

Reported by Inmates, 2007, the first 

national survey on the subject.

2008 The Bureau of Justice Statistics releases 

Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile 

Correctional Authorities, 2005–2006.

C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 31

PART I 

UNDERSTANDING AND 

PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE
32 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse 

remains a challenge in correctional 

facilities across the country. Too often, 

in what should be secure environments, 

men, women, and children are raped 

or abused by other incarcerated 

individuals and corrections staff. 
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 33

1

A Problem that Must Be Solved

Across the country, corrections officials are confronting the problem of sexual abuse in the facilities they manage. The sexual 

abuse of prisoners is as old as prisons themselves, but recognition of the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from harm 

codified in law, human rights documents, and professional standards 

is a relatively recent development.1 Historically, prisons and jails were 

conceived of and used solely as holding places.2

 Although self-improvement and rehabilitation became a goal in theory, by the end of the 18th 

century, filthy living conditions, ongoing criminality, and sexual predation 

prevailed.3 Prominent English prison reformer Elizabeth Gurney Fry wrote 

in 1813 of guards treating the women’s ward of London’s Newgate Prison 

like a brothel.4

 In 1826, in one of the first published mentions of prison 

rape in the United States, the Reverend Louis Dwight, prison reformer and 

founder of the Prison Discipline Society of Boston, wrote that “boys [were] 

prostituted to the lust of old convicts” in institutions from Massachusetts 

to Georgia.5

For more than a century, such protests fell on deaf ears, and the 

sexual abuse of prisoners remained largely hidden and unexamined.6

 Most 

victims were silent, in many cases fearing retaliation and knowing that 

authorities were unlikely to believe or help them—or even to record their 

reports. The lack of reliable data made the problem even more opaque and 

subject to denial. 

T.J. Parsell is among countless individuals who were sexually 

abused in America’s prisons and jails before the problem was widely recognized or well understood. Parsell was 17 in 1978 when he was sentenced 

to serve 4 years in an adult prison in Michigan for robbing a Fotomat 

with a toy gun. In testimony before the National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission years later, Parsell recalled, “[I] didn’t last 24 hours before 

an inmate spiked my drink with Thorazine and then ordered me down to 

his dorm. . . . [They] nearly suffocated me as they shoved my head into a 

pillow to muffle my screams. . . . One of them grabbed my hair. . . . and 

pulled my head down while the others took turns sodomizing me. . . . 

They were unmoved by my crying.”7 
34 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

“Being gang raped in prison has scarred me in ways that 

can’t be seen or imagined. . . . I’ve undergone years of therapy 

to get where I am, but I still don’t sleep well at night. I start 

up at the slightest noise. And as a gay man, I blamed myself 

for many years. You’re degraded so much in there that 

after a while you start to believe it.”

After the rape, Parsell was “too afraid to come forward, even to see 

a doctor.”8

 He told the Commission he felt the assailants “had stolen my 

manhood, my identity, and part of my soul.” This was only the beginning 

of continued violent abuse. “Being gang raped in prison has scarred me in 

ways that can’t be seen or imagined. . . . I’ve undergone years of therapy to 

get where I am, but I still don’t sleep well at night. I start up at the slightest 

noise. And as a gay man, I blamed myself for many years. You’re degraded 

so much in there that after a while you start to believe it.”

Once stories like Parsell’s began to surface, they came in waves. 

Incarcerated men, women, and youth who had suffered sexual abuse by 

other incarcerated individuals or corrections staff began talking about 

their experiences. Their accounts prompted research, legal challenges, 

advocacy, development of human rights frameworks addressing custodial rape, creation of new protocols and prevention efforts by corrections 

administrators and staff, and new legislation that in combination increasingly shed light on the pervasiveness and nature of the problem. We now 

know that sexual abuse while incarcerated has devastating effects on prisoners and serious repercussions for their families, correctional facilities, 

and the public at large.9

 We also know that some prisoners are more at 

risk of being sexually abused 

than others. Being young and 

incarcerated for the first time—

like Parsell when he entered 

prison—puts a person at higher 

risk of victimization. So does 

being gay. And there are other 

risk factors. Screening and classification systems, when used 

consistently, can help identify vulnerable individuals so that facilities can 

plan housing and services to lessen the risk of sexual abuse. These systems need refinement, along with many other practices that reduce sexual 

abuse in correctional facilities. Solutions are being designed and implemented, although much work remains to be done. 

Passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ushered in a new 

era of rigorous national data collection and analysis to add to our knowledge 

of the nature and scope of the problem.10 Estimates of the annual incidence 

rates of sexual abuse in America’s prisons, jails, and residential juvenile facilities are now available to complement more focused and in-depth studies 

of specific facilities or systems.11 The data may not capture the full extent of 

the problem, but they confirm its scale and the urgent need for reform. 
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 35

“There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution 

and the prisons of this country.”

Duty to Protect

T

he Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and 

unusual punishment—a ban that requires corrections staff to 

protect incarcerated individuals from sexual abuse whenever the 

threat is known.12 Facilities that fail to implement adequate protective measures risk exposure to civil lawsuits from current and former 

prisoners and the U.S. Department of Justice. However, this was not always the case. Historically, incarcerated individuals found courts unwilling to intercede on their behalf. In 1809, for example, a court rejected 

a habeas corpus petition on the grounds that it was not appropriate “to 

interfere with the jailer in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, as 

to the security of prisoners.”13 In the majority of decisions through the mid20th century, judges agreed that it was not their function to supervise the 

discipline and treatment of incarcerated individuals.14 The Supreme Court 

ended this hands-off approach with its 1974 decision in Wolff v. McDonnell, 

in which the Court stated: “There is no iron curtain drawn between the 

Constitution and the prisons of this country.”15 

In the wake of Wolff v. McDonnell, certain aspects of prisoner rights 

have become clear. For example, in the 1994 case Farmer v. Brennan, a 

transgender woman alleged that corrections officials failed to protect her 

from repeated sexual assaults. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that 

deliberate indifference to the 

substantial risk of sexual abuse 

violates incarcerated individuals’ rights under the Eighth 

Amendment and that courts have an active, supervisory role in ensuring 

prisoners’ safety. The court made clear that officials have a duty to protect prisoners because, “having stripped them of virtually every means of 

self-protection and foreclosed their access to outside aid, the government 

and its officials are not free to let the state of nature take its course.”16 Furthermore, being violently assaulted in a correctional facility is simply “not 

part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against 

society.”17

Jurisdictions cannot use insufficient funding as an excuse for failing to ensure the constitutional rights of incarcerated individuals. The Federal courts have long rejected such arguments.18 Regardless of funding, 

States and the Federal Government must provide minimum conditions of 

confinement to incarcerated persons to avoid the Constitution’s prohibition 

against cruel and unusual punishment.19

With these decisions, courts have underscored their crucial role 

in protecting the rights of incarcerated individuals. The Supreme Court 

specifically emphasized the need for judicial oversight, noting that 

“judicial intervention is indispensable if constitutional dictates—not to 
36 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Regardless of funding, States and the Federal Government 

must provide minimum conditions of confinement to 

incarcerated persons to avoid the Constitution’s 

prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

mention considerations of basic 

humanity—are to be observed 

in the prisons.”20 Courts will 

intervene in instances in which 

facilities tolerate unconstitutional conditions. In discussing 

this oversight function, the Seventh Circuit observed that “[j]udges are not 

wardens, but we must act as wardens to the limited extent that unconstitutional prison conditions force us to intervene when those responsible for 

the conditions have failed to act.”21

Against the Law 

After conviction for a drug offense, Marilyn Shirley was placed 

in a Federal facility in Fort Worth, Texas, for women in need of 

specialized medical and mental health services.22 One night in 

March 2000, a senior prison official, who was the only officer on 

duty at the time, awakened Shirley. He ordered her from her room and took 

her to the officers’ station. There, he made a call asking for a signal if the supervisor approached the camp. After he hung up the phone, he began kissing and groping Shirley and pushed her into a supply room. “The more that 

I begged and pleaded for him to stop, the more violent he became,” she told 

the Commission.23 “He tried to force me to perform oral sex on him.” As she 

resisted, he became increasingly brutal, throwing her against the wall and 

slamming her head against it repeatedly. He then violently raped her, all the 

while warning that if she ever talked about it, no one would believe her. 

The assault ended only when the officer received a signal over the 

radio that someone was approaching. After the attack, he continued to 

harass and threaten her. In her testimony, she recounted, “[I] stayed silent 

for 7 months, having nowhere to hide. I went to sleep every night not knowing if [he] was going to order me out [to] the officer’s station again.”24 She 

was terrified about what would happen if she reported the assault, only 

informing the camp administrator on the day of her release months later.

Years after she was raped, Marilyn Shirley still experienced paralyzing panic attacks and intense nightmares. Fear continued to dominate her 

life, and she took five different medications to treat her conditions. “I see his 

face everywhere. Every day I relive this rape,” she told the Commission.25 

Incarcerated women have always been vulnerable to sexual coercion and abuse.26 For example, in the mid-1800s, the Indiana State Prison ran a “prostitution service” for male guards using female prisoners.27

Efforts to protect and better serve female prisoners began with a movement in the early 1800s to create separate prisons for women. It wasn’t 

until 1834 that prisons began to house women separately, and it took 
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 37

another four decades, until 1873, before the first women’s facility was constructed and staffed entirely by women.28 Same-sex staff for women remained the norm until the latter half of the 20th century, when women successfully challenged their exclusion from staff positions in men’s prisons.29 

This in turn created opportunities for men to once again enter women’s 

institutions as workers.30 Cross-gender supervision remains a concern in 

women’s prisons and has become a concern in facilities for men as well, as 

female staff make up an increasingly large proportion of the workforce.31

The officer who attacked Shirley was ultimately convicted and 

sentenced to 12-and-a-half years in prison. However, many incidences of 

sexual abuse by staff or prisoners are never prosecuted. For 

most of this Nation’s history, no 

criminal laws specifically prohibited corrections staff from 

sexually abusing incarcerated 

individuals.32 Even as late as 

1990, the majority of States and 

the Federal Government did 

not have such laws.33 Today in 

all 50 States, it is a crime for 

facility staff to engage in any 

sexual conduct with individuals in custody; similarly, laws prohibit such 

conduct among staff working for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.34 These 

laws are essential, but unfortunately, not all explicitly cover staff working in halfway houses and other community-based correctional settings. 

As of January 2008, eight States did not have laws covering sexual abuse 

in community corrections. 

Successfully prosecuting these cases remains difficult, and sentences tend to be lenient compared to penalties for sexual abuse committed in 

other settings.35 In three States, sex with a prisoner is still a misdemeanor, 

not a felony, for corrections staff.36 Prisoners who commit sexual offenses 

are rarely prosecuted.37 More often they receive administrative sanctions, 

such as increased custody status or loss of parole.

Beginning to Count

How common is sexual abuse in American correctional settings? 

Historical accounts describe sexual abuse as a feature of incarceration from the beginning, but our knowledge about the 

prevalence of these incidents, even today, is extremely limited.38 

Only anecdotal reports of sexual abuse existed until the mid-20th century, 

when Alan Davis conducted his groundbreaking study of sexual abuse in 

“The more that I begged and pleaded for him to stop, 

the more violent he became,” Marilyn Shirley told the 

Commission. “He tried to force me to perform oral sex 

on him.” As she resisted, the prison official became 

increasingly brutal, throwing her against the wall and 

slamming her head against it repeatedly. He then violently 

raped her, all the while warning that if she ever talked 

about it, no one would believe her.
38 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

the Philadelphia jail system.39 Released in 1968 and based on in-person 

interviews with more than 3,300 prisoners and 562 staff members during 

a 2-year period, this comprehensive study estimated that at least 3 percent 

of the 60,000 individuals in Philadelphia jails were sexually victimized 

annually, which translates into at least 2,000 incidents of sexual abuse 

in 12 months. Two-thirds of the reported incidents were completed rapes. 

Young, slightly built prisoners seemed to be at extreme risk. Davis was 

careful to point out that the actual prevalence was probably much higher 

because many victims were reluctant to report their experiences.

Most subsequent studies have yielded considerably higher prevalence 

rates, depending on the target population and the amount of time assessed. 

A 1982 study in a medium-security men’s facility in California, which housed 

individuals at high risk of abuse in single cells (gay men, mentally ill prisoners, and other high-risk prisoners), found that 14 percent of randomly 

selected prisoners reported through an anonymous questionnaire that they 

had been sexually victimized.40 Rates for gay prisoners (41 percent) were 

much higher than rates for heterosexual prisoners in the facility (9 percent). 

A 1996 study, also using anonymous questionnaires, surveyed prisoners and 

staff in the State prison system in 

Nebraska.41 Of the 528 men and 

women prisoners who returned 

completed surveys, 20 percent 

reported being pressured or 

forced to have sexual contact 

at least once while incarcerated in a Nebraska State facility. In facilities for 

men, the incident rate was 22 percent. Prisoners reported that staff were the 

perpetrators in 18 percent of the incidents. The 264 corrections staff responding to the survey estimated a sexual abuse rate of 15 percent in the State’s 

prison system.

To date, most of the research on prevalence has focused on incarcerated men; only a few studies have assessed rates among incarcerated 

women. One such study, conducted in 2002, investigated rates of sexual 

abuse at three Midwestern prisons for women, each housing maximum-, 

medium-, and minimum-security prisoners.42 The researchers asked women about experiences of sexual abuse during the entire time they had been 

incarcerated in that facility. The rate of sexual abuse in one facility—described as a “rough prison”—was 19 percent.43 Many respondents in this 

facility “cited problems with inadequate surveillance, predatory staff, noncaring and unresponsive staff, and policies that protected rather than punished staff and inmate sexual predators.” Two other facilities had rates of 

6 and 8 percent. A little more than half of the reported perpetrators were 

staff. Only about one-third of the victims reported the incidents to prison 

officials. Victims who did not report explained that they feared retaliation 

and that no one would believe them. 

Only anecdotal reports of sexual abuse existed 

until the mid-20th century, when Alan Davis 

conducted his groundbreaking study of 

sexual abuse in the Philadelphia jail system.
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 39

More recently, a study conducted from March 2005 to June 2006 of 

436 women in a large southern prison found that 17 percent reported experiencing some type of sexual victimization while incarcerated, ranging 

from penetration, attempted penetration, and sexual touching to sexual 

abuse without physical contact; 3 percent reported completed rape.44

Understanding the Numbers

Different estimates of prevalence are partly the result of researchers using different definitions of sexual abuse.45 Some studies 

count only completed acts of nonconsensual sex that involve 

penetration; others include a wider range of acts, including coercion or sexual pressure, sexualized touching, voyeurism, and exposure.46 

The methods researchers use to estimate the prevalence of sexual abuse 

incidents also have a major impact on their findings.47 Many studies of 

sexual abuse in prison involve interviews with individual prisoners. Because sexual abuse is a sensitive topic for women and men, and the stigma 

associated with being a victim is real, individuals may hesitate to report 

incidents and details in a face-to-face interview.48 Men may be especially 

reluctant to report sex with other men, even when it involves forced sex, 

for fear they will appear weak and helpless; heterosexual men in particular 

may be concerned about being perceived as gay.49

Having prisoners report anonymously on survey forms about sexual abuse addresses some of these concerns, but using written forms 

has drawbacks as well.50 Literacy rates are often lower among incarcerated persons; some respondents may refuse to participate because they 

cannot read the survey.51 Requesting help to fill out a written survey 

negates the privacy of the information, again leading to reluctance to 

report sexual abuse.52 And many prisoners find it hard to trust promises 

of confidentiality and anonymity in an environment characterized by a 

lack of privacy and loss of control.

Recent research studies have begun to take advantage of evolving 

technology, using laptop computers with touch screens and an accompanying recorded narration to guide people through surveys.53 This method 

mitigates concerns about reading level and privacy. Respondents still must 

believe strangers’ assurances of confidentiality, however, so the likelihood 

of underreporting remains.

Although underreporting may be a large source of the problem, the 

Commission recognizes that false allegations may also create inaccuracies 

in prevalence levels.54 Prisoners have been known to fabricate accounts of 

sexual abuse as a means to achieve some other purpose, such as a change 

in housing or to manipulate other prisoners or staff. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and other researchers design surveys to ask questions 
40 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

of prisoners in several different ways, and they also use analytic tools 

to assess data for false reports. Moreover, because an anonymous survey 

captures neither the identity of the reporter nor the accused, there would 

appear to be little motivation to fabricate accounts in this context, except 

perhaps to damage the overall reputation of the correctional facility. The 

extent to which empirical studies of sexual abuse among prisoners unwittingly capture some number of false reports deserves further research.

The First National Incidence Rates 

I

n the Prison Rape Elimination Act, Congress stated that existing data 

about sexual abuse in correctional facilities was not sufficient to understand the scope of the problem and respond appropriately.55 In particular, the Act called for new research to provide national incidence 

rates.56 Congress tasked the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) with collecting and reporting those data. BJS launched a groundbreaking effort to discover how many prisoners each year are victims of sexual abuse by other 

prisoners and by staff as well as the nature of that abuse.

In 2007, BJS surveyed incarcerated men and women in a random 

sample of 146 State and Federal prisons and 282 local jails across the United States, using audio computer-assisted self-interviews. A total of 63,817 

incarcerated individuals completed surveys that formed the basis of the 

study: 23,398 in State and Federal prisons and 40,419 in local jails. Respondents in prison were asked about incidents of sexual abuse during the 12 

months prior to the interview; those who had been incarcerated at that facility for less than 12 months were asked about their experiences since arriving. The average time of incarceration among respondents in prison was 

8.5 months. Respondents in jails were asked about sexual abuse incidents 

during the 6 months prior to the interview or since admission if they had 

been confined in that facility for less than 6 months. The average time of 

incarceration among respondents in jail was 2.6 months. All respondents 

used a touch screen to respond to a questionnaire accompanied by audio 

instructions delivered through headphones.57

The national scope of these surveys yields the most comprehensive 

snapshot of sexual abuse in prisons and jails yet available. The data confirm that sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread, with great variation in 

rates of abuse across facilities, and reveal the presence of force, coercion, 

and physical injury to incarcerated victims. 

In prisons in 2007, 4.5 percent of respondents reported experiencing 

sexual abuse one or more times during the 12 months preceding the survey.58

Extrapolated to the national prison population, an estimated 60,500 State 

and Federal prisoners were sexually abused during that 12-month period. 

Ten of the facilities in the sample had comparatively high prevalence rates, 
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 41

between 9.3 percent and 15.7 percent. At the other extreme, in six of the 

facilities sampled, no respondents reported having been sexually abused 

during this time frame. About 2 percent of all respondents reported incidents in which the perpetrator was another prisoner; 2.9 percent reported incidents perpetrated by corrections staff. (Some respondents had 

been abused by both staff and other prisoners.) In cases involving staff, a 

majority of the victims reported sexual activity beyond being touched in 

a sexual way.

In jails, 3.2 percent of respondents reported that they had been 

sexually abused at least once during the prior 6 months or since they had 

been in that facility. Among those surveyed, 1.6 percent reported abuse by 

another inmate, and 2 percent 

reported incidents perpetrated 

by staff.59 Published reports 

on the survey of jail inmates 

include more detailed information than reports on the survey 

of State and Federal prisoners. 

In jails, sexual abuse perpetrated by other inmates typically occurred in 

victims’ cells or rooms, whereas incidents involving staff as perpetrators 

were most likely to occur in unobserved areas, such as closets, offices, 

or locked rooms. Approximately 20 percent of all victims said that they 

had been physically injured during the course of the abuse; most of those 

(85 percent) reported sustaining at least one serious injury. Women were 

more likely than men to be sexually victimized (5 percent compared with 

3 percent). Rates were higher among younger inmates: 4.6 percent among 

respondents 18 to 24 years old, compared with 2.4 percent among respondents 25 years and older. Nearly a fifth (18.5 percent) of inmates who identified as homosexual and 9.8 percent who identified as bisexual or “other 

orientation” reported being sexually victimized, compared with 2.7 percent of heterosexual inmates.

Until recently, what we knew about prevalence rates among incarcerated youth came mainly from facility records of investigated and 

substantiated allegations of sexual abuse. These records do not reflect incidents that were never reported, those for which an investigation was 

never conducted even if a report was made, and those for which there was 

not enough evidence to substantiate a claim. When allegations of sexual 

abuse are reported to corrections staff and recorded, those allegations, as 

well as the official responses, become a part of the facility’s administrative 

records. Substantiated incidents are those for which an investigation was 

conducted and a finding of sexual abuse recorded. Reporting and recordkeeping policies vary greatly across facilities. For example, some facilities 

record and maintain all allegations of abuse, whereas others only keep 

data on incidents in which officials substantiated the allegations.

The data confirm that sexual abuse of prisoners is 

widespread, with great variation in rates of abuse across 

facilities, and reveal the presence of force, coercion, and 

physical injury to incarcerated victims.
42 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Based on administrative records, youth are at especially high risk of 

sexual abuse, whether they are confined with other youth or incarcerated 

with adults. As reported by correctional facilities to BJS, the rate of sexual 

abuse in adult facilities—based only on allegations reported to correctional authorities and recorded 

in administrative records—was 

2.91 per 1,000 incarcerated 

prisoners in 2006, across those 

facilities responding.60 In contrast, the rate in residential juvenile facilities—also reported by BJS and 

based on administrative records—was more than five times greater: 16.8 

per 1,000 in 2006.61 Some of this difference may be due to laws that mandate adult caregivers to report child abuse and laws specifying that all 

sexual contacts with youth under a certain age are nonconsensual.62 Boys 

were the victims in nearly two-thirds of substantiated incidents, but girls 

were overrepresented. Thirty-six percent of all victims in substantiated 

incidents across the facilities responding were girls, even though girls represented only 15 percent of youth in residential placement in 2006.63

Youth confined with adults also are at high risk of sexual abuse. 

In 2005, for example, individuals under the age of 18 made up less than 

1 percent of all inmates in U.S. jails.64 Yet 21 percent of all victims of substantiated incidents of sexual abuse involving jail inmates that year were 

under the age of 18.65 

At the time of this report, BJS is conducting the first nationally representative survey of sexual abuse among adjudicated youth in residential juvenile facilities. In a pilot study to prepare for the national survey, BJS interviewed 645 youth in nine facilities. Almost all the youth surveyed were male 

(90 percent) and 15 years or older (91 percent). The facilities housed youth 

with fairly serious histories: more than a quarter of the youth interviewed 

had been adjudicated for perpetrating a sexual assault, compared to less 

than 10 percent of youth in residential placement nationally. Facilities volunteered to participate in the pilot and were selected based on convenience. 

In this study, nearly one out of every five youth surveyed—19.7 

percent—reported at least one nonconsensual sexual contact during the 

preceding 12 months or since they had arrived at the facility if they had 

been there less than 12 months.66 Nonconsensual experiences included sex 

in return for offers of favors or protection (8.7 percent), sex due to pressure 

or force other than physical force (8.8 percent), and sex with physical force 

or the threat of physical force (6.4 percent). 

Any sexual contact with staff was considered to be nonconsensual 

and is therefore included in the 19.7 percent. Sexual contact with other youth 

reported as consensual is not included. Staff were just as likely as youth to 

be the perpetrators of nonconsensual sexual abuse. Notably, 7.8 percent of all 

youth interviewed reported sexual contacts with staff that involved physical 

Extrapolated to the national prison population, 

an estimated 60,500 State and Federal prisoners were 

sexually abused during the 12-month period.
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 43

force or the threat of force; some other type of force or pressure; or sex in 

return for money, protection, favors, or other kinds of special treatment.67

In addition to directly surveying individuals confined in adult 

and juvenile facilities annually, BJS will continue to collect and review 

administrative records. Although administrative records can only hint at 

the actual rates of sexual abuse—at least for now—they have important 

information to convey. There is evidence, for example, of a 21 percent 

increase in allegations of sexual abuse comparing administrative records 

from 2003 (when Congress passed PREA) and 2006.68 Rather than signaling an increase in actual abuse, the rise may indicate that prisoners are 

more confident reporting sexual abuse when it does occur, that facilities 

are keeping better records, or both. 

Regular review of administrative records nationally can illuminate 

who reports abuse, characteristics of perpetrators in these cases, circumstances surrounding reported incidents, and how facilities respond to reports of sexual abuse—in particular, what disciplinary or legal sanctions facilities impose on perpetrators and what treatment is provided to victims.69

In the future, BJS also will examine whether certain characteristics of facilities, such as size, security level, crowding, staff ratios, staff demographics, 

and assaults on staff, are associated with higher rates of sexual abuse.70

The research by BJS, especially the surveys of incarcerated individuals, offers perhaps the most convincing data so far that some level of sexual 

abuse is a reality in the vast majority of America’s prisons and jails. Important and uninvestigated areas remain: lockups, community corrections settings, detention centers for immigrants, tribal detention facilities operated 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and those run by the military. The prevalence and scope of sexual abuse in these arenas are virtually unknown.

Facing the Numbers 

E

ven conservative estimates of rates of sexual abuse translate into 

high numbers of victims each year in America’s vast correctional 

system.71 In just two decades—between 1987 and 2007—America’s 

incarcerated population nearly tripled. At the end of 2007, the daily 

population of U.S. prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities totaled approximately 

2.4 million people.72 That figure only hints at the millions of people who 

cycle through these facilities over the course of a year. And it does not 

count individuals in pretrial detention, on probation, on parole, or under 

some other form of correctional supervision in the community.73 By the 

end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults on probation or parole—about one in every 45 adults in the United States.74 Seventy percent of 

the adult corrections population is under community corrections supervision, and the numbers are growing.75
44 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

With almost 2.5 million people living behind bars 

on any given day—an experience that directly shapes the lives 

of approximately 1 in 130 Americans, including youth— 

the United States bears a special burden to ensure 

the safety of prisoners and to protect their rights.

Dramatic increases in the prisoner population over the past 20 years 

are due more to legislative changes than to increases in crime rates.76 The 

“war on drugs” that began in the 1980s and continued over the last two 

decades resulted in new policies requiring incarceration for drug-related 

offenses that previously involved primarily probation or diversion. Coupled with mandatory-minimum 

sentences, many more people 

were incarcerated and for longer periods of time. The “threestrikes” laws, introduced in 

1993, mandated sentences 

from 15 years to life in prison 

for persons convicted of three 

crimes.77 As of 2008, nearly half of the States had some form of a “threestrikes” law, although the criteria for applying the law vary across jurisdictions.78 In some jurisdictions, all three crimes must be felonies or violent 

felonies for the three strikes to count. Other jurisdictions include minor 

crimes, even misdemeanors, in the calculation, adding to the rapid growth 

in incarceration.

Along with the rapidly increasing number of people incarcerated, 

the demographics of those individuals have changed in ways that have 

flooded facilities with individuals who are especially vulnerable to sexual 

abuse. The number of incarcerated adult women increased by 757 percent 

from 1977 to 2007.79 Legislative changes in 45 States since 1992 also made 

it easier to incarcerate juveniles with adults.80 Between 1990 and 2004, the 

number of juveniles sentenced to adult jails and prisons increased 208 percent; some jurisdictions incarcerate youth under the age of 16 with adults.81

The types of crimes for which people are incarcerated have changed as 

well; more than half of all newly incarcerated individuals between 1985 

and 2000 were imprisoned for nonviolent drug or property offenses.82 

With almost 2.5 million people living behind bars on any given 

day—an experience that directly shapes the lives of approximately 1 in 130 

Americans, including youth—the United States bears a special burden to 

ensure the safety of prisoners and to protect their rights.83

Hard to Heal

Although sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars, most 

victims report persistent, if not lifelong, mental and physical 

repercussions. Sexual abuse experienced in any environment 

commonly invokes shock, numbness, withdrawal, and denial.84

Almost all victims of an invasive or violent sexual assault develop some 

symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the weeks after the 
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 45

attack.85 These include numbing, intrusive thoughts, nightmares, insomnia, flashbacks during which the victim vividly re-experiences the event, 

outbursts of anger or irritability, and panic attacks.86 For some victims, 

PTSD symptoms resolve several months after the incident; for others, 

PTSD becomes chronic. Victims with long-term PTSD are more likely to 

develop other mental health problems as well.87 

Victims of sexual abuse often struggle with long-lasting effects, including anxiety, a sense of alienation and isolation, mistrust of others, 

hostility, depression, and helplessness.88 Thoughts of suicide are common. 

In non-correctional settings, one-third to one-half of rape victims consider 

suicide; between 17 and 19 percent actually attempt suicide.89 

The closed nature of correctional facilities can lead to especially 

devastating effects for sexual abuse victims. In confinement, victims cannot hide from or escape their perpetrators; they are trapped with their 

assailant unless corrections officials intervene.90 The constant threat of 

subsequent abuse and physical proximity to danger are likely to increase 

the risk of developing PTSD and 

other aftereffects.91 The consequences of sexual abuse may be 

worse for those who are young, 

have a past history of sexual 

abuse, or have a preexisting 

mental illness.92 Victims cannot easily avail themselves of support networks and resources available outside prison walls, and truly confidential 

counseling in corrections is virtually nonexistent. These conditions exacerbate post-trauma responses and may prevent healing and recovery. In 

her testimony before the Commission, Necole Brown described her symptoms after repeated sexual victimization while in prison: “I continue to 

contend with flashbacks of what this correctional officer did to me and the 

guilt, shame, and rage that comes with having been sexually violated for 

so many years. I felt lost for a very long time, struggling with this. . . . I 

still struggle with memories of this ordeal and take it out on friends and 

family who are trying to be there for me now.”93

For some victims, the trauma of sexual abuse has physical manifestations. Sexual assault is strongly associated with chronic medical 

conditions, such as insomnia, fatigue, chronic pain, nausea, ulcers, and 

disturbed sleeping and eating patterns.94 Almost all victims of forced penetration also experience some type of physical injury, such as soreness, 

bruising, bleeding, or lacerations.95 Some victims are brutally attacked 

and sustain severe physical injuries, including concussions, broken bones, 

and deep lacerations. The physical brutality may be even more extreme 

when there are multiple perpetrators working together.96 Exposure to the 

HIV virus and other sexually transmitted diseases is another potential 

consequence of sexual abuse, one that may not be evident immediately 

Although sexual abuse typically leaves few visible scars, 

most victims report persistent, if not lifelong, 

mental and physical repercussions.
46 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

An officer at the Tucker Women’s Unit in Arkansas raped 

Laura Berry in 1993. When she informed the officer that 

she thought she might be pregnant, he forced her to drink 

quinine and turpentine in an attempt to cause an abortion.

following an assault. Testimony from prison rape survivors who became 

HIV-positive after being raped illustrates the potential lifelong repercussions of being sexually victimized while incarcerated.97

In 1994, Keith DeBlasio was sentenced to 5 years in a minimumsecurity Federal prison for fraud.98 He was later transferred to a highsecurity facility in Milan, Michigan, and placed in a dormitory with about 

150 inmates, dozens of blind 

spots, and only one officer on 

duty at any given time. “It was 

here,” DeBlasio testified “that 

I was sexually assaulted by 

the same assailant more times 

than I can even count.”99 The 

sexual abuse began when the assailant moved into DeBlasio’s dormitory 

after spending 3 days in segregation for “brutally assaulting another inmate in a stairwell. . . . There were numerous assaults and a long period 

of ongoing abuse, especially after prison officials moved my assailant 

into the same cubicle with me as my bunk mate. I couldn’t defend myself 

because he had fellow gang members standing watch.”

Eventually, DeBlasio became ill. After repeated requests to medical 

staff for an HIV test, he was tested and diagnosed as HIV-positive.100 DeBlasio 

testified that he later learned that “prison officials knew the assailant was 

emotionally disturbed, on psychotropic medications, a repeat predator with 

serious mental problems, and yet they did nothing to protect me. . . . I was 

a nonviolent offender, but I was given a life sentence. I was repeatedly 

denied protection from a known predator with HIV.”

Sexual assaults by men against women prisoners also carry the risk 

of pregnancy, another long-term consequence that may not be detected until weeks or months after the assault.101 Fear of retaliation, threats from 

the perpetrator, and fear of punishment may keep incarcerated women 

victims from seeking pregnancy testing or medical care once they realize that they are pregnant. The case of Berry v. Oswalt highlights these 

risks.102 An officer at the Tucker Women’s Unit in Arkansas raped Laura 

Berry in 1993. When she informed the officer that she thought she might 

be pregnant, he forced her to drink quinine and turpentine in an attempt 

to cause an abortion. When the threat of pregnancy persisted, the officer 

told Berry to conceal the pregnancy and blame someone else if questioned. 

The court awarded Berry $80,000 in compensation for the assault and 

subsequent abuse she endured. 
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 47

Tom Cahill estimates that “that one day I spent in jail has 

cost the Government and the tax payers at least $300,000,” 

explaining, “For the past two decades, I’ve received a nonservice connected security pension from the Veteran’s 

Administration at the cost of about $200,000 in connection 

with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.”

Far-Reaching Consequences 

S

exual abuse damages individual prisoners, often in lasting ways, 

but the harm does not end there. U.S. correctional facilities 

release millions of people every year.103 Individuals suffering 

from the psychological and physical effects of sexual abuse carry those effects home with them. Many victims require ongoing medical 

and mental health care, increasing the burden on already struggling public 

health care systems.104 Individuals dealing with the consequences of sexual abuse may find it difficult to reintegrate into society, relate to their families, and rebuild their lives. Some self-medicate with alcohol and drugs 

to escape emotional or physical suffering.105 Some turn back to crime, 

become homeless, or reenter the criminal justice system.106

Taxpayers bear much of the cost associated with the thousands of 

sexual assaults in corrections, as illustrated by the testimony of Tom Cahill, an Air Force veteran. Cahill told the Commission about his arrest and 

subsequent detention for civil disobedience during a labor strike at a factory in 1967. As he entered a crowded holding cell in a San Antonio jail, one 

prisoner yelled, “fresh meat!”107 After lights out, “Six or seven men beat 

me and raped [me] while another two dozen just looked away. I remember 

being bounced off the walls and the floor and a bunk. . . . [I]t went on and 

on and on. . . . [O]ne of my cellmates told me later that the guards lied and 

told them I was a child molester. . . . After I was released from jail, I tried 

to live a normal life, but the rape haunted me. . . . I was diagnosed with 

post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Cahill estimates that “that one day I spent in jail has cost the Government and the tax payers at least $300,000,” explaining, “I’ve been hospitalized 

more times than I can count and I didn’t pay for those hospitalizations, the 

tax payers paid. My career as a journalist and photographer was completely 

derailed. . . . For the past two decades, I’ve received a non-service connected security pension from the Veterans’ Administration at the cost of 

about $200,000 in connection with the only major trauma I’ve ever suffered, the rape.”108

Sexual abuse of prisoners also places great strains on correctional 

facilities. As Congress stressed in its PREA findings, sexual abuse in correctional settings “increases 

the costs incurred by Federal, 

State, and local jurisdictions 

to administer. . . prison systems.”109 These costs, affecting 

operations ranging from health 

care to housing, are extremely 

hard to quantify.110 For example, victims suffering from the 
48 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

effects of sexual abuse may repeatedly seek counseling or medical care, or 

break rules in an attempt to escape a perpetrator, whether or not they disclose the abuse. Although the dollar amounts may be elusive, the impact is 

clear: facilities rife with sexual abuse cannot function effectively. 

The sexual abuse of prisoners undermines the very purpose of 

corrections in America. It is an offense against the victim, an affront to 

the interests and values of civil society, and a violation of the highest 

order of American legal jurisprudence, which forbids the “unnecessary 

and wanton infliction of pain” upon prisoners by corrections officials or 

by other prisoners.111

Answering the Call 

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse is, without a doubt, an 

enormously daunting challenge for all involved. The reasons are 

many and are discussed throughout this report. They include 

gaps in understanding of the problem due to underreporting and 

a lack of research, insufficient resources for responses to sexual abuse, the 

challenges of training a vast workforce and enhancing safety in outdated 

facilities, intricacies of dealing with vulnerable populations, and many 

more. Despite these complicated factors, a growing and diverse group of 

individuals, governmental entities, and nongovernmental organizations 

have worked to answer the call, coming together to confront powerfully 

this once hidden and unexamined problem.

Prior to PREA, there was no national understanding of the scope 

of the problem, nor were there coordinated efforts to address it. Yet promising work was taking place, 

paving the way for subsequent 

PREA efforts. Beginning in the 

1990s, civil rights litigation 

drew the attention of the corrections field and the public to 

the issue of staff sexual misconduct.112 In response, organizations and individuals began

to acknowledge and address 

the problem. In 1996, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) began 

providing technical assistance and training across the Nation, helping correctional systems focus on effective management to stop staff sexual misconduct, rather than reactive, crisis-driven policymaking.113 In the years 

leading up to and just after PREA, well-respected professional organizations—the American Correctional Association, the American Jail Association, the American Probation and Parole Association, the Association of 

The landscape is changing. Reporting hotlines 

and zero-tolerance posters are becoming commonplace. 

Some agencies and facilities have revolutionized 

their responses to sexual abuse, instituting sexual assault 

response teams and organizing in-house multidisciplinary 

committees to address PREA.
C H A P T E R 1 : A P R O B L E M T H AT M U S T B E S O LV E D 49

State Correctional Administrators, and the National Sheriffs’ Association—

adopted resolutions strongly condemning staff sexual misconduct.114

Human rights, faith-based, and prison rape advocacy organizations 

raised their voices condemning sexual abuse in confinement, creating the 

consensus necessary to pass national legislation.115 PREA’s goal is zero tolerance for sexual abuse in correctional settings. The Act proposes to accomplish 

this through a number of tools, including data collection, research, grants 

and technical assistance to States to improve their practices, development of 

national standards, and the reduction of funding to States that fail to comply 

with the standards.116 PREA’s passage underscores the scope and gravity of 

the problem—confirmed by the best and most recent data—and signals that 

Congress is committed to ending sexual abuse in American corrections.117

 Already, much work has been done in the wake of PREA. BJS has 

conducted groundbreaking surveys and published other research findings 

on the nature and scope of the problem. NIC continues to provide technical 

assistance and training around the country—every State has received assistance in this area. The National Institute of Justice has funded research 

on issues surrounding sexual abuse in correctional facilities that promises 

to deepen our understanding of the best ways to prevent sexual abuse and 

respond to victims and perpetrators when prevention fails. Professional organizations, including those already mentioned and the International Community Corrections Association, have led significant PREA initiatives, workshops, and trainings. And the Bureau of Justice Assistance has distributed 

grants to 34 States and one territory, funding that has been used in a variety 

of innovative ways. The Commission recommends that these important Federal initiatives continue. 

In short, the landscape is changing. Reporting hotlines and zerotolerance posters are becoming commonplace. Some agencies and facilities 

have revolutionized their responses to sexual abuse, instituting sexual assault response teams and organizing in-house multidisciplinary committees to address PREA. Training on PREA is an expected part of curricula 

for corrections staff nationwide. (See the PREA Initiatives appendix for 

a sample.) Though the challenge is great, these promising developments 

mean that pleas for protection and justice by the likes of Elizabeth Gurney 

Fry and Reverend Louis Dwight no longer fall on deaf ears. The Nation is 

poised to answer the call to eliminate prison rape. 

The chapters that follow discuss a crucial mechanism for eliminating prison rape—national standards developed by the Commission to 

prevent and detect sexual abuse in every correctional setting and to hold 

accountable those who perpetrate and permit this abuse.
Sexual abuse is not an inevitable 

feature of incarceration. Leadership 

matters because corrections 

administrators can create a culture 

within facilities that promotes safety 

instead of one that tolerates abuse.
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 51

2

Leadership Matters

T

oni Bunton heard the guard coming down the hallway. He wore 

cheap cologne, and his breath smelled like cigarettes. He scuffed 

his boots against the floor and opened the door to her cell in Scott 

Correctional Facility, a women’s prison in Plymouth Township. 

‘Come here,’ he ordered. The guard pulled Bunton into a bathroom. She 

wore jogging pants, a T-shirt and socks. She was the guard’s prized possession, a pretty young thing, as he said, ‘just the way I like ‘em,’—short and 

cute with brown hair, brown eyes and porcelain skin.”1

 

So begins a Detroit newspaper’s account of a culture inside a Michigan prison that allowed widespread sexual abuse of women prisoners by 

male officers. According to Bunton, she was just 19 when the officer pushed 

her against the bathroom sink and raped her, smiling as he walked away. It 

took more than a decade for Bunton to speak publicly about this rape and 

being the victim of seven other sexual assaults between 1993 and 1996. 

When Bunton found her voice, it was one that people believed.

In February 2008, a jury in Ann Arbor determined that the Michigan

Department of Corrections, the former director of the department, and the 

warden at Scott knew about the “sexually hostile prison environment,” 

where nearly a third of male officers allegedly engaged in sexual misconduct and failed to protect Bunton and nine other women.2

 The jury 

awarded the women $15.4 million and then did something out of the

ordinary; they apologized. “We the members of the jury. . . as representatives of the citizens of Michigan, would like to express our extreme regret 

and apologies for what you have been through.”3

 In January 2009, the

Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict.4

 This case was only the

beginning. More than 500 women who are or were incarcerated in Michigan prisons are suing the State in a class action lawsuit. 

Even before women in Michigan began telling their stories in court, 

human rights organizations and the U.S. Department of Justice alleged 

extensive sexual assaults by corrections staff over a period of years in 

several women’s prisons in Michigan. In the early 1990s, advocacy groups 

warned the Michigan Department of Corrections that “sexual assault and 

harassment are not isolated incidents and. . . fear of reporting such incidents 
52 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

is a significant problem.”5 It was not until a group of women brought civil 

actions in 1996 and the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division filed 

suit in 1997 that corrections officials in Michigan began to address the 

issue. In its investigation, the Department of Justice found evidence of 

criminal behavior ranging from sexual assault to officers exposing their 

genitals to prisoners.6

 Faced with these allegations, the Michigan Department of Corrections signed a settlement agreeing to severely limit male 

corrections officers’ access to incarcerated women and to educate officers 

and prisoners about sexual abuse.7 

Over the last few years, corrections leaders in Michigan have implemented additional reforms, including training for officers designed to 

shape a culture that prevents 

abuse.8

 New work assignment 

rules, including banning male 

officers from the housing units 

where women live, were designed to prevent sexual misconduct and harassment.9

 Administrators refer all allegations of sexual 

misconduct or abuse to internal affairs as well as to the Michigan State 

Police for investigation, and there are now tougher legal penalties for staff 

who have sexual contact with incarcerated persons.10 As of May 2009, the 

approximately 2,000 women prisoners in Michigan will all be housed in a 

facility in Ann Arbor with health care, education, and other programming 

provided in part by the University of Michigan.11

To allow any level of sexual abuse in a correctional setting creates 

a security breach that jeopardizes the safety of staff and prisoners.12 This 

chapter explores the essential role of corrections administrators in preventing sexual abuse in the correctional settings they oversee. Simply stated, 

the problem cannot be solved without committed, enthusiastic leadership 

within the profession. The Commission has defined clear standards that 

corrections administrators can champion to prevent sexual abuse and 

make facilities safer for everyone—reforms in the underlying culture, hiring and promotion, and training and supervision that vanguard members 

of the profession are already implementing. 

From the Top Down

T

he class action lawsuit in Michigan revealed an unhealthy correctional culture in which sexual abuse flourished. Rhode Island 

Corrections Director A.T. Wall explained to the Commission that 

a facility’s culture is its “way of life . . . [t]he sum of the attitudes 

or the norms, the values, the beliefs, of those people who live and work in it.”13

In hierarchical organizations like correctional facilities, that “way of life” is 

To allow any level of sexual abuse in a correctional 

setting creates a security breach that 

jeopardizes the safety of staff and prisoners.
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 53

shaped from the top down. Although changing the culture is an enormous 

challenge, wise and impassioned leaders can do it.14 As Wall noted, “Culture 

is not inherent. Culture is learned, and therefore, it can be changed.”15

In 2006, the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections about their policies and practices on preventing sexual abuse and 

conducted in-depth case studies in several States.16 Not surprisingly, the 

surveys and the case studies identified strong leadership as essential to 

creating the kind of institutional culture necessary to eliminate sexual 

abuse in correctional settings.17 In his testimony, Martin Horn, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Corrections, agreed. Culture 

change “has to start at the top, and you have to talk about it. And if we 

don’t talk about it, the people under us won’t,” he told the Commission.18

“[C]ulture is passed by word of mouth and by behavior. You have to walk 

the walk and talk the talk. You have to do it consistently. You can’t sell out. 

You have to be willing to take the anger that people may direct at you for 

trying to change the culture.” 

Recognizing that corrections leaders need knowledge and skills to 

craft and champion reforms, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) 

has offered technical assistance and training to the field on staff sexual 

misconduct since 1996. Over the years, that assistance has included executive briefings; strategies to assist executive and senior-level staff; workshops conducted in partnership with national, State, and local professional 

associations; and help developing the critical management and operational 

practices that minimize staff sexual misconduct. Corrections administrators in every State have received assistance from NIC. The Commission 

recommends that NIC continue to conduct training and educational programs and to offer technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local 

authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and punishment 

of prison rape.

Zero tolerance of sexual 

abuse

The agency has a written policy 

mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse 

and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its facilities comply 

with the PREA standards. The 

agency employs or designates 

a PREA coordinator to develop, 

implement, and oversee agency 

efforts to comply with the PREA 

standards.

Zero Tolerance “with Teeth” 

T

he positive culture Horn and Wall allude to is rooted in the idea 

and ethics of zero tolerance for sexual abuse. “I’m talking about 

zero tolerance with teeth,” Wall testified.19 In such cultures, staff 

and incarcerated individuals understand what constitutes sexual abuse, know penalties exist for perpetration by prisoners or staff, and

believe management will treat

all incidents seriously. Staff are 

alert to warning signs and prepared to implement approved

procedures in response to

incidents, facilities encourage

Good leaders not only have a policy on paper, they ensure that 

the policy is reflected in practice by carefully assessing and 

responding to attitudes, beliefs, and values that support or 

conflict with a culture of zero tolerance.
54 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

reporting of abuse, and prisoners are confident that genuine investigations 

will follow. Staff also know that there are penalties for simply standing 

by when sexual abuse is occurring and for non-reporting, whether the 

abuse is perpetrated by prisoners or other staff. The Commission’s first 

two standards require that every correctional agency have a written policy 

mandating zero tolerance for all forms of sexual abuse in all correctional 

settings, whether they are operated by government or by private companies working under contract with the government. 

Zero-tolerance policies prohibit any sexual contact between staff, 

volunteers, or contractors and incarcerated individuals. Moreover, all 

forms of forced or coercive sexual contact occurring among incarcerated 

persons will be fully investigated, sanctioned (if authority to do so exists), and referred for prosecution if the prohibited conduct violates State 

criminal laws.20 Facilities in which administrators and management do 

not emphasize a zero-tolerance culture intrinsically tolerate some level of 

sexual abuse. An unclear or inconsistent policy sends mixed messages to 

staff and incarcerated persons about the acceptability of sexual abuse in 

that setting.

Good leaders not only have a policy on paper, they ensure that the 

policy is reflected in practice by carefully assessing and responding to attitudes, beliefs, and values that support or conflict with a culture of zero tolerance. Such an assessment demands recognizing that some line officers as 

well as managers may use sexual abuse and exploitation to manipulate and 

control prisoners for personal gain or gratification. The abuse in Michigan 

prisons was not unique. Landmark class action lawsuits describe other correctional environments in which the systemic sexual abuse of incarcerated 

individuals by staff and other prisoners flourished over time.21 

Creating a genuine culture of zero tolerance hinges on making the 

right decisions about who to hire, retain, and promote; providing comprehensive training for staff and education for prisoners on sexual abuse; and 

using modes of supervision that encourage appropriate contact between 

staff and prisoners while also setting clear limits. “[I]t’s not a sprint. It’s a 

marathon,” Wall explained.22 

Contracting with other entities for the confinement of 

inmates

If public correctional agencies 

contract for the confinement of 

their inmates, they do so only 

with private agencies or other 

entities, including other government agencies, committed 

to eliminating sexual abuse in 

their facilities, as evidenced by 

their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards. 

Any new contracts or contract 

renewals include the entity’s 

obligation to adopt and comply 

with the PREA standards and 

specify that the public agency 

will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as 

part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

The Right Staff 

I

n December 2002, while working a night shift at the Pennington County Jail in Rapid City, South Dakota, a new recruit entered a woman’s 

cell three times after the facility was locked down for the night—in 

clear violation of facility regulations—and sexually abused her each 

time.23 Once, when she resisted, he slammed her head against the wall so 

forcefully that he set off his CB radio. The recruit was under the supervision of a senior corrections officer who “was supposed to observe [him] 
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 55

closely.”24 The facility also had monitoring devices, including a panel of 

lights indicating whether cell doors were locked or unlocked, and the supervisor had a clear view of the victim’s cell from his post. The court 

concluded that, because “entry of a correctional officer into a cell after 

lockdown was an unusual and (literally) noteworthy event,” the supervisor would have known that the officer had no legitimate reason to enter the 

victim’s cell, much less to enter it multiple times.25 At one point, the new 

officer showed his supervisor drawings he had taken from the victim’s 

cell. Despite these warnings, the supervisor did nothing to prevent the assault, nor did he document the cell entry as required or report the incident 

to his superiors.

As this case illustrates, without a commitment to zero tolerance 

among managers and line staff—and a willingness to intervene—sexual 

abuse cannot be prevented. Hiring and retaining high-quality employees 

is one of the main challenges facing corrections officials.26 As one department director noted, “We all have the responsibility to attract, hire, and 

retain qualified staff in a relatively low-paying, relatively high-risk profession with relatively unpleasant working conditions and hours.”27 The kind 

of culture change many administrators want and that the Commission 

believes is required would greatly improve the work environment. Yet that 

shift in culture depends in part on hiring, retaining, and promoting individuals who will not only refrain from sexual abuse, but also actively work 

to prevent it and to reestablish safety when it occurs.28 

One way to attract this caliber of staff is through strategic recruiting 

efforts. Critically reviewing previous recruitment initiatives, highlighting 

positive aspects of correctional employment (e.g., job stability and security), focusing on a variety of media to advertise vacancies, and personalizing the selection process may play a role in creating a strategic and proactive recruitment plan. A recent study focusing on effective recruitment 

and retention of jail staff found a variety of such efforts already in place.29

These included intern programs to help students envision corrections as a 

career option, community outreach to improve the image of the jail, and 

mentoring and leadership programs to support new hires. 

Careful vetting of all job applicants is also essential to maintaining 

quality staff. The Commission’s standards require conducting criminal 

background checks, making efforts to obtain relevant information from 

past employers, and questioning applicants about past misconduct. For 

States in which the law limits a prospective employer’s right to inquire 

about previous employment, especially disciplinary actions or arrests not 

leading to conviction, the Commission urges correctional agencies to ask 

job applicants to sign waivers (unless they are also prohibited from doing 

so by law) affirming that the applicant foregoes his or her legal right to 

claim libel, defamation, or slander regarding any information provided by 

previous employers. 
56 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Preventing sexual abuse in correctional settings necessitates 

screening for staff and prospective staff who have a history of sexual misconduct, either in correctional settings or in the community. To meet the 

Commission’s standard prohibiting hiring or promoting anyone who has 

engaged in prior sexual abuse, administrators must thoroughly screen all 

new job applicants and make promotions contingent on a similarly careful 

review of every staff member’s conduct while employed. Past perpetration 

of sexual abuse in any setting, including in the community and within 

the family, is a warning sign that an individual poses a risk that must be 

carefully evaluated.30 Nonsexual physical abuse is also a warning sign.31

Even behaviors demonstrating disrespect, such as a pattern of yelling at or 

demeaning incarcerated individuals, indicate that a staff member may find 

it difficult to support a zero-tolerance approach to sexual abuse and indeed 

may act to undermine such a policy.32

Biases and prejudice also may influence the willingness or ability of 

staff to support a zero-tolerance policy. One study found that some officers 

were more willing to protect heterosexual prisoners from abuse than those 

with other sexual identities.33 Biases against any group, including women, create hostile environments that prevent staff from protecting these 

individuals.34 In discussing women’s facilities, psychiatrist Terry Kupers 

warned, “when there is an acceptance of misogynist jokes, of. . . little slaps 

on the bottom. . . when the management does not stop that and does not 

want to hear about it, that is where sexual assault occurs.”35 

Psychological tests can flag many of these risk factors as well as 

positive attributes.36 Studies suggest, for example, that successful corrections officers tend to be emotionally stable—particularly when it comes 

to anger and impulse control—dependable, rational, and mature.37 To 

identify the best candidate for the job, the vetting process also should 

explore an applicant’s willingness to foster a culture that discourages 

abuse and to intervene to prevent abuse in specific situations, including 

in those difficult situations in which the perpetrator is another corrections staff member. 

Finally, corrections administrators face the challenge of retaining 

their best staff. One way to retain corrections staff is to keep salaries competitive with other law enforcement agencies.38 Low salaries, 

especially in relation to other 

law enforcement jobs, are one 

reason people leave jobs in corrections for work in other professions.39 However, funds to 

provide competitive salary lines are often extremely limited. Correctional 

facilities urgently need support in developing competitive compensation 

and benefits packages. 

Hiring and promotion 

decisions

The agency does not hire or 

promote anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an 

institutional setting or who has 

engaged in sexual activity in 

the community facilitated by 

force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, 

State, and local law, the agency 

makes its best effort to contact 

all prior institutional employers 

for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; 

must run criminal background 

checks for all applicants and 

employees being considered for 

promotion; and must examine 

and carefully weigh any history 

of criminal activity at work or in 

the community, including convictions for domestic violence, 

stalking, and sex offenses. The 

agency also asks all applicants 

and employees directly about 

previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

“Psychiatrist Terry Kupers warned, “[W]hen there is an 

acceptance of misogynist jokes, of . . . little slaps on the 

bottom . . . when the management does not stop that and does 

not want to hear about it, that is where sexual assault occurs.”
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 57

Promoting staff who demonstrate a commitment to preventing 

sexual abuse is another way to keep good staff and send a clear message 

to everyone in the facility. Over time, those promotions will produce a 

higher-caliber staff and management structure and make it easier to create and sustain a safe and orderly environment. But promotions and raises 

alone will not solve the problem. Even the best staff will succumb to stress 

and burnout without the right guidance and support from their managers 

and leaders.40 

Employee training

The agency trains all employees 

to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual 

abuse prevention, detection, 

and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; 

and relevant Federal, State, 

and local law. The agency trains 

all employees to communicate 

effectively and professionally 

with all inmates. Additionally, 

the agency trains all employees on an inmate’s right to be 

free from sexual abuse, the 

right of inmates and employees to be free from retaliation 

for reporting sexual abuse, the 

dynamics of sexual abuse in 

confinement, and the common 

reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are 

educated as soon as possible 

following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, 

and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all 

employees to ensure that they 

know the agency’s most current 

sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains 

written documentation showing 

employee signatures verifying 

that employees understand the 

training they have received. 

Progress in Training and Education 

I

n 1997, Human Rights Watch surveyed State corrections departments 

and the Federal Bureau of Prisons about steps they were taking to address the problem of prison rape. Only a few departments, including 

Arkansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, 

and Virginia, responded that they trained corrections officers to recognize, prevent, and respond to sexual assault among incarcerated persons.41

When the Urban Institute surveyed 45 State departments of corrections 

nearly a decade later in 2006, 36 departments reported offering training 

on sexual abuse for frontline staff.42 Training initiatives also have reached 

law enforcement agencies that operate lockups and other short-term holding facilities. A training curriculum specifically for law enforcement and 

a guide to developing policy are now available online, and trainings have 

been provided on site to individual agencies and through national and 

State conferences.43 According to Susan McCampbell, President of the 

Center for Innovative Public Policies, these training efforts are essential 

because “very few [law enforcement] agencies have heard of PREA. The 

potential impact of PREA on these facilities is different than for jails and 

prisons, due to the visibility and size of the [detention] function within the 

agency, the condition and flexibility of the physical plants, [and] the ability 

of agencies to screen and segregate arrestees,” among other issues.44 

The Commission recognizes the profession’s investment to date in 

training staff. This is an area in which much has been done. The standards 

in this area are designed to ensure that no facility is left behind and that 

training programs everywhere meet certain basic criteria. The Commission believes most jurisdictions can meet these goals without burdensome 

or unrealistic financial investment. Today there are many resources that 

correctional agencies can turn to for help. For example, the Safe Prisons 

Program developed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and 

the Ten Point Plan created by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction both feature comprehensive training programs for staff.45 An

appendix in each volume of the Commission’s standards lists suggested 

topics and procedures for training line staff.
58 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

The Commission’s standards in this area are based on evidence 

showing that effective training programs focus on prevention and intervention, include training in meeting the medical and mental health 

needs of victims, and are grounded in clear policies. They should be 

provided at the beginning of employment and be updated or expanded 

annually.46 The main objectives of a training program on sexual abuse 

are to ensure that staff, volunteers, and contractors understand the facility’s or agency’s zero-tolerance policy and that no sexual abuse will be 

tolerated, are aware of the dynamics of sexual abuse in adult and juvenile correctional settings, possess the knowledge and skills necessary to 

prevent abuse from occurring, identify early warning signs that someone 

is at risk of being abused, and take the appropriate actions when they 

learn about an incident of sexual abuse. Role-play exercises and opportunities to rehearse or discuss responses to sexual abuse and misconduct 

can help to dispel discomfort and are good preparation for dealing with 

actual situations.47 In addition, trainings must cover the responsibility of 

staff, volunteers, and contractors to report any signs of sexual abuse and 

the consequences for failing to do so. 

The Commission requires that training also include how to communicate effectively and professionally with incarcerated persons, including 

those of different races, ethnicities, cultural and religious backgrounds, 

ages, genders, sexual orientations, and cognitive abilities.48 Effective communication builds trust between prisoners and staff, which is essential 

to create an environment in which individuals feel comfortable seeking 

protection and reporting abuse. Drawing on what they learn, staff should 

consistently model the attitudes and behaviors they expect their peers as 

well as prisoners to display.49

To determine whether facilities are meeting mandatory requirements for training, administrators must maintain written documentation 

about the training provided, including signed verification by participants that 

they understand the information conveyed. This kind of documentation, and 

good training generally, will help facilities defend themselves when prisoners 

file lawsuits against them and may discourage litigation altogether.50

The corollary to staff training is conveying the same information 

about zero tolerance and related policies to all persons incarcerated in a 

facility. A strong educational 

program on sexual abuse sends 

the message that an agency 

will not tolerate sexual abuse 

by staff or prisoners and that 

preventing abuse and holding 

perpetrators accountable are top 

priorities. Trainings should include information on warning signs of sexual 

abuse and ways for prisoners to protect themselves.51 Equipped with this

Volunteer and contractor 

training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who 

have contact with inmates have 

been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s 

sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies 

and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, 

State, and local law. The level 

and type of training provided to 

volunteers and contractors is 

based on the services they provide and level of contact they 

have with inmates, but all volunteers and contractors who have 

contact with inmates must be 

notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual 

abuse. Volunteers must also be 

trained in how to report sexual 

abuse. The agency maintains 

written documentation showing 

volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand the training they have 

received.

A strong educational program on sexual abuse sends the 

message that an agency will not tolerate sexual abuse by 

staff or prisoners and that preventing abuse and holding 

perpetrators accountable are top priorities. 
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 59

information, incarcerated individuals are better able to protect themselves 

and others by seeking help when necessary and are more likely to report 

abuse when it does occur. 

The Commission’s standard requires correctional facilities to inform individuals during the intake process about their right to be protected 

from sexual abuse and how to report suspicions or incidents of abuse and, 

soon thereafter, to engage prisoners in a detailed, interactive educational 

session. Facilities have an obligation to convey information in formats accessible to all prisoners, including those who speak a language other than 

English; have limited English proficiency; are deaf, visually impaired, or 

otherwise disabled; or who have limited reading skills. Educational information must also reach individuals in solitary confinement and protective 

custody, and facilities are required to document in writing participation 

in educational sessions. As with staff training, periodic refresher courses 

are important and required. The Commission also believes that crucial 

information about sexual abuse, facility policies, and the rights of incarcerated persons should be widely available at all times through posters, 

handbooks, and other means.52 

Inmate education

During the intake process, staff 

informs inmates of the agency’s 

zero-tolerance policy regarding 

sexual abuse and how to report 

incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably 

brief period of time following the 

intake process, the agency provides comprehensive education 

to inmates regarding their right 

to be free from sexual abuse 

and to be free from retaliation 

for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions 

of sexual abuse victims, and 

agency sexual abuse response 

policies and procedures. Current inmates are educated as 

soon as possible following the 

agency’s adoption of the PREA 

standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all inmates to ensure 

that they know the agency’s 

most current sexual abuse 

policies and procedures. The 

agency provides inmate education in formats accessible to all 

inmates, including those who 

are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, 

or otherwise disabled as well 

as inmates who have limited 

reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of 

inmate participation in these 

education sessions.

Patrolling and Protecting

I

n his testimony before the Commission, San Francisco Sheriff Michael 

Hennessey talked about daily life in a correctional facility that relies 

on what’s known in the profession as direct supervision. “[T]he deputy is right there amongst them and everybody is talking to him,” 

Hennessey said.53 “They’re complaining about food. They’re complaining 

about their clothing. They’re complaining about their release date. And in 

the meantime they can also say, ‘By the way, I think something is going 

down between this inmate and that inmate.’”

In a direct supervision facility, officers are stationed in living units 

and supervise incarcerated individuals by moving around and interacting 

with them and with other staff members.54 Direct supervision allows officers to get to know individual prisoners. The officers’ movements and locations are, by definition, fluid and somewhat random, thus preventing dead 

zones—locations and periods of time when prisoners know they will not be 

watched. Direct supervision enables officers to directly observe behavior 

and to intervene and prevent sexual abuse, and it also allows incarcerated 

individuals easy access to staff without attracting attention, making it easier 

to report sexual abuse.55 This type of supervision provides an enhanced level 

of safety while also allowing incarcerated persons some privacy and movement. For these reasons, the Commission believes this is the most promising 

mode of supervision for preventing sexual abuse in correctional facilities 

and that agencies and facilities should use it whenever possible. 
60 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

In reality today, many jails and prisons rely on a different method of 

supervision, dictated by the structure of facilities built to confine people in 

rows of cells. An officer patrols these corridors or along catwalks at designated

intervals in what is known as linear surveillance. Officers have only brief 

and intermittent views of prisoners and may have little or no opportunity for 

meaningful contact.56 Such supervision structures empower dominant and 

predatory prisoners or groups and make preventing sexual abuse more difficult. As Cynthia Malm, a former jail administrator from Madison County, 

Idaho, told the Commission, “In a linear jail, inmates often are in control of 

the housing units because the officer cannot see what is happening inside 

the unit at all times. The officer makes checks usually every 30 minutes, 

which leaves a lot of time for inmates to engage in illicit behavior.”57 

A third type, remote indirect supervision, has emerged as monitoring technologies and correctional architecture have evolved. Used primarily in high-security facilities, officers are stationed in secure control booths, 

from which they observe incarcerated individuals via video and other 

monitoring equipment and lock and unlock gates and doors remotely.58

Officers have only sporadic direct contact with prisoners, and the physical 

barriers separating them from the individuals they are responsible for protecting can compromise their ability to intervene and stop abuse.59

The Commission’s standards require correctional facilities to provide the supervision necessary to protect incarcerated persons from sexual 

abuse. The Commission believes it is possible to meet this standard in 

any facility, regardless of design. Installing cameras in a linear jail, for 

example, would enhance prevention and detection, if coupled with routine, unscheduled patrols by officers. Technologies are not replacements 

for skilled and committed security officers, but they can greatly improve 

what good officers are able to accomplish.

Sexual abuse can occur almost anywhere in a facility, but it is the 

“hiding places or blind spots,” according to Sheriff Hennessey, “where 

most of the mischief or illegal activity takes place.”60 Although his remark 

sounds obvious, Hennessey emphasizes the point because facilities can be 

rife with blind spots. They include areas that may not be routinely supervised—the chapel, for example, or work areas such as the kitchen during 

off-hours. Showers tend to be a danger spot as well as empty hallways, 

closets, and stairwells. Any place out of an officer’s line of sight or too dim 

to see clearly poses a risk. Corrections professionals believe that there is a 

particularly high risk for sexual assault by other incarcerated individuals 

when they are housed together in a cell or in crowded dormitories.61

Because eliminating blind spots is a key to effective supervision, 

the Commission’s standard requires management to examine areas in the 

facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers, inadequate staffing, or lack of monitoring technology may have contributed to its occurrence and to undertake needed improvements. 

Accommodating inmates 

with special needs

The agency ensures that inmates who are limited English 

proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual 

abuse to staff directly, through 

interpretive technology, or 

through non-inmate interpreters. Accommodations are made 

to convey all written information 

about sexual abuse policies, 

including how to report sexual 

abuse, verbally to inmates who 

have limited reading skills or 

who are visually impaired.

Inmate supervision

Security staff provides the inmate supervision necessary

to protect inmates from sexual 

abuse. The upper management 

officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must

examine areas in the facility

where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled 

the abuse, the adequacy of 

staffing levels in those areas 

during different shifts, and the 

need for monitoring technology 

to supplement security staff 

supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, 

the agency takes corrective action (DC-3).
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 61

Adding Electronic Eyes and Ears

Monitoring blind spots before abuse occurs is an even better way to protect prisoners and avoid lawsuits. Michelle 

Tafoya was assigned to cooking and cleaning duties in the 

Huerfano County, Colorado, jail where she was detained.62 

The jail had installed surveillance cameras in areas where past sexual 

assaults had occurred, but not in the kitchen, because it had never been 

the site of a sexual assault. On two occasions in December 2001 when Tafoya was on kitchen duty alone, a male officer who knew her whereabouts 

sexually assaulted her. In deciding this case, the court noted that the facility “knew that blind spots remained even after the installation of the new 

cameras, and knew that having some cameras in the jail was not enough 

to deter assaults in [remaining] unmonitored areas.”63 

The Commission’s standard in this area requires correctional facilities to make use of cost-effective and appropriate monitoring technologies to aid staff supervision by assessing, at least annually, the need for 

and feasibility of incorporating additional monitoring equipment or new 

technologies. Commander Donald Rodriguez of the Los Angeles County 

Sheriff’s Department told the Commission that cameras, if well-placed, 

discourage prisoners and staff from engaging in abuse; increase the number of areas that staff can monitor at one time; and, when cameras capture 

misconduct or abuse on video, provide an objective record of what happened to support investigations.64 Many facilities now use closed-circuit 

television video surveillance, in 

which video cameras transmit a 

signal to a limited set of monitors. Digital video recorders allow images to be stored directly 

on a computer hard drive in 

greatly compacted formats, permitting staff to quickly review 

footage. Cameras equipped with 

motion or vibration sensors that trigger recording or send an alert to a 

central control monitor provide an efficient way to monitor isolated or intermittently used areas, such as stairways, closets, chapels, and property 

storage rooms. Some facilities also use audio surveillance technologies. 

Radio frequency identification (RFID) is another technology, albeit 

an expensive one, with the potential to reduce sexual assault in correctional environments. RFID tags are commonly used in security access cards, 

smart cards used in credit and debit transactions, and for tracking shipments. Corrections staff can use RFID to track the movements of prisoners 

and staff and plot them on a two-dimensional computer-generated grid, 

showing their locations at all times.65 

Assessment and use of 

monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other 

cost-effective and appropriate 

technology to supplement its 

sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. 

The agency assesses, at least 

annually, the feasibility of and 

need for new or additional 

monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such 

technology.

“[T]he deputy is right there amongst them and everybody 

is talking to him,” Hennessey said. “They’re complaining 

about food. They’re complaining about their clothing. They’re 

complaining about their release date. And in the meantime 

they can also say, ‘By the way, I think something is going 

down between this inmate and that inmate.’”
62 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

RFID has already stirred interest among corrections officials. The 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tested an RFID 

system to track prisoners and found that it lowered rates of violence, illegal 

conduct, and property damage in its facilities (as well as detecting people 

going through the food line more than once).66 The Commission recommends that NIC provide technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and 

local authorities who plan to introduce or enhance monitoring technology 

in their correctional facilities.

Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits 

cross-gender strip and visual 

body cavity searches. Except 

in the case of emergency or 

other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff 

from viewing inmates of the opposite gender who are nude or 

performing bodily functions and 

similarly restricts cross-gender 

pat-down searches. Medical 

practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals 

to determine their genital status only in private settings and 

only when an individual’s genital status is unknown.

Setting Limits on Cross-Gender Supervision

Clothed pat-down searches, strip searches, body cavity searches, 

and visually observing individuals while undressed are necessary security procedures. However, searches carried out by staff 

of the opposite gender heighten the potential for abuse. Ironically, 

rules that required officers to meet a daily quota of pat-down searches for 

weapons, drugs, or other contraband—five pat-downs per shift—facilitated 

some of the abuse that occurred in women’s prisons across Michigan in 

the 1990s. A Detroit newspaper account reported that “[s]ome officers did it 

the proper way, quickly and with professionalism. But others exploited this 

directive, picking out the pretty women to search, the ones who were young 

and had long sentences.”67 

Former Michigan prisoner Toni Bunton, a plaintiff in the class action lawsuit, recalled one incident that took place in the prison’s recreation 

yard. “Give me a shakedown,” an officer commanded Bunton.68 According 

to what she wrote in her prison journal, she lifted her arms, and the officer “rubbed his hands down her neck, across her back and around to her 

chest. He caressed her breasts. He rubbed her stomach. He squeezed her 

buttocks, rubbing up and down her thighs. His hand brushed against her 

pelvic bone, as he pulled himself closer to her. Another officer watched. 

‘That’s the way you do it,’ the second officer said.”

State corrections officials claimed they had written policies prohibiting the abuse of authority in this context and did not realize some officers 

took advantage of the requirement to pat-down prisoners. Today, those 

requirements have changed in Michigan. Only women staff are permitted 

to search incarcerated women, except in cases of emergency. 

In the Commission’s view, the risks are present whether the officers 

are female or male.69 Case law, policy, and common perceptions of sexual 

abuse in correctional facilities have focused on male officers abusing their 

authority with female prisoners.70 Historically, few women worked in corrections, but this situation is changing rapidly. As Martin Horn told the 

Commission, “Forty percent of my officers are women. My last three recruit classes, approximately 50 percent of the new officers are women. In 
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 63

the next 3 years, one-third of my workforce is eligible to retire. Three years 

from today more than 50 percent of the officers in New York City will be 

women supervising men. We’re going to have to deal with this issue of 

cross-gender supervision.”71

Some of the women who have joined corrections, like some of the 

men, are willing to cross the line to use their authority in sexually abusive 

ways. “[W]e have to be very careful and very attentive to our female staff 

who work with male inmates as well as our male staff who work with 

females,” Richard Stalder, past president of the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the former Louisiana Corrections Secretary, 

told the Commission.72 

The Commission understands that cross-gender supervision can 

have benefits for incarcerated persons and staff. Many experienced corrections professionals believe, for example, that women officers have a calming effect in male units. The Commission’s standard on this issue is not 

intended to discourage the practice generally or to limit employment opportunities for men 

or women. To prevent abuse, 

however, the standard on this 

subject strictly prohibits nonmedical staff from conducting 

cross-gender strip and visual 

body cavity searches—except 

in the case of emergency—

because of their extraordinarily 

intrusive nature. The standard 

also mandates that corrections administrators restrict nonmedical staff 

from conducting cross-gender pat-down searches and viewing prisoners 

of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions except in emergency situations or under other extraordinary or unforeseen 

circumstances. 

Several courts have recognized that prolonged and direct viewing 

by male staff violates an incarcerated woman’s right to privacy. In Jordan 

v. Gardner, women at the Washington Correction Center for Women, containing minimum- and medium-security units and a special needs center, 

challenged a cross-gender supervision policy based on the claim that it violated their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.73 Prior to January 1989, the facility had a policy that allowed only 

women officers to search women prisoners. On July 5, 1989, a new warden—

citing the need for an increase in the number of searches—ordered corrections officers of either gender to conduct searches. The court noted that 

the warden adopted this policy despite the fact that more than 85 percent 

of women in the facility had reported a history of past sexual abuse and 

“Give me a shakedown,” an officer commanded Bunton. 

According to what she wrote in her prison journal, she lifted 

her arms, and the officer “rubbed his hands down her neck, 

across her back and around to her chest. He caressed her 

breasts. He rubbed her stomach. He squeezed her buttocks, 

rubbing up and down her thighs. His hand brushed against her 

pelvic bone, as he pulled himself closer to her. Another officer 

watched. ‘That’s the way you do it,’ the second officer said.”
64 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

that facility staff warned the warden about the psychological impact crossgender searches would have on these women. In light of these facts, the 

court found that the policy violated the Eighth Amendment because the 

warden was deliberately indifferent to the pain it would cause so many 

women in the facility. 

In Colman v. Vasquez, the plaintiff had a documented history of 

sexual abuse and was placed in a Federal prison program for survivors of 

sexual abuse.74 Despite her history, male officers forced her to endure multiple pat-down searches that sometimes included inappropriate touching 

and unwarranted sexual advances. The court found that the circumstances could violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and its more general guarantee of a right to some measure 

of bodily privacy.75 States also may be liable for sexual abuse if facilities 

have a policy and practice of permitting male staff to view and supervise incarcerated women, especially in isolated or remote settings, without

female staff present.76

Some courts have found that incarcerated men hold a right to privacy that protects them from certain conduct as well. In Wilson v. City of 

Kalamazoo, corrections staff forced newly booked men to strip and placed 

them in cells naked, without any covering.77 Each man was monitored by 

video surveillance, at times by female corrections officers. In finding that 

these men had some right to privacy, the court noted that the “plaintiffs 

were denied any and all means of shielding their private body parts from 

viewing by others, at least by video surveillance, for at least six, and as 

many as 18, hours.”78 These decisions and others echo the Supreme Court’s 

declaration in Turner v. Safley that “prison walls do not form a barrier 

separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.”79 

Bargaining with the Unions

Both labor and management have a stake in reducing sexual 

abuse in correctional facilities. Collective bargaining agreements 

should feature an explicit commitment from unions and their 

members as well as management to support a zero-tolerance 

approach to sexual abuse. Without such a commitment, there is little common ground upon which to build when negotiating about policies, procedures, and training.

Cooperation between unions and management in many areas is 

essential if the Commission’s standards are to be real and meaningful in 

practice. Management also should involve union representatives when a 

facility assesses and considers implementing new technologies, partly because staff members are more likely to embrace new technologies when 
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 65

unions understand them and can articulate their benefits. For example, 

staff may be initially apprehensive about the introduction of surveillance 

technologies, such as cameras. Union representatives can explain that 

these technologies help protect staff from false allegations of sexual misconduct and make the work environment safer. 

A particularly thorny issue in management–union relations, and 

one with significant repercussions in the area of sexual abuse, concerns 

management’s authority to reassign or sanction staff. For example, in 

some States when a staff member bids on and wins a job, it becomes his 

or hers to keep. In this situation, union rules may prevent facility management from moving the staff member to another assignment against his or 

her will.80

The case of Riley v. Olk-Long illustrates how such bidding systems can 

make it difficult to ensure safety and hold abusers accountable.81 In January 

1995, two women at the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women reported 

that a male officer had sexually assaulted them. The facility conducted an 

investigation. Although it was deemed inconclusive, the officer received

a 10-day suspension for threatening “‘to get the snitch’” who reported 

his behavior.82 In June 1995, a 

report circulated that the same 

officer had picked up a paroled 

prisoner at a bus stop en route 

to her work release program. 

He allegedly took her home, 

had sex with her, and later drove her to her destination. His supervisor 

investigated the report but could not substantiate it because the former 

prisoner did not report the incident to her residential correctional facility 

or her parole officer. In October 1995, the officer accosted Pamela Riley. 

He asked if she was having sex with her roommate and if he could watch. 

Approximately 10 days later, he entered her room during a lockdown and 

attempted to reach under her nightshirt but left when she resisted. On 

another occasion, he rubbed against her from behind while grabbing her 

breasts. Riley was afraid to report the harassment and abuse for fear she 

would not be believed and would be disciplined. The officer remained in 

his post until someone actually witnessed him sexually abuse Riley when 

he went into her room during a routine head count of prisoners in November 1995. At that point, nearly a year after the initial reports, the officer 

was terminated. He was charged and pled guilty to sexual misconduct. 

In responding to a civil suit against the facility, prison officials contended that the collective bargaining agreement with the union precluded 

them from either permanently assigning the officer to an area where he 

did not have direct contact with prisoners or assigning another employee 

to shadow him. They also argued that under the agreement, they believed 

“ [T]he union was never against the principle of PREA,” but 

it was “concerned about the process. . . . Working with the 

union is important to success in implementing PREA.”
66 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

that they had insufficient cause to fire him. The court did not agree, however. The warden and the director of security were held personally liable 

and were required to pay monetary damages. An appellate court later upheld this decision, maintaining that the collective bargaining agreement 

did not change the fact that the facility was “responsible for providing a 

safe environment for inmates” and had failed to do so.83 

Given challenges like these, it is crucial that labor and management 

reach agreements that allow reassignment of officers when safety is at issue. Wisconsin’s Department of Corrections brought in union leadership 

in the beginning of its PREA initiative and engaged in early collaboration 

on policy and practice regarding sexual abuse.84 Rick Raemisch, the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, said that “the union 

was never against the principle of PREA,” but it was “concerned about the 

process. . . . Working with the union is important to success in implementing PREA.”85

Administrators can also devise creative interim solutions to protect incarcerated persons, such as paid administrative leave and surprise 

observations by supervisors.86 Technological monitoring may also be

useful to deter or document abuse while an investigation is ongoing.

Collective bargaining agreements also should support disciplinary

sanctions for perpetrators of sexual abuse. Such agreements protect both the 

facility and the union. Wayne 

Meyers, a staff representative 

for the American Federation

of State, County, and Municipal 

Employees, told the Commission,

“[A]s a union rep, we give them 

due process, but they’re a safety 

and security issue to us. And if they are found guilty and did commit this, 

we’re not interested in having them work with us either.”87

Corrections staff may have appeal rights if they are terminated from 

their job. A National Academy of Public Administrators panel, formed at 

the Commission’s request, found that unions have often negotiated to ensure a grievance procedure that offers resolution by arbitration, which may 

run counter to zero-tolerance responses to sexual abuse.88 According to 

Joseph Gunn, former Executive Director of the California Corrections Independent Review Panel, the appeals process in California is flawed in just 

that way. A staff member who has been disciplined may appeal to a State 

Personnel Board and, “[i]n the majority of cases that are appealed to this 

board, they overturn management’s recommendations for discipline, and 

all that does is weaken management’s authority and also enhance the code 

of silence.”89 The Pennsylvania State Police’s disciplinary process, which 

also applies to the Department of Corrections, provides a better model. 

“When we as leaders can connect your standards to the 

approaches that we are taking to foster the changes we 

seek, then the values of PREA will take root in our agencies. 

They will outlast the Commission and they will outlast us.”
C H A P T E R 2 : L E A D E R S H I P M AT T E R S 67

Serious acts of misconduct mandate dismissal, and management’s decision is final when a serious infraction has occurred. 

With strong leadership and clear policies, corrections administrators can foster a culture within every facility that promotes safety. The 

Commission intends for its standards to support these efforts. As veteran 

professional and director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 

A.T. Wall said, “When we as leaders can connect your standards to the approaches that we are taking to foster the changes we seek, then the values 

of PREA will take root in our agencies. They will outlast the Commission 

and they will outlast us.”90
Certain individuals are more at risk of 

sexual abuse than others. Corrections 

administrators must routinely do more 

to identify those who are vulnerable 

and protect them in ways that do not 

leave them isolated and without access 

to rehabilitative programming. 
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 69

“[W]e have many, many special needs populations in our jails 

and prisons. . . . [T]hey’re going to need a different kind of 

attention than someone who is not fragile.”

J

ust weeks after entering Clemens Unit, a State prison in Brazoria 

County, Texas, Rodney Hulin began pleading with prison officials to 

protect him from other prisoners who were repeatedly beating and 

raping him and forcing him to perform oral sex. “I’m afraid to go to 

sleep, to shower or just about anything else. I am afraid that when I am 

doing these things, I might die at any time. Please, sir, help me.”1

Rodney was 16 years old when he entered Clemens Unit in 1995 and 

small even for his age, weighing about 125 pounds and standing just 5’2”

tall. He had been convicted of second-degree arson with property damage 

totaling less than $500 as a result of setting a neighborhood dumpster on 

fire, and he had been sentenced to 8 years in adult prison.2

 Rodney’s mother, 

Linda Bruntmyer, told the Commission the whole family was 

afraid that Rodney would be 

“targeted by older and tougher 

inmates.”3

 Indeed, the first rape 

occurred almost immediately 

and was confirmed by a medical examination that revealed tears in Rodney’s rectum. Despite Rodney’s pleas to be moved out of the general population, after receiving medical treatment he was returned to the same unit 

where he had been raped. Rodney continued to write urgent requests for a 

transfer; these requests were also denied. According to Bruntmyer, prison 

staff told her son that he did not meet “emergency criteria” and that he 

needed to “grow up.”4

 Desperate, Rodney started breaking rules so that 

staff would place him temporarily in the prison’s disciplinary segregation 

unit, where his attackers could not reach him.5

 Officials eventually moved 

Rodney to a segregated unit, but the transfer came too late. After only 75 

days in the facility, Rodney committed suicide by hanging himself in his 

prison cell.6

Courts have clearly established that correctional facilities have 

a duty to protect incarcerated persons from harm and cannot display 

“deliberate indifference.”7

 Rodney’s tragic experience at Clemens Unit raises 

some hard questions: Why didn’t Rodney’s age, his obvious physical 

3

Unequal Risk: 

Vulnerability and Victimization 
70 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

vulnerability, and his palpable fear trigger a response that protected him 

from repeated rapes when he entered Clemens? How can corrections 

officials protect the Rodney Hulins under their care? As the past president 

of the Association of State Correctional Administrators and the former 

Louisiana Corrections Secretary Richard Stalder told the Commission, 

“[W]e have many, many special needs populations in our jails and prisons. . . . 

[T]hey’re going to need a different kind of attention than someone who is 

not fragile.”8

A limited amount of research points to factors that increase the risk 

of sexual abuse in confinement.9

 Most of this research has focused on the 

risks of being abused by other prisoners rather than by staff and on vulnerability factors for men and boys rather than women and girls. This chapter 

discusses those factors and also explores what corrections administrators 

can do to identify and protect vulnerable individuals.

Young, Small, and Naive 

Y

ou can’t show any fear, they pick up on that. You gotta show 

strength. . . . Never look down, like you’re afraid to look ‘em in 

the eye. . . . You gotta be a man all the time, and a man according to the standards in here.”10 As the comment above suggests, 

abusive prisoners notice and take advantage of any sign of fear, loneliness, 

or uncertainty. Younger, smaller individuals and those who are unfamiliar with prison culture—both male and female—are more vulnerable to 

abuse, partly because they feel overwhelmed and appear ill at ease.11 Initial offers of friendship or protection may suddenly become manipulative 

or morph into demands for “payback.”12

Chance Martin was 18 years old and still in high school when he 

was arrested for possession of hashish and detained in a county jail in Indiana in 1973. He told the Commission, “I must have looked as scared and 

dejected as I felt, because this guy came up and sat on the bunk next to 

me and said, ‘Let’s cheer you up 

and play some cards.’ I couldn’t 

even figure out what they were 

playing. . . but then they said, 

‘Okay. You lost. Pay up.’”13 Payment turned out to be a brutal 

gang rape by at least six men. 

Martin never reported the rape that happened on his first day in jail, but 

he told the Commission that he carries the scars of that experience with 

him every day. 

Corrections officers also may target inexperienced or naive prisoners. Interviews with women residing in California prisons have indicated 

“You can’t show any fear, they pick up on that. You gotta 

show strength. . . . Never look down, like you’re afraid to 

 look ‘em in the eye. . . . You gotta be a man all the time, 

and a man according to the standards in here.”
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 71

that some male corrections officers seek out “younger female prisoners 

who are new to the prison system or unfamiliar with the prison environment” and those serving short sentences who “want to go home” and, 

therefore, are less likely to file complaints.14 In another case, for example, 

the court found that female staff members at an alternative juvenile facility for those with learning disabilities and mental illness had sexually 

targeted younger male residents.15

“Turned Out” or Traumatized 

T

.J. Parsell was raped for the first time in 1978 when he entered 

Riverside Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan. His experience 

illustrates how being known as a victim literally attracts predators. “I hoped no one would find out about it, but as I walked 

the yard in a daze, other inmates pointed and laughed,” he told the Commission.16 “Once an inmate has been turned out, he’s considered a target 

wherever he goes.” According to Robert Dumond, a researcher and clinician with expertise in prison sexual abuse, the culture inside men’s correctional facilities makes it extremely difficult for prisoners to change such 

perceptions, even over time.17 Unless facility managers and administrators 

take decisive steps to protect these individuals, they may end up being 

abused throughout their terms of incarceration. 

Even if survivors are not branded as easy targets, the emotional 

scars of being previously sexually abused—either inside the facility or previously in the community—can create a vulnerability to future abuse. Sexual abuse prior to incarceration appears to be much more common among 

incarcerated women than men. Studies found that from 31 to 59 percent of 

incarcerated women reported being sexually abused as children, and 23 to 

53 percent reported experiencing sexual abuse as adults.18 The Bureau of 

Justice Statistics also found that incarcerated mentally ill prisoners were 

more than twice as likely to have a history of prior sexual abuse as the general incarcerated population.19 Past victimization may contribute to feelings 

of helplessness in the face of danger and inhibit victims’ ability to seek protection.20 Effects of these prior experiences, coupled with social messages 

that threats and acts of victimization are inescapable parts of life, put them 

at increased risk of further exploitation.21

Peddle v. Sawyer documents how a male corrections officer in a Federal women’s prison in Danbury, Connecticut, sexually assaulted a prisoner, Sharon Peddle, whose case file described a history of sexual abuse 

and vulnerability to being manipulated by men she viewed as authority 

figures.22 The officer, who had been investigated several times for sexually abusing other prisoners, read Peddle’s case file without authorization. 

He then sexually assaulted her regularly throughout 1995 and 1996 and 
72 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

threatened to have her transferred to another facility, away from her family members, if she told anyone or refused to submit to him. Other officers 

were aware of the abuse, and some even helped to facilitate it. A fellow 

officer in the housing unit would call Peddle out of her cell and leave her 

with the abusive officer in an area where they would not be observed. 

Even after she was reassigned to a special mental health unit for victims 

of chronic abuse, the officer followed her. He arranged to be reassigned to 

the unit and “regularly woke Ms. Peddle and took her to the TV room or 

stairwell where he compelled her to submit to oral and vaginal sex.”23 After 

more than a year of raping Peddle, the officer was arrested and pled guilty 

to six counts of sexual abuse. 

Disabled and At Risk

Unlike being young or inexperienced, some risk factors may be 

longer-lasting. Physical and developmental disabilities and mental illnesses can significantly affect an individual’s ability to 

function and remain safe in a correctional facility. Individuals 

with severe developmental disabilities are at especially high risk of being 

sexually abused. Their naivety, tendency to misinterpret social cues, and 

desire to fit in make many developmentally disabled individuals vulnerable to manipulation and control by others.24 If they’ve previously lived in 

group homes or other institutions, they may have been conditioned to follow directions from others without regard to their best interests or safety 

and may have a history of mistreatment and abuse by the time they enter 

a correctional facility.25

Past traumatic experiences condition some developmentally disabled men and women to expect abuse and view submission as a requirement for survival. Prisoners in Kuskokwim Correctional Center in Bethel, 

Alaska, brutally assaulted a developmentally disabled inmate in his 40s 

and a much younger man. According to Sean Brown, the attorney who represented the men and who prevailed in a civil lawsuit against the department of corrections, “One of the [victims] had his eyebrows ripped off, was 

kicked and hit, and was sexually assaulted with a toilet plunger”—abuses 

that occurred not over the course of minutes or hours, but over 3 days.26

For men, women, and juveniles coping with serious mental illness, 

both the disease itself and the treatment can render them extremely vulnerable.27 Symptoms ranging 

from hallucinations and paranoia to anxiety and depression 

may make it difficult to build 

the kind of supportive social 

networks that could protect 

“One of the [victims] had his eyebrows ripped off, 

was kicked and hit, and was sexually assaulted with 

a toilet plunger”—abuses that occurred not over 

the course of minutes or hours, but over 3 days.
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 73

prisoners from sexual abuse.28 Psychotropic medications often have side 

effects, such as sleepiness, slowed reactions, uncontrolled movements, 

and withdrawal, that increase a person’s vulnerability as well.29 Moreover, 

medications are often dispensed in open areas of the facility during peak 

traffic periods, such as around meal times, effectively “outing” people with 

a mental illness. 

Dumond told the Commission that “[j]ails and prisons in the United 

States have become the de facto psychiatric facilities of the 21st century,” 

housing more mentally ill individuals than public and private psychological facilities combined.30 The data back up this assertion: a survey of prisoners in 2006 suggests that more than half of all individuals incarcerated 

in State prisons suffer from some form of mental health problem and that 

the rate in local jails is even higher.31

Gender Rules

Research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities consistently 

documents the vulnerability of men and women with nonheterosexual orientations (gay, lesbian, or bisexual) as well as 

individuals whose sex at birth and current gender identity do 

not correspond (transgender or intersex).32 Scott Long, Director of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights 

Watch, told the Commission, “[E]very day, the lives and the physical 

integrity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are at stake 

within our prison systems.”33 The discrimination, hostility, and violence 

members of these groups often face in American society are amplified in 

correctional environments and may be expressed by staff as well as other 

incarcerated persons.34

Men’s correctional facilities tend to have very rigid cultures that reward extreme masculinity and aggression and perpetuate negative stereotypes about men who act or appear different.35 In this environment, gay, 

bisexual, and gender-nonconforming individuals are often the targets of 

sexual abuse precisely because the dominant “straight” males expect and 

demand submission.36 Criminal justice research indicates that some officials “erroneously assume that inmates who are homosexual or presumed 

to be homosexual are consenting to the sexual act,” which may cause them 

to ignore those incidents.37

Male-to-female transgender individuals are at special risk. Dean 

Spade, founder of the Sylvia Rivera Law Project, testified before the Commission that one of his transgender clients was deliberately placed in a 

cell with a convicted sex offender to be raped.38 The assaults continued 

for more than 24 hours, and her injuries were so severe that she had to be 

hospitalized. Legal cases confirm the targeting of transgender individuals. 
74 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

In 2008, a male officer at the Correctional Treatment Facility in the District 

of Columbia was convicted of sexually assaulting a transgender individual 

in the restroom by forcing her to perform fellatio on him.39

Like the individual just discussed, most male-to-female transgender 

individuals who are incarcerated are placed in men’s prisons, even if they 

have undergone surgery or hormone therapies to develop overtly feminine 

traits.40 Their obvious gender nonconformity puts them at extremely high 

risk for abuse.41 Cecilia Chung, 

a transgender woman, testified 

before the Commission about 

her experience of being placed 

in the “gay pod” at the San 

Francisco jail in 1993. “Unfortunately, the gay pod contained all kinds of inmates, and that includes sexual 

predators. . . . One of the inmates sexually propositioned me, and it caught 

me off guard. I was too intimidated to deny him. I did not know what would 

happen to me if I said no. . . . I had sex out of fear.”42 In determining whether 

to house transgender individuals in men’s or women’s facilities, the Commission requires individualized determinations based on other factors in 

addition to the person’s current genital status. 

Lesbian and bisexual women also are targeted in women’s correctional settings. One study reported that a quarter of the women sexually 

abused in several Midwestern correctional facilities were either lesbian or 

bisexual—a higher proportion than their representation in the correctional 

population.43 The majority of the abuse of lesbian women was perpetuated 

by male corrections officers. One woman from an Illinois prison told Human Rights Watch that some male corrections officers regarded her sexual 

orientation as a challenge and recalled one officer saying, “You need a 

good man,” before he sexually assaulted her.44

Screening and Classification of Prisoners

When Glen Goord, former Commissioner of the New York 

State Department of Correctional Services, testified before the Commission, he talked about classification as 

an integral part of prevention. “[P]lacing resources and 

emphasis on classification allows us to address a potential problem even 

before it starts.”45

In the most basic terms, classification is the process of assessing 

and sorting prisoners to promote safety and security within facilities and 

meet the needs of individual prisoners. Over the decades, classification 

has evolved from little more than ad hoc decisions to an increasingly 

objective, evidence-based process—the “principal management tool for 

“[E]very day, the lives and the physical integrity of lesbian, 

gay, bisexual, and transgender people are at stake 

within our prison systems.”
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 75

allocating scarce prison resources efficiently and minimizing the potential for violence. . . .”46

Classification needs to be objective and free of individual biases. 

According to James Austin, the former Executive Vice President of the 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, “Without an objective classification system, it is impossible to determine which inmates should be 

separated from one another, how staff should be deployed, how best to 

control crowding, how to avoid unnecessary litigation, and how to plan 

the next generation of correctional facilities. Without classification, a correctional facility can never be truly secure.”47

There are two forms of classification: external and internal. External classification determines which security level and facility within the 

system is most appropriate, based on the person’s crime or the charges 

against them; their criminal history and any escape attempts; and other 

significant factors, including age and gang affiliation.48 Internal classification occurs when someone enters a facility and focuses primarily on 

how that person should be housed and the programming and resources required based on his or her past conduct, vulnerabilities, and special needs, 

such as mental or physical health care.49 Some facilities, particularly jails 

and jurisdictions with limited security levels or capacity, conduct these 

screenings concurrently; the availability of bed space often significantly 

affects screening decisions. 

Whatever the process, careful screening for risk of sexual abuse 

as a victim or perpetrator must occur during both external and internal 

classifications to protect vulnerable prisoners.50 Without this process, vulnerable individuals may be forced to live in close proximity or even in the 

same cell with sexual assailants. Screening is a critical part of the classification process when trying to prevent sexual abuse by other incarcerated individuals. Unfortunately, there is not yet research on how to screen 

individuals to protect them from abuse by staff. 

Because many characteristics that make individuals susceptible to 

abuse may not be immediately apparent, careful screening is important to 

identify special needs and vulnerabilities.51 In the past, screening focused 

primarily on spotting predatory prisoners, based primarily on their past 

offenses.52 However, there is almost no research on risk factors for perpetration of sexual abuse while incarcerated, thus making it challenging to 

identify potential abusers.53 Fairly consistent evidence, however, identifies 

characteristics that increase a prisoner’s risk of sexual victimization. Evidence-based, objective screening instruments designed to identify these 

risk factors are vital tools to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse by 

other prisoners.54 Use of information gained from effective screening enables corrections staff to plan for safety and needed resources. Standardizing the process also reduces the chance that a staff member’s personal 

views or lack of expertise will bias assessments. 

Screening for risk 

of victimization and 

abusiveness

All inmates are screened during intake, during the initial 

classification process, and at 

all subsequent classification 

reviews to assess their risk of 

being sexually abused by other 

inmates or sexually abusive 

toward other inmates. Employees must conduct this screening using a written screening 

instrument tailored to the gender of the population being 

screened. Although additional 

factors may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and the agency’s 

own data analysis, screening 

instruments must contain the 

criteria described below. All 

screening instruments must 

be made available to the public 

upon request.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen male 

inmates for risk of victimization: 

mental or physical disability, young 

age, slight build, first incarceration 

in prison or jail, nonviolent history, 

prior convictions for sex offenses 

against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender 

nonconformance (e.g., transgender 

or intersex identity), prior sexual 

victimization, and the inmate’s own 

perception of vulnerability.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen male 

inmates for risk of being sexually 

abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse 

and prior convictions for violent offenses.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen female 

inmates for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization 

and the inmate’s own perception 

of vulnerability.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen female 

inmates for risk of being sexually 

abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse.
76 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Medical and mental health 

screenings—history of 

sexual abuse

Qualified medical or mental 

health practitioners ask inmates about prior sexual victimization and abusiveness during 

medical and mental health reception and intake screenings. 

If an inmate discloses prior 

sexual victimization or abusiveness, whether it occurred in an 

institutional setting or in the 

community, during a medical 

or mental health reception or 

intake screening, the practitioner provides the appropriate 

referral for treatment, based 

on his or her professional judgment. Any information related to 

sexual victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional setting must be strictly 

limited to medical and mental 

health practitioners and other 

staff, as required by agency 

policy and Federal, State, or 

local law, to inform treatment 

plans and security and management decisions, including housing, bed, work, education, and 

program assignments. Medical 

and mental health practitioners 

must obtain informed consent 

from inmates before reporting 

information about prior sexual 

victimization that did not occur 

in an institutional setting, unless the inmate is under the 

age of 18.

Facilities are required to use a written instrument to guide the 

screening process. The first of the Commission’s standards on the subject specifies areas of inquiry that every instrument must cover when 

screening men and, separately, women. As National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Director Morris Thigpen testified, to be effective, screening 

“systems need to be responsive to gender differences.”55 The screening 

process also must solicit incarcerated persons’ views about their own vulnerability. A NIC study supports this aspect of the standard, finding their 

perspectives to be essential.56 In addition to looking for markers of vulnerability, the standard requires screening for signs that a prisoner may 

abuse others. Although there is much less research on perpetration than 

victimization, facilities must at least screen men for prior acts of sexual 

abuse and convictions for violent offenses and women for prior acts of 

sexual abuse.

Some correctional agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, now 

use written instruments to screen all incoming prisoners specifically for 

risk of sexual assault. Evidence-based screening should become routine 

nationwide, replacing the subjective assessments that many facilities still 

rely on and filling a vacuum for facilities that do not conduct targeted risk 

assessments.57 The Commission intends for its standards in this area to 

accelerate progress toward this goal by setting baseline requirements for 

when and how to screen prisoners for risk of being a victim or perpetrator 

of sexual assault and how to use the results of these screenings. 

Correctional health care practitioners have an important role to 

play in the screening process as well. Most correctional facilities conduct brief medical and mental health assessments during intake and more 

comprehensive evaluations a week or two later.58 According to the Commission’s standard on this aspect of screening, staff must inquire about 

any past experience as a victim or perpetrator of sexual abuse. Staff also 

must clearly inform prisoners that they are not required to answer such 

questions and should explain that any information they do provide will be 

given to other staff on a need-to-know basis as governed by law or agency 

policy. If a prisoner discloses information about sexual victimization that 

occurred in the community, the standard requires correctional health 

practitioners to obtain informed consent from the prisoner—unless the 

person is under the age of 18—

before sharing any information 

about that victimization with 

facility staff responsible for 

making housing, program, education, and work placements. 

The standards also require that 

all screeners receive training in 

Over the decades, classification has evolved from little 

more than ad hoc decisions to an increasingly objective, 

evidence-based process—the “principal management tool 

for allocating scarce prison resources efficiently and 

minimizing the potential for violence. . . .”
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 77

how to inquire about sensitive personal information, ranging from disabilities to sexual orientation.59

Screening an individual only at intake is not sufficient. Even the 

most skilled interviewers may fail to elicit complete answers during the 

initial screening. Additionally, some risk factors, such as mental illness; 

fear of being assaulted; and a propensity to manipulate, control, or abuse 

others, may develop or become apparent only after a person has spent 

some time confined in a facility.60 For these reasons, the Commission mandates regular review of sexual abuse risk assessments: recommending reviews within 6 months of the initial screening and every year thereafter 

in prisons, and within 60 days of the initial screening and every 90 days 

thereafter in jails. 

The research underlying risk assessment continues to evolve even 

as this report goes to press, and requirements outlined in the standards 

are only a starting point. The Commission urges corrections administrators to craft and refine their screening instruments to reflect the latest research. Tailoring screening instruments to reflect the demographic 

and site-specific culture of the facilities these administrators operate as 

well as what they learn about the characteristics of victims and perpetrators through regular review of their own incident data will enhance the 

instruments’ effectiveness. NIC advises correctional agencies to review 

their screening protocols and classification systems annually and conduct 

a formal evaluation every 3 years.61

Use of screening information

Employees use information from 

the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments 

with the goal of keeping separate 

those inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from those 

at high risk of being sexually 

abusive. The facility makes individualized determinations about 

how to ensure the safety of each 

inmate. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, or other gendernonconforming inmates are not 

placed in particular facilities, 

units, or wings solely on the 

basis of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender 

identity. Inmates at high risk 

for sexual victimization may be 

placed in segregated housing 

only as a last resort and then 

only until an alternative means 

of separation from likely abusers 

can be arranged. To the extent 

possible, risk of sexual victimization should not limit access to 

programs, education, and work 

opportunities. Using Screening to Enhance Safety

T

o be effective, the results of these screenings must then drive decisions about housing and programming. When Kenneth Young was 

sentenced to 5 years in prison for a counterfeit deal amounting to 

$42 in 1988, he described himself as “small, young, white, and 

effeminate.”62 After a few months in a lower-security facility, Young was 

placed in a two-person cell in a high-security Federal prison in Lewisburg, 

Pennsylvania, among prisoners convicted of serious crimes. Young’s first 

cellmate continuously threatened him with sexual abuse. After repeated requests, Young was moved, only to face immediate assaults and threats from 

his new cellmate. This new cellmate eventually attached a razor blade to a 

toothbrush and, holding it to Young’s throat, forced him to perform a sexual 

act. Young wrote letters to prison officials detailing this attack and others to 

no avail. Finally, he became so desperate for help that he flooded his cell to 

attract officers’ attention. As punishment, Young was placed in a “dry cell” 

with no access to running water, a toilet, or a shower for 96 hours. 

In ruling in Young’s favor in Young v. Quinlan, the court stated, 

“It would be an abomination of the Constitution to force a prisoner to live 
78 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

in his own excrement for four days. . .” and noted that prison officials 

subjected Young to “dehumanizing conditions” while ignoring his urgent 

pleas for help.63

Courts have commented specifically on the obligation of correctional agencies to gather and use screening information to protect prisoners 

from abuse. While awaiting trial in a State prison in Puerto Rico in 1999, 

Jesús Manuel Calderón-Ortiz was detained in a housing unit with violent 

prisoners.64 The lone officer on duty, stationed in an enclosed control area 

at the entrance of the unit, could not see into the cells, and made no patrols 

that day. No one intervened when four prisoners from Calderón-Ortiz’s unit 

entered his cell, threw a blanket over his face, and threatened to kill him. 

They then gang-raped him for more than half an hour, leaving him unable 

to move because of his injuries. 

In deciding in his favor, the First Circuit concurred with allegations 

that “‘housing inmates without adequate regard to their custody and security needs and/or adequate classification is “unreasonably dangerous”. . .’” 

and stated that “‘at a constitutional minimum [correctional facilities] must 

adopt some system of classifying and housing prisoners to assure [sic] 

that a prisoner’s propensity for 

violence as well as an inmate’s 

emotional and physical health 

be accounted for so as to minimize the risk of harm from 

fellow inmates to which the 

prisoners are now exposed.’”65

Protection Not Segregation

T

he Commission’s second standard on screening requires correctional agencies and facilities to use the information gathered to 

separate vulnerable individuals from likely abusers in housing, 

employment, education, and other programming. 

When Alexis Giraldo was sentenced to serve time in the California 

correctional system, her male-to-female transgender identity and appearance 

as a woman triggered a recommendation to place her in a facility with higher 

concentrations of transgender prisoners, where she might be safer.66 Officials 

ignored this recommendation and sent her to Folsom Prison in 2006. 

At Folsom, a male prisoner employed as a lieutenant’s clerk requested Giraldo as his cellmate; the facility granted this request. He then 

“‘sexually harassed, assaulted, raped, and threatened’ [her] on a daily basis.”67 Soon thereafter, the cellmate introduced Giraldo to another prisoner, 

who subsequently requested Giraldo as his cellmate. That request was also 

granted. Giraldo’s new cellmate also raped and beat her daily. It was only 

No one intervened when four prisoners from 

Calderón-Ortiz’ unit entered his cell, threw a 

blanket over his face, and threatened to kill him. 

They then gang-raped him for more than half an hour, 

leaving him unable to move because of his injuries.
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 79

after her cellmate attacked her with a box cutter and raped her that officials moved Giraldo to a more protected environment. In ruling on this 

case, an appellate court in California found that “the relationship between 

them is protective by nature, such that the jailer has control over the prisoner, who is deprived of the normal opportunity to protect himself from 

harm inflicted by others. This. . . is the epitome of a special relationship, 

imposing a duty of care on a jailer owed to a prisoner.”68

Even when corrections administrators intend to fulfill their “duty 

of care,” they sometimes intervene too late. Kendell Spruce said he was 

“scared to death” when he entered an Arkansas State prison in 1991 at the 

age of 28.69 Within 2 weeks, he was raped at knifepoint. Afterward, officials placed him in protective custody, but he was not safe there either. The 

unit also housed known sexual offenders, who often become the targets 

of abuse in prison. “I was put in a [double] cell with a rapist who had fullblown AIDS. Within 2 days he forced me to give. . . him oral sex and anally 

raped me. I yelled for guards, but it was so loud in there, no one came to 

help me.”70 Spruce began to break prison rules, believing that the punishment—administrative segregation, which involved being locked day and 

night in a cell alone—was the only thing that would save him. 

Kendell Spruce’s experience reveals failures in screening and classification, day-to-day management of bed space, and supervision that are not 

unusual. Corrections staff may rely on segregation units to protect vulnerable 

prisoners from sexual abuse, and some victims experiencing severe assaults 

may seek transfer to segregation to escape their attackers. These placements 

are intended to be temporary but, in practice, can last for months.71

Relying on segregation in any form to protect vulnerable prisoners 

from sexual abuse presents several serious problems. These units typically 

cannot accommodate everyone needing protection.72 Additionally, the living conditions in protective custody may be as restrictive as those imposed 

to punish prisoners. In a typical protective custody unit, individuals are 

placed in maximum-security cells.73 Privileges are greatly reduced, with 

as little as an hour a day outside the cell for exercise, extremely limited 

contact with other prisoners, and reduced or no access to educational or 

recreational programs.74

 Professor Vincent M. Nathan, a consultant to the U.S. Department 

of Justice in several investigations conducted under the authority of the 

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, contends that all types of 

segregation “carry with them a level of control that is punitive in effect 

if not in intent,” and noted that any programming available is likely to be 

presented via closed circuit television.75 Serving time under these conditions is exceptionally difficult and takes a toll on mental health, particularly if the victim has a prior history of mental illness.76 Studies confirm 

that psychological distress increases along with the degree of restrictions 

in segregation.77
80 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

The Commission’s standards allow facilities to segregate victims 

or potential victims of sexual abuse only as a last resort. The standard 

permits facilities to place individuals in protective custody, especially if 

they request it, but only on a short-term basis. When an individual is vulnerable to sexual abuse and feels threatened, providing protective custody 

while other remedies are arranged may be the only way to prevent an attack.78 While aiming to keep these placements short-term, facilities must 

also provide programming, employment, and education to every extent 

possible: the Seventh Circuit has applied the principle of equal protection 

in this area.79 Moreover, research suggests that academic and vocational 

programs are associated with lower recidivism and better employment opportunities after release.80

When prisoners at high risk of victimization cannot be safely 

housed anywhere other than in segregation, the Commission suggests 

that facilities consider a transfer to another facility. The Commission 

discourages the creation of specialized units for vulnerable groups, and 

the standard specifically prohibits housing assignments based solely on 

a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or genital status because 

this practice can lead to labeling that is both demoralizing and dangerous.81 Many corrections administrators agree. San Francisco Sheriff 

Michael Hennessey told the Commission that his city’s jails no longer have 

so-called gay units.82

The Risks of Crowding 

I

n Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, the court described 

Timothy Taylor as “five foot tall, 120 pounds. . . mildly mentally retarded with an IQ of 66, . . . youthful looking features, and [suffering from] a seizure disorder.”83 The court also noted that Taylor had a 

history of suicidal behavior. Despite assessments within the facility that 

Taylor “belonged to a class of prisoners likely to be a target of sexual pressure in prison and that he could easily be in danger if placed in the general 

prison population,” he was transferred to a prison dormitory to save bed 

space for new arrivals.84 Soon after moving into the dormitory in September 1985, another prisoner sexually assaulted Taylor. 

Crowding is both a risk factor—environmental rather than personal—

and a real barrier to carving out safe spaces for vulnerable prisoners. In 

2007, 19 States and the Federal 

system were operating at more 

than 100 percent of their highest capacity.85 An equal number 

of States operated at somewhere 

between 90 and 99 percent of 

As a facility’s population expands, prisoners also 

have fewer or no opportunities to participate in 

education and job training. Idleness and the stress of 

living in crowded conditions lead to conflict.
C H A P T E R 3 : U N E Q U A L R I S K : V U L N E R A B I L I T Y A N D V I C T I M I Z AT I O N 81

capacity. One study found that facilities designed for 1,800 women held 

almost 4,000, and cells designed for four women held eight.86

Forced to accommodate a larger prisoner population than most facilities were designed to house, administrators have taken drastic measures.87 Cells designed for one person now hold two, with double-celling 

now the norm in many facilities, significantly increasing the opportunities for sexual abuse.88 Many corrections administrators make use of any 

unoccupied space as housing.89 Facilities convert day rooms, cafeterias, 

classrooms, storage areas, and basements into makeshift dormitories, with 

intrinsic risk for abuse and supervision challenges.90

Larger prison and jail populations, combined with staff shortages, 

typically mean that officers have more people to supervise, making it harder for officers to prevent abuse.91 An Oregon corrections officer described 

a dorm in his facility with 88 prisoners and only one officer “working 

the floor.”92 As a facility’s population expands, prisoners also have fewer 

or no opportunities to participate in education and job training. Idleness 

and the stress of living in crowded conditions lead to conflict.93 Employment, education, and other programming prepare incarcerated individuals 

to become law-abiding members of communities instead of individuals so 

damaged by abuse they have little hope of success after release.94 Meaningful activities will not end sexual abuse, but they are part of the solution.

It is critical that lawmakers tackle the problem of overcrowding 

head on. As Timothy Taylor’s experience illustrates, vulnerable individuals become even more vulnerable under these conditions. If facilities and 

entire systems are forced to operate beyond capacity and supervision is 

a pale shadow of what it must be, our best efforts to identify vulnerable 

individuals through objective screening and to protect them from sexual 

assault by acting on those assessments will fall far short of the goal PREA 

is designed to reach. 
Few correctional facilities are subject to 

the kind of rigorous internal monitoring 

and external oversight that would reveal 

why abuse occurs and how to prevent it. 

Dramatic reductions in sexual abuse 

depend on both. 
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 83

Both men were allowed to resign quietly; the principal 

subsequently became principal of a charter school in another 

part of Texas. The school’s superintendent was briefly 

suspended but later promoted. The high-ranking TYC director 

who failed to uncover any abuse received no sanctions.

Beginning in fall 2003, the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), the 

agency responsible for the care and custody of all youth committed to Texas juvenile facilities, began receiving reports of sexual 

misconduct at the West Texas State School.1

 Concerned school 

staff reported that the assistant superintendent and the school principal 

called boys out of their dorm rooms during the night to spend time alone 

with them.2

 TYC administrators in Austin did not respond to those reports 

for nearly a year. Finally, in late 2004, a high-ranking TYC director who 

knew one of the suspected administrators was sent to the school to investigate. Despite the fact that the school’s security log showed that boys were 

indeed being called out of their rooms to be with the assistant superintendent after hours and that he had unauthorized access to the student grievance box, the TYC official declared the allegations of sexual abuse to be 

unfounded and urged one of the staff members who had reported abuse to 

be more supportive of the administration.3

A few months later, in February 2005, two boys approached a volunteer math tutor and told him something “icky” was going on.4

 One boy 

confided that the assistant superintendent was sexually abusing 

him and claimed he could name 

five other boys who were similarly victimized. Later that week, 

the tutor witnessed the same man 

escorting students to a conference 

room near his office after hours. 

The tutor immediately informed the state police agency, the Texas Rangers, who conducted a thorough investigation and uncovered long-standing 

sexual abuse by the assistant superintendent and the school principal. 

A subsequent internal investigation by the TYC’s Inspector General confirmed the Rangers’ findings—noting that the assistant superintendent and school principal had taken boys into darkened broom closets 

and out on the grounds in golf carts at night and sexually molested them. 

The internal investigation also alluded to a pervasive culture of secrecy, 

4

Inside and Out: 

Strengthening Oversight
84 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

suppression of reporting, and retaliation.5 Corrections staff had threatened 

victims with lengthened sentences and lack of services after release if they 

reported the abuse; boys who dared to complain were punished. The report 

noted that the superintendent had received multiple reports of wrongdoing by the assistant superintendent but failed to respond properly or report 

the allegations to more senior administrators in Austin. Both men were 

allowed to resign quietly; the principal subsequently became principal of 

a charter school in another part of Texas. The school’s superintendent was 

briefly suspended but later promoted. The high-ranking TYC director who 

failed to uncover any abuse received no sanctions.6

 Until 2007, a story of 

extensive sexual victimization, deliberate indifference, and massive coverup seemed to just fade away in the vast landscape of West Texas.

Indeed, what stands out most in the story up to this point is the 

complete lack of accountability. The only people watching out for the children were the staff, yet when they diligently reported the incidents, their 

reports were ignored. At the time, the systems and mechanisms were not 

in place that would have made it impossible for TYC officials to look the 

other way. This chapter describes such systems and mechanisms: ones 

corrections administrators create and manage internally to monitor themselves, and others that are intentionally beyond their direct control but that 

have significant impact on reducing sexual abuse in correctional facilities. 

Sexual abuse incident 

reviews

The facility treats all instances 

of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a team

of upper management officials, 

with input from line supervisors, 

investigators, and medical/

mental health practitioners. 

The review team evaluates 

each incident of sexual abuse 

to identify any policy, training, 

or other issues related to the 

incident that indicate a need 

to change policy or practice to 

better prevent, detect, and/or 

respond to incidents of sexual 

abuse. The review team also 

considers whether incidents 

were motivated by racial or 

other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial 

or other group dynamics, upper 

management officials immediately notify the agency head 

and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. 

The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse 

investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be 

unfounded. The review team 

prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for 

improvement and submits it to 

the facility head.

Incident Reviews: Micro to Macro 

I

ncidents of sexual abuse are as dangerous to a facility’s overall safety 

as nonsexual assaults. They constitute a breach of security that demands a full inquiry into what factors allowed sexual abuse to occur. 

The Commission’s standards establish two levels of review: at the incident level following any occurrence of abuse and at the facility or agency 

level at regularly planned intervals. 

The most effective prevention efforts are targeted interventions that 

reflect where, when, and under what conditions sexual abuse occurs as well 

as how staff respond. That knowledge can be gained through routine incident reviews following every report of sexual abuse. These reviews reveal patterns, such as vulnerable locations, times of highest risk, and other conditions. 

Although investigations to substantiate allegations and collect the evidence 

necessary to support sanctions or criminal prosecution offer many insights, 

they are not enough. Systematic incident reviews generate information administrators need to make efficient use of limited resources, deploy staff wisely, 

safely manage high-risk areas, and develop more effective policies and procedures.7

 A number of State departments of corrections already conduct some 

type of review of sexual abuse incidents, including departments in Alabama, 

Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah.8
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 85

The Commission’s standard on this subject requires correctional 

facilities to treat every report of sexual abuse as a critical incident to be 

examined by a team of upper management officials, with input from line 

supervisors, investigators, and medical and mental health practitioners. 

The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every 

sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be 

unfounded. By reviewing all facts and circumstances surrounding an incident and the quality of the facility’s response, officials can spot problems 

and take steps to remedy them.

A critical incident review may reveal, for example, dangerous, unmonitored areas of a facility, housing assignments that put vulnerable individuals at risk of sexual abuse, officers who are not complying with 

facility regulations, divisive racial dynamics motivating sexual abuse, or 

slow responses by frontline staff. A review will also reveal what is working 

well: This might include reporting mechanisms, screening for risk of victimization, collection of forensic evidence, or cooperation between investigators and mental health staff. A clear protocol should guide the review so 

that staff conduct each one in the same way. The Commission’s standard 

requires the review team to prepare a report for the facility head that summarizes the review’s findings and recommendations.

As Doug Dretke, former Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told the Commission: “Internal accountability begins with 

knowing what is actually occurring within a prison facility.”9

 The Commission’s standards require correctional agencies to collect uniform data 

on every reported incident of 

sexual abuse from sources that 

must include investigation files 

and incident reviews and to 

aggregate those data at least

annually.10 Agencies must collect information from each facility or program with which 

an agency contracts. At a minimum, facilities must collect the 

data necessary to answer all questions on the most recent version of the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Survey on Sexual Violence. The Commission 

encourages administrators to collect any additional data that would help 

them understand and address the problem of sexual abuse in their systems. 

Aggregate data are especially useful in documenting patterns and 

trends and in measuring performance within facilities and throughout 

entire correctional systems. The Commission urges standardization of 

the questions across jurisdictions so that information can be compared. 

Uniform data collection puts an end to each department (or correctional facility) creating its own reports and analysis with different rules for 

A critical incident review may reveal, for example, 

dangerous, unmonitored areas of a facility, housing 

assignments that put vulnerable individuals at risk of 

sexual abuse, officers who are not complying with facility 

regulations, divisive racial dynamics motivating sexual 

abuse, or slow responses by frontline staff.

Data collection

The agency collects accurate, 

uniform data for every reported 

incident of sexual abuse using 

a standardized instrument and 

set of definitions. The agency 

aggregates the incident-based 

sexual abuse data at least 

annually. The incident-based 

data collected includes, at a 

minimum, the data necessary 

to answer all questions from 

the most recent version of the 

BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. 

Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, 

investigation files, and sexual 

abuse incident reviews. The 

agency also obtains incidentbased and aggregated data 

from every facility with which it 

contracts for the confinement 

of its inmates.
86 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

interpretation; instead, information can be compared across systems 

and over time.11 Former Secretary of the North Carolina Department of

Correction Theodis Beck told the Commission about the benefits of collecting and tracking data statewide: “Data related to inmate-on-inmate assaults 

and inappropriate relationships between staff and inmates are maintained 

electronically in the Department’s offender population unified system. . . . 

The database tracks information regarding perpetrators of sexual violence, 

victims of sexual violence, and inmates involved in inappropriate relationships with employees. Th[ese] data [are] readily accessible for analysis and 

help. . . correctional staff to make appropriate housing assignments and 

provide proper supervision of these inmates.”12

Correctional agencies must report these data to the proper officials 

and make aggregate sexual abuse data available to the public to review at 

least annually through their Web sites or, if an agency does not have a Web 

site, through other means. The objective is transparency that meets the 

public’s right to be accurately informed about the functioning of a crucial 

government institution and that also protects corrections administrators 

and all staff from false impressions or accusations about sexual abuse in 

the facilities they operate.13

Because sexual abuse databases will include names and sensitive 

personal information, security is required to safeguard the privacy of individuals involved in sexual abuse incidents and guarantee the integrity 

of the data. Suggested security restrictions include limiting the number of 

persons who have access to the data and storing the data in an encrypted 

form in a secure location. Before publishing aggregate data or releasing 

them to anyone outside of the agency, all personal identifiers must be removed so that individual prisoners cannot be identified. The Commission’s 

standard requires agencies to retain their sexual abuse data for at least 10 

years unless State law mandates earlier disposal. 

The data that correctional agencies collect, aggregate, and review 

form the basis for taking action to reduce sexual abuse. According to the 

Commission’s standard, each 

facility must formulate corrective action plans based on what 

the data reveal about trends, 

patterns, and persistent problems. Beck put it this way: “We 

can’t make a dent in this problem if we don’t have a full understanding of what is really 

going on inside our facilities. . . . With accurate data in hand, our final step 

is to critically examine our actions and our outcomes.”14 The standards 

also require correctional agencies to prepare annual reports that describe 

problems, the specific action plans a facility will follow to correct them, 

“We can’t make a dent in this problem if we don’t 

have a full understanding of what is really going on 

inside our facilities. . . . With accurate data in hand, 

our final step is to critically examine our actions 

and our outcomes.”

Data storage, publication, 

and destruction

The agency ensures that the 

collected sexual abuse data 

are properly stored, securely 

retained, and protected. The 

agency makes all aggregated 

sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct control and 

those with which it contracts, 

readily available to the public 

at least annually through its 

Web site or, if it does not have 

one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual 

abuse data publicly available, 

the agency removes all personal identifiers from the data. The 

agency maintains sexual abuse 

data for at least 10 years after 

the date of its initial collection 

unless Federal, State, or local 

law allows for the disposal of 

official information in less than 

10 years.
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 87

and action plans for the agency as a whole. The annual report also must 

compare the current year’s data and action plans with those from prior 

years and assess the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. Administrators are required to submit their reports to the appropriate legislative 

body and make them readily available to the public through the agency’s 

Web site or through other means. 

Data review for corrective 

action

The agency reviews, analyzes, 

and uses all sexual abuse data, 

including incident-based and 

aggregated data, to assess and 

improve the effectiveness of its 

sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, 

practices, and training. Using 

these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including 

any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, 

takes corrective action on an 

ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its 

findings and corrective actions 

for each facility as well as the 

agency as a whole. The annual 

report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data 

and corrective actions with 

those from prior years and provides an assessment of the 

agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s 

report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and 

made readily available to the 

public through its Web site or, 

if it does not have one, through 

other means. The agency may 

redact specific material from 

the reports when publication 

would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but it must 

indicate the nature of the material redacted.

Independent Audits 

Routine incident reviews, data collection, and analysis allow administrators to spot and correct problems before they spiral out 

of control and to refine good practices. Yet even the most rigorous internal monitoring cannot replace the value of opening up 

correctional facilities to review by outsiders. In her testimony before the 

Commission, Professor Michele Deitch, a nationally recognized expert in 

oversight of correctional systems, talked about how internal and external 

mechanisms work together to help corrections leaders operate safe and humane facilities, contending, “Effective prison management demands both 

internal accountability measures and external scrutiny. The two go handin-hand, and neither is a replacement for the other.”15

Any time institutions bear responsibility for the control of dependent individuals, it is imperative that there be outside reviews to ensure 

the proper treatment and safety of persons in their care. To meet this imperative, the Commission requires detailed, robust audits by qualified 

independent auditors in all correctional facilities to measure compliance 

with the standards. Independent audits give corrections administrators 

the opportunity to receive objective feedback on their performance from 

skilled reviewers and enhance the public’s understanding of what goes on 

behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails. 

Audits are not a new idea. The American Correctional Association 

(ACA), the leading corrections professional organization in the country, 

has issued professional standards and accredited correctional facilities 

based on audits of compliance with those standards since the 1970s.16 ACA 

accreditation is an extensive, labor-intensive process for both auditors and 

corrections administrators. It involves a review of documents supporting 

the facility’s compliance with the standards and a 3-day in-person audit 

of the facility. ACA then submits the results of its inquiry to a three-tofive-member panel of the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections—

professionals across a range of disciplines with expertise in correctional 

practice. During a hearing, a facility representative has the opportunity to 

discuss issues and address concerns from the panel before it makes a recommendation about accreditation. Correctional facilities pay ACA to audit 

them, and the process is strictly voluntary. 
88 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Although ACA has been a leader in promoting accountability within the corrections profession and publishes a list of all accredited facilities 

on its Web site, ACA audits and their results also are not always available 

to the public. These audits are the property of each jurisdiction to publish 

or not; as a matter of policy, ACA does not release them. Additionally, the 

ACA standards are less comprehensive than the Commission’s standards 

in terms of the causes of sexual abuse and the mechanisms necessary to 

prevent and respond to abuse. 

In its standards, the Commission outlines an audit process that promotes transparency as well as accountability. Specifically, the Commission 

requires independent audits to measure compliance with its standards at 

least every 3 years. The independence of the auditor is crucial. The individual or entity cannot be employed by the correctional agency but may be 

a staff or contract worker hired by the jurisdiction or someone authorized 

by law, regulation, or the judiciary to perform audits. The auditor must be 

prequalified through the U.S. Department of Justice to perform audits competently and without bias. The Commission recommends that the National 

Institute of Corrections design and develop a national training program 

for this purpose. The ability to operate without constraint is crucial. The 

auditor must have unfettered access to all parts of the facility as well as 

all documents, staff, and prisoners. The agency must publish the auditor’s 

report on its Web site, if it has one, or otherwise make it easily available 

to the public.

The comprehensive information generated by independent audits 

and the corresponding corrective action plans—coupled with the rigor and 

transparency of the process—will enhance public confidence in correctional agencies and their willingness and ability to prevent sexual abuse. 

When audits show an agency struggling or failing to prevent sexual abuse, 

outsiders will have the data they need to intervene.

Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that 

all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to 

measure compliance with the 

PREA standards. Audits must 

be conducted at least every 

three years by independent and 

qualified auditors. The public or 

contracted agency allows the 

auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and 

interview staff and inmates, as 

deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive 

audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the 

auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan 

for corrective action (DC-3) are 

published on the appropriate 

agency’s Web site if it has one 

or are otherwise made readily 

available to the public.

Beyond Audits

I

n February 2007, as Texas Youth Commission Director Dwight Harris 

sat before the Texas Senate Finance Committee presenting his agency’s 

fiscal needs, a senator confronted him with the allegations of sexual 

abuse at the West Texas State School. A legislative staffer had been 

tipped off a few months earlier in October 2006.17 Harris tried to assure the 

Committee that “his staff had done everything in their power to address” 

the problem—even claiming that staff had alerted the Texas Rangers—and 

that the investigation was closed.18 Not persuaded, the Texas Legislature 

formed a Joint Select Committee on Operation and Management of the TYC 

to investigate the entire system. 
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 89

The Ranger who conducted the 2005 investigation at the West Texas State School testified before the Committee about what he had seen, 

remembering, “When I interviewed the victims. . . I saw kids with fear 

in their eyes, kids who knew they were trapped in an institution within 

a system that would not respond to their cries for help.”19 After deploying 

investigators throughout the State, the Committee found that youth had 

filed a stunning 750 complaints of sexual misconduct against TYC corrections officers and other TYC staff since 2000. In June 2007,20 the Texas Legislature enacted a series of reforms, including multiple external oversight 

mechanisms for the TYC. The two administrators were ultimately indicted 

on various charges, including sexual assault and improper sexual activity 

with persons in custody.21 Outcomes for the victims in the West Texas State 

School are unknown.

In the end, it took outsiders with authority—the Texas Legislature—

to reveal the sexual abuse of children within the TYC and to hold those responsible for the abuse accountable. But the legislature did not stop there. 

In addition to the Joint Committee, the legislature created a permanent 

ombudsman to oversee the TYC. Will Harrell currently occupies that post 

and believes his role is important even in facilities in which administrators and staff are working diligently to do the right thing. “If you walk by 

a problem every single day, you begin to think that’s just the way that it 

is,” Harrell testified to the Commission.22 “To bring in external fresh eyes 

is usually helpful to a local administrator.” 

Many corrections administrators share Harrell’s views. “It’s a good 

thing when outsiders come in and take a look at the place, and there may 

be something that I can be doing a little bit better,” Joseph Oxley, former 

Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey, told the Commission.23 Across 

the country, there is growing recognition that the watchful eyes of outsiders can help transform institutions that had been “insular, 

opaque places,” in the words of 

Matthew Cate, Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and 

former Inspector General of 

the department.24 The problem of sexual abuse, in particular, “cannot be 

solved without some form of public oversight of our Nation’s prisons and 

jails,” Cate told the Commission.25

For some time now, several States and localities have been developing forms of external oversight that vary widely in scope, function, and 

authority—from ombudsmen like Harrell to Ohio’s eight-member legislative committee, also forged in the wake of allegations of sexual and other 

abuse of juveniles. Other examples of correctional oversight include what 

appears to be a unique grand jury system in Oregon, a board of visitors in 

“When I interviewed the victims. . . I saw kids with 

fear in their eyes, kids who knew they were trapped in 

an institution within a system that would not respond 

to their cries for help.”
90 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Maine, and a Prison Society in Pennsylvania. A board of correction monitors New York City jails, whereas in Los Angeles, the Office of Independent 

Review oversees every investigation of officer misconduct. 

In 2006, many of the Nation’s corrections leaders, along with lawmakers, judges, journalists, advocates, and scholars, participated in a 

conference at which they reached consensus about the value of and need 

for external oversight of America’s prisons and jails.26 Based on that consensus, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a formal resolution 

urging Federal, State, and territorial governments to “establish public 

entities that are independent of any correctional agency to regularly 

monitor and report publicly on the conditions in all prisons, jails, and 

other adult and juvenile correctional and detention facilities operating 

within their jurisdiction.”27

Although the resolution does not impose a particular model of external oversight and acknowledges the value of multiple forms of oversight, its 20 requirements capture the characteristics that experts and 

practitioners generally agree 

are necessary to achieve true 

accountability and transparency.28 Perhaps most important, 

the person or body overseeing 

corrections must operate independently of any public or private entity that 

could exert enough pressure to compromise or corrupt its work. 

Beyond independence, other key characteristics include the authority and capacity to monitor facilities and examine past abuses to prevent 

future problems; a mandate to regularly inspect facilities without necessarily providing advance notice; unfettered and confidential access to prisoners, staff, documents, and other materials; a holistic approach, drawing 

on diverse sources of information; a mandate to publicly report findings 

and require a prompt and public response from the correctional agency; 

and adequate resources and control over its budget.29 The Commission 

believes that when external oversight is strong in these ways, everyone’s 

interests are served, perhaps especially those of corrections administrators 

who depend on educated legislatures and the public to support significant 

reform in the facilities they manage. 

Several oversight entities incorporate at least some of these factors. 

California’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is one of the most complex in terms of formal authority and operational design. As a matter of 

law, the OIG has a “golden key” to California’s State-run prisons and juvenile facilities. OIG staff have the authority to enter any facility at any time 

and speak to any person or review any documentation. The OIG also has 

subpoena powers, authority to arrest and to seek search warrants, and a 

mandate to provide real-time oversight of the department’s own internal 

affairs investigations. In addition, a special ombudsman within the OIG is 

“It’s a good thing when outsiders come in and 

take a look at the place, and there may be 

something that I can be doing a little bit better.”
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 91

specifically tasked to investigate reports of sexual abuse that the department may have mishandled.30 To ensure transparency, the OIG is required 

to post results of its semiannual facility audits and other facility reviews 

on its Web site, along with summaries describing the outcomes of criminal and administrative investigations and the department’s own staff disciplinary processes. Complete institutional separation from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a 6-year appointment for 

the inspector general with removal only for cause, and a budget determined by caseload strengthen the OIG’s independence.31

External oversight by inspectors general, ombudsmen, legislative 

committees, or other bodies would work hand-in-hand with regular audits of the Commission’s standards. The Commission endorses the ABA’s 

resolution on external oversight and urges governments to act quickly to 

create forms of external oversight strong enough to make all correctional 

facilities more transparent, accountable, and, ultimately, safe.

When Protection Requires Court Intervention

Courts cannot replace internal monitoring, audits, and ombudsmen or inspectors general, yet society depends on them when 

other modes of oversight fail or are lacking altogether. According to Margo Schlanger, an expert on prison litigation, court 

orders have had an enormous impact on the Nation’s jails and prisons. 

“In requiring or forbidding specified policies and practices, court orders 

are a major part of the regulatory backdrop against which many types of 

governmental and nongovernmental actors operate.”32 Beyond the reforms 

courts usher in, their scrutiny of abuses elicits attention from the public 

and reaction from lawmakers in a way that almost no other form of oversight can accomplish. 

Corrections officials themselves have told us that they rely in part on 

litigation to command the resources they need to protect prisoners from sexual abuse. In her testimony before a House Judiciary Subcommittee, former 

Warden of San Quentin State Prison and former head of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Jeanne Woodford said, “Any good 

prison administrator should not fear the involvement of the courts. From my 

experience over the last 30 years as a corrections official, I have come to understand the importance of court oversight. The courts have been especially 

crucial during recent years, as California’s prison population has exploded, 

and prison officials have been faced with the daunting task of running outdated and severely overcrowded facilities. . . . All of this court intervention 

has been necessary because of my state’s unwillingness to provide the Department with the resources it requires. These lawsuits have helped the state 

make dramatic improvements to its deeply flawed prison system.”33
92 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Cason v. Seckinger, filed in 1984, was one of the first court cases to 

reveal pervasive sexual abuse and compel system-wide reforms.34 The case 

against the Georgia Department of Corrections grew to include more than 

200 women prisoners, many of whom experienced sexual abuse by staff, 

among other unconstitutional conditions. Clear procedures for reporting and 

investigating complaints of abuse, treatment and counseling for victims, 

and staff training were among the requirements imposed by the magistrate 

judge in this case and accepted by the department.35 Most importantly, corrections staff were specifically prohibited from sexually harassing or abusing women prisoners. 

As discussed, State facilities have a duty to protect those under their 

supervision. The Supreme Court has held that, “When the State takes a 

person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some 

responsibility for his safety and 

general well-being.”36 If prisoners are sexually abused because the correctional facility 

failed to protect them, they have a right to seek justice in court.37 This 

could take the form of financial compensation for past abuses that corrections officials could and should have prevented or “injunctive relief,” 

which requires the facility to put specific protections in place to prevent 

sexual abuse in the future. 

Civil court cases such as Cason v. Seckinger have the potential to 

spark reforms reaching far beyond the individual plaintiffs to protect other 

prisoners. This is true for individual and class-action lawsuits alike. In 

February 2009, for example, a panel of three Federal judges announced 

its preliminary intention to order California to reduce its prison population by as much as a third. The court found that California’s “desperately 

overcrowded” facilities violate prisoners’ rights under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.38 The 

judges issued the decision after a trial in two long-running cases brought 

by prisoners who claimed that medical staff could not provide adequate 

health care in such overcrowded facilities.39

Beginning in the 1960s, successful prisoner litigation secured important improvements in prison conditions and increased protection for 

prisoners’ rights. Concerned about a perceived rise in frivolous lawsuits by 

prisoners, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996 

to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner [law]suits.”40

This occurred despite the fact that the number of lawsuits had remained 

relatively stable between 1993 and 1996, even with a substantial increase 

in the prison population.41

Civil court cases such as Cason v. Seckinger have the 

potential to spark reforms reaching far beyond the 

individual plaintiffs to protect other prisoners.
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 93

Statements by sponsors of the PLRA indicate that the law was never 

intended to erode the constitutional rights of prisoners.42 But the PLRA 

requirements present such serious hurdles that they block access to the 

courts for many victims of sexual abuse. The dire consequences for individual victims are obvious. What is perhaps less apparent is the way the 

law has constrained the ability of courts to play the role that is a part of 

their mandate. 

The PLRA’s provisions apply to all Federal civil suits about prison 

life that incarcerated persons may bring, including claims based on physical abuse, sexual abuse, and use of excessive force.43 Under the PLRA, 

corrections officials can move to have prisoners’ legal claims dismissed 

for failure to properly exhaust “administrative remedies” before filing suit. 

Correctional agencies define those remedies and the grievance process, 

which typically includes filling out specific complaint forms within specific 

time frames and moving through several levels of appeal. Any mistakes, 

such as using an incorrect form, may forever bar an incarcerated individual 

from real access to the courts.44

Jeanne Woodford testified before a House Judiciary Subcommittee 

that “it is absurd to expect prisoners to file grievances. . . without ever

making a mistake.”45 Woodford reminded the subcommittee members that 

“[m]any of these prisoners are mentally ill or barely literate.”46 Woodford 

went on to give examples of circumstances that may derail any prisoner’s 

claim completely, noting that “prisoners may be transferred from one institution to another or paroled before they are able to fulfill each level 

of appeal. Grievances may be 

rejected because the prisoner 

could not clearly articulate his 

complaint, or for a minor problem such as using handwriting 

that is too small.”47

The more convoluted or 

technical the process, the more 

likely prisoners will fail in their efforts to exhaust their administrative 

remedies. Facilities’ deadlines for filing a grievance or an appeal are usually very short; prisoners have at most 3 weeks to begin the grievance process, and in some facilities, the window is only 48 hours.48 In civil lawsuits 

against schools or hospitals, by contrast, the statute of limitations is typically no less than 1 year. 

Garrett Cunningham was raped in the prison laundry by the officer charged with supervising his work. Even before the rape, Cunningham 

was frightened. The officer had made lewd comments, watched him while 

he showered, and touched him inappropriately during searches for contraband.49 When Cunningham reported the abuse to the Assistant Warden of 

the Luther Unit in Navasota, Texas, and to his second in command, they 

Jeanne Woodford testified before a House Judiciary 

Subcommittee that “it is absurd to expect prisoners 

to file grievances. . . without ever making a mistake.”

Woodford reminded the subcommittee members that 

“[m]any of these prisoners are mentally ill or barely literate.”
94 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

said he was exaggerating. Even the prison psychologist offered no real 

help. One day in September 2000, the officer assaulted Cunningham as he 

finished his job in the prison’s laundry, knocking him to the floor. The officer was literally twice his weight and could have easily overpowered him, 

but he handcuffed Cunningham and then violently raped him. Cunningham testified that, “When I screamed from the terrible pain, [the officer] 

told me to shut up. . . . After it was over, I was dazed. He took me to the 

shower in handcuffs, turned on the water and put me under it. I was crying 

under the shower and saw blood running down my legs.”50

Afterward, the officer warned Cunningham that if he reported 

what happened he would have him transferred to a rougher unit where 

prison gang members would rape him repeatedly. He told Cunningham 

that prison officials were his friends and would do nothing. Cunningham 

was too frightened to file a grievance. As he testified before a House Judiciary Subcommittee, “At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . . 

[To begin the process of exhausting the facility’s administrative remedies]

I would have had to file a first prison grievance within 15 days. . . . I had 

no idea, at that point, that I was even required to file a grievance in order 

to bring a lawsuit. Even if I had known, during those first 15 days, my only 

thoughts were about suicide and. . . how to get myself into a safe place. . . 

so I would not be raped again.”52 Instead, he wrote twice to internal affairs 

for help and requested a private interview with an investigator, but they 

never responded. The officer was never prosecuted but was later convicted 

for sexual offenses against another prisoner in the Luther Unit. He never 

served time.

“For me, I have found no justice,” Cunningham told members of the 

Subcommittee.52 “Because I didn’t file a grievance with the friends of [the 

assailant] within 15 days of being raped by him, I was forever barred from 

filing a lawsuit about it in Federal court. My hope is that Congress will 

acknowledge the realities of prison life, which makes ‘exhausting administrative remedies’ under the PLRA impossible at times.”53

At least one court has held that officials cannot “play hide-andseek with administrative remedies” and that a remedy that is “unknown 

and unknowable is unavailable.”54 But simple awareness of the grievance 

procedure from a facility handbook may not be enough. Incarcerated persons experiencing the trauma of sexual abuse, as well as those with vulnerabilities such as mental illness or developmental disadvantages, may 

have extreme difficulty filling out the correct forms and meeting the strict

deadlines. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of what correctional facilities must do to facilitate the reporting of sexual abuse.)

The PLRA also requires plaintiffs to prove physical injury to receive 

compensatory damages.55 A few courts have found that sexual assault 

alone does not constitute a “physical injury” as defined in the PLRA.56 That 

Exhaustion of administrative 

remedies

Under agency policy, an inmate 

has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard 

to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when the agency makes 

a final decision on the merits 

of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was 

made by the inmate, made by 

a third party, or forwarded from 

an outside official or office) or 

(2) when 90 days have passed 

since the report was made, 

whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers 

the 90-day exhaustion period 

regardless of the length of time 

that has passed between the 

abuse and the report. An inmate seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual 

abuse will be deemed to have 

exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff 

member of his or her need for 

protection.
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 95

requirement and these court rulings fail to take into account the very real 

emotional and psychological injuries that often follow sexual assault, ranging from temporary fear and emotional numbness to nightmares and major depressive episodes that can 

occur months or years after an 

assault. In the words of the Second Circuit, determining that 

sexual assault meets the physical injury requirement of the 

PLRA is “a matter of common 

sense.”57 Medical professionals, 

corrections experts, and victim 

advocates have provided extensive information indicating that 

requiring individuals who are sexually abused in correctional facilities to 

exhaust all available administrative remedies has consequences far beyond the PLRA’s objective. The Commission also is convinced that victims 

of sexual abuse are losing vital avenues for relief because they cannot 

prove physical injury as defined in the PLRA. Victims deserve their day 

in court.

The Commission recommends that Congress amend the administrative exhaustion provision and physical injury requirement in the PLRA 

to remove barriers to the courts for victims of sexual abuse. In the meantime, corrections officials must take immediate steps to change unreasonable administrative policies. The Commission understands that officials 

should have an opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint before having to defend themselves in court. This is both fair and conserves 

scarce resources in the way the framers of PLRA intended. However, there 

is no reason that a sexually victimized prisoner should have to file a grievance within several days or weeks after being sexually assaulted or successfully complete every step of a complex process to seek protection and 

compensation in court. 

The Commission’s standard requires corrections agencies to adopt 

a policy stating that a victim of sexual abuse is deemed to have exhausted 

his or her administrative remedies within 90 days after the incident of 

sexual abuse is reported, even if someone other than the victim makes the 

report and regardless of when the abuse allegedly occurred. Finally, the 

standard recognizes that there may be emergency situations in which a 

prisoner is in immediate danger and only a court order will provide protection. In such cases, the standard requires correctional agencies to deem 

that all administrative remedies have been exhausted within 48 hours after the report is made. 

“At first, I didn’t dare tell anyone about the rape. . . . 

I would have had to file a first prison grievance within 

15 days. . . . I had no idea, at that point, that I was even 

required to file a grievance in order to bring a lawsuit. 

Even if I had known, during those first 15 days, my only 

thoughts were about suicide and. . . how to get myself into 

a safe place. . . so I would not be raped again.”
96 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Oversight by the Department of Justice

Correctional facilities are also subject to oversight by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons 

Act, passed in 1980, allows the department to investigate any correctional facility suspected of routinely subjecting prisoners to 

“egregious or flagrant conditions” in violation of the U.S. Constitution.58 The 

investigations culminate in “finding letters” that include recommendations 

for specific reforms that can then become the basis of court-filed civil complaints. By statute and practice, the Special Litigation Section takes a problem-solving approach and tries to work cooperatively with agencies under 

investigation. The strength of the evidence gathered and the threat of costly 

litigation is usually enough to compel reforms; the lawsuits are most often 

settled, usually with a settlement agreement filed simultaneously with the 

court complaint. 

In 2006, for example, the Department of Justice began a broad investigation of the King County Jail in Seattle.59 Although the Federal investigation covered a range of problems, a “string of allegations” against 

King County corrections officers for sexual misconduct triggered Federal involvement.60

In a report prepared following 

the agency’s request for assistance from the National Institute of Corrections and released 

around the same time that the 

Department of Justice launched its investigation, the department found 

that “a sexualized work environment, meager training and poor communication [were] among the root causes of the string of sexual-misconduct 

allegations against corrections officers with the King County Department 

of Adult and Juvenile Detention.”61 Corrections officials signaled their willingness to cooperate with Federal investigators and hired consultants to 

suggest how to curtail sexual misconduct within the main jail.62

The Department of Justice concluded its investigation approximately

1 year later, in November 2007, finding that persistent conditions in the 

county jail violated the constitutional rights of prisoners.63 Among the many 

specific failings outlined in its finding letter, the department found that the 

King County Jail lacked the mechanisms necessary to thoroughly investigate complaints of sexual abuse, noting that, “A number of these investigations remain open, while others have been closed with ‘undetermined’ or 

‘non-sustained’ findings and ‘no discipline due to timeliness.’. . . Essential 

elements of an internal investigation system includes [sic] a comprehensive 

investigation procedures manual, and adequately trained investigators to 

implement the investigations process. [King County Correctional Facility] 

Leaders need robust mechanisms and systems 

to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and 

implement reforms. They need to apply that discipline 

internally and to accept it from outside.
C H A P T E R 4 : I N S I D E A N D O U T: S T R E N G T H E N I N G O V E R S I G H T 97

is lacking in both of these essential elements.”64 The letter required jail 

administrators and county officials to work cooperatively with the Department of Justice to resolve the problems and avoid a lawsuit.

It took a year of negotiation for the two parties to agree on specific 

reforms, although corrections officials disagreed with the department’s finding that the constitutional rights of prisoners were violated.65 The reforms 

approved in January 2009 by the Metropolitan King County Council include 

commitments to improve internal investigations, medical and mental health 

care, and suicide prevention to benefit victims of sexual abuse and prevent 

future incidence of abuse.66 Nationally recognized experts will monitor the 

agreement, which will remain in effect for up to 3 years. 

As this case illustrates, Federal investigations are a potentially powerful form of oversight, but only a few correctional agencies have come 

under the scrutiny of the Special Litigation Section in recent years.67 The 

Commission urges the Department of Justice to provide adequate resources to the Special Litigation Section. 

The Department of Justice also has authority to criminally prosecute anyone “acting under color of state law” for violating a prisoner’s 

constitutional rights.68 Criminal prosecution at the Federal level is essential when local jurisdictions lack the political will or resources to prosecute 

cases of sexual abuse. Criminal prosecutions should be used in addition 

to, not instead of, systemic reform of policies and practices that fosters a 

culture of safety. 

Preventing sexual abuse in any correctional facility fundamentally 

rests with the leadership of that facility and each staff member’s ability 

and willingness to make protecting prisoners a priority. But good intentions and commitment are not enough. Leaders need robust mechanisms 

and systems to monitor their facilities, identify problems, and implement 

reforms. They need to apply that discipline internally and to accept it from 

outside. The very nature of prisons, jails, and other correctional settings 

demands that government and the public have multiple means to watch 

over them and to intervene when both the institution and individuals are 

at risk.

PART II 

RESPONDING TO VICTIMS 

AND PERPETRATORS
Many victims cannot safely and easily 

report sexual abuse, and those who speak 

out often do so to no avail. Reporting 

procedures must be improved to instill 

confidence and protect individuals from 

retaliation without relying on isolation. 

Investigations must be thorough and 

competent. Perpetrators must be held 

accountable through administrative 

sanctions and criminal prosecution. 
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 101

When Dana Ragsdale entered the Federal Detention Center in 

Philadelphia in summer 2003, she carried with her a history of childhood sexual abuse. Early during her stay there, 

another prisoner told Ragsdale that a male officer had sexually assaulted her. As a survivor of sexual abuse, this deeply concerned 

Ragsdale. In testimony to the Commission, she said she had wanted to 

report the incident—both to protect the other woman and because she 

feared for her own safety—but was afraid of speaking out. “I wanted to 

tell someone, but I knew that inmates who file reports against corrections 

officials are usually put into isolation. I did not want to be put in the special housing unit, lose my privileges or spend nearly every hour of the day 

in my cell. Inmates who make reports are often labeled as snitches and 

risk retaliation by corrections officers or other inmates. I stayed silent and 

prayed that I would not be victimized.”1

Ragsdale only reported the abuse when she was transferred to a 

correctional facility in Danbury, Connecticut, with a warden known for her 

commitment to take allegations of sexual abuse seriously, and Ragsdale 

also met a staff member she felt she could trust. “I was literally in a state of 

panic, shaking and sweating profusely like I am right now as I gave them 

a description of the guard and the name of the inmate being abused. . . . 

Looking back on it, it was terrifying to be in a situation where I felt completely unsafe, particularly in view of my own history of sexual abuse.”2

Like Dana Ragsdale, many prisoners are reluctant to report abuse 

they know about or have experienced. This chapter explores reasons why 

prisoners, as well as staff, stay silent and how to earn their confidence and 

promote reporting. This chapter also discusses how to achieve significant 

improvements in investigating allegations of abuse in confinement and 

in punishing perpetrators—challenging areas in correctional practice, law 

enforcement, and prosecution. 

5

Reporting, Investigation, 

and Punishment
102 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Inmate reporting

The facility provides multiple 

internal ways for inmates to 

report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation 

by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff 

neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual 

abuse. The facility also provides 

at least one way for inmates to 

report the abuse to an outside 

public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that 

has agreed to receive reports 

and forward them to the facility head (RP-2), except when an 

inmate requests confidentiality. 

Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, 

and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any 

verbal reports.

Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports 

of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the 

conclusion of the investigation, 

the facility notifies in writing 

the third-party individual who 

reported the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party 

report of the outcome of the 

investigation. The facility distributes publicly information on 

how to report sexual abuse on 

behalf of an inmate.

Breaking the Silence

T

he persistent silence surrounding incidents of sexual abuse in 

correctional facilities is a reality that both victims and professionals in the field acknowledge. Capturing the extent of underreporting is difficult, however, and involves giving individuals in 

confinement an opportunity to provide information about sexual abuse in 

their facilities on anonymous surveys, collecting information from facilities’ administrative records on incidents of abuse known to corrections officials, and comparing the two sets of data. As a result of PREA, the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics is much closer to providing these comparisons.3

Although the degree of underreporting is not known, solutions to 

the problem are clear: Efforts to increase reporting begin by providing easy 

ways for individuals to communicate information about sexual abuse they 

have experienced or know about to staff or corrections officials, backed 

up by a clear policy requiring authorities and staff to act on every allegation. Even when prisoners are willing to report abuse, their accounts are 

not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate officials 

within the facility. “When I told one of the guards I trusted how tired I was 

of putting up with abuse [by other youth in the facility], he told me to just 

ignore it,” Cyryna Pasion told the Commission.4

 Kendell Spruce testified to 

the Commission that he was raped by 27 different inmates. “I reported it, 

but it didn’t ever get me anywhere.”5

 And Garrett Cunningham wrote twice 

to internal affairs and requested a private interview with an investigator to 

report an officer who had violently raped him and was continuing to touch 

him inappropriately, but he told the Commission, “They never addressed 

my concerns and failed to take precautions to protect me.”6

Although some correctional systems and individual facilities have 

made great strides in this area in recent years, the Commission crafted its 

standards to guarantee that reporting is encouraged and taken seriously 

in every correctional facility. A serious response to all reports of abuse 

that follows clear protocols is also the best way to efficiently handle any 

false allegations of abuse, which are a concern to many corrections staff 

and administrators. The standards ensure that anyone can report abuse—

including prisoners’ friends or family members—and know that the allegations will result in an immediate response from the facility. The standards 

require all staff to act on reports of abuse conveyed verbally or in writing, 

including anonymous written reports. 

Additionally, all employees and volunteers—including those who 

provide medical and mental health services—have a duty to report sexual 

abuse. That means they must report any information about or suspicion of 

abuse, whether it occurred in their facility or another correctional facility. 

In nearly every correctional facility today, employees already have a duty 

to report, but fewer facilities extend that obligation to volunteers.7

 Administrators must forward reports about sexual abuse that occurred in another 
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 103

facility to the head of that facility. Importantly, unless the law of the jurisdiction states otherwise, the duty to report is not contingent on receiving 

consent from the provider of the information. Facility administrators need 

to know about abuse to prevent it in the future and to hold perpetrators accountable. At the same time, the sensitive nature of the information means 

it must be shared only among staff who have a critical need to know, and 

prisoners must be clearly informed that all staff have a duty to report. 

Preparing staff to meet their obligations is essential. Staff should 

be educated about the type of information they might hear or receive in 

writing, trained on how to respond to allegations of abuse as well as less 

clear signs that abuse might be occurring, and informed that they will 

be held accountable if they fail to follow reporting procedures.8

 Mandatory reporting policies are powerful antidotes to the code of silence. As 

Matthew Cate, former Inspector General overseeing corrections in California, told the Commission, these defensive postures are common among 

correctional officers, just as they are among “individuals in any stressful 

profession, the military, officers on the street, physicians. . . or nurses in 

an operating room.”9

Staff and facility head 

reporting duties

All staff members are required 

to report immediately and according to agency policy any 

knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding 

an incident of sexual abuse 

that occurred in an institutional 

setting; retaliation against inmates or staff who reported 

abuse; and any staff neglect 

or violation of responsibilities 

that may have contributed to 

an incident of sexual abuse or 

retaliation. Apart from reporting 

to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any 

information related to a sexual 

abuse report to anyone other 

than those who need to know, 

as specified in agency policy, 

to make treatment, investigation, and other security and 

management decisions. Unless 

otherwise precluded by Federal, 

State, or local law, medical and 

mental health practitioners are 

required to report sexual abuse 

and must inform inmates of 

their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is 

under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under 

a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the facility head 

must report the allegation to 

the designated State or local 

services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

Some incarcerated individuals will never be comfortable reporting 

abuse internally. For this reason, the Commission’s standard on inmate reporting requires that prisoners have the option of speaking confidentially 

with a community-based crisis center or other outside agency. This requirement reflects what some corrections professionals and other experts 

agree to be the preferred practice. As New York City Corrections Director 

Martin Horn told the Commission, “I believe very deeply, and we do this in 

New York, that. . . there must be confidential means of reporting.”10 Information about how to contact the outside agency should be widely posted 

in the facility and otherwise readily available. The correctional facility 

and the outside agency must formalize their agreement in a memorandum 

of understanding specifying that the outside agency has agreed to accept 

reports of sexual abuse from prisoners and forward them to the head of the 

facility unless the prisoner wants the report to remain confidential. 

Experience in the Arkansas Department of Correction demonstrates 

that access to hotlines operated by the internal affairs investigative division can promote reports of sexual abuse that otherwise might remain 

hidden and convince incarcerated individuals that the facility is committed to ending sexual abuse. According to Chief Deputy Director of Institutions Ray Hobbs, “The inmates have new confidence that they will be 

taken seriously. . . . The first sign was the implementation of the hotline. 

We had a highly visible case, in 

the media too, of a male staff 

member who sexually abused a 

male inmate. The staff member 

was sneaky and even took the 

“When I told one of the guards I trusted how tired 

I was of putting up with abuse [by other youth in the facility], 

he told me to just ignore it.” 
104 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

lens off the cameras so he wouldn’t be seen. He failed to transfer [another] 

inmate, as he had promised him, and the inmate squealed on him through 

the hotline.”11 Importantly, this report to the hotline resulted in action on 

the part of the administration, leading to sanctions for the sexual misconduct. Hobbs told the Commission, “The staff copped-out to it. He was 

prosecuted and got 5 to 7 years in prison.” 

As illustrated by this example, successful efforts to enhance reporting depend both on the accessibility and safety of mechanisms to report 

and on serious and timely responses by officials once reports are made. 

Staff should clearly convey these factors, as well as information on ways 

to report abuse, during sessions to educate prisoners about sexual abuse, 

their right to be safe, and the facility’s policies. Easy-to-read posters and 

brochures, available in the native languages of the facility’s prisoner population, should capture the same information. 

The results of a proactive approach to reporting can be dramatic. 

In 2006, the North Carolina Department of Correction received just 31 

reports of sexual abuse. The following year, after revising its reporting 

policies and raising awareness among prisoners and staff, the number of 

reports jumped to 151. According to Correctional Planner Charlotte Price, 

“It was a big increase, which we felt was positive, because staff were more 

aware and inmates were coming forward. . . . The awareness has been our 

biggest change, and it has helped on every level, including investigations. 

It has been a positive experience for both staff and inmates.”12 Sharp increases in reporting should be expected when constructive reforms make 

prisoners feel safer reporting abuse and more confident that the facility 

will take action. Facilities should be prepared to communicate to the public that increased reporting is a positive development and does not necessarily reflect a rise in actual abuse. 

Reporting to other 

confinement facilities

When the facility receives an 

allegation that an inmate was 

sexually abused while confined 

at another facility, the head of 

the facility where the report 

was made notifies in writing the 

head of the facility where the 

alleged abuse occurred. The 

head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures 

the allegation is investigated.

Protection from Retaliation 

Necole Brown was sexually abused over the course of 5 years by 

a corrections officer she first encountered in a Michigan State 

prison in 1996 who stalked and victimized her even while she 

was on parole. In her testimony to the Commission, she recalled 

that the officer “constantly threatened me, that if I told anybody, he would 

make sure that I would either be punished by being sent to administrative 

seg[regation] or that I would lose my privileges such as the phone, visits 

with my family and friends, and even that I would not be allowed to leave 

the prison. . . He had the ability to write me up for so-called misconduct 

any time he wanted. . . [T]he more tickets I got, the more good time I lost, 

meaning the release on parole would be delayed. I felt like I had to do the 

things that he asked me to do so I could survive in prison and to be able 
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 105

to come home.”13 When Brown finally reported the abuse and sought help 

from an attorney, the retaliation grew worse and involved other staff. “Correctional officers would interrupt my attorney visits, withhold my mail, 

search me or try to degrade me in front of other people for no reason.” 

Victims of sexual abuse are silenced by threats as well as by actions 

taken against them, and some are punished when they do speak out. Retaliation by staff can include unwarranted disciplinary action, unfavorable 

changes in housing and work assignments, and threats of violence against 

the victim or even the victim’s family. In a letter to the advocacy organization Just Detention International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat 

she received from the male officer who was abusing her: “Remember if you 

tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look over your shoulder for the rest of 

your life.”14 An incarcerated person who reports sexual abuse perpetrated 

by another prisoner also risks retaliation, which can range from violence, 

to being shunned by other prisoners, to being falsely reported for breaking 

facility rules. 

Isela Gutierrez, who coordinates the Texas Coalition Advocating 

Justice for Juveniles, told the Commission about a 2007 survey of 3,279 

youth in custody by the Texas State Auditor’s Office that suggests that 

youth have little confidence that the reporting process is credible and safe. 

Sixty-five percent of juveniles surveyed thought the grievance system did 

not work, and 43 percent indicated they had firsthand knowledge of residents who experienced retaliation after filing grievances related to physical or sexual abuse. Moreover, half of the juveniles surveyed felt that the 

Texas Youth Commission did not take immediate action regarding their 

safety and welfare.15

Agreements with outside 

public entities and 

community service providers

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) 

or other agreements with an 

outside public entity or office 

that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate reports of sexual abuse to facility 

heads (RE-1). The agency also 

maintains or attempts to enter 

into MOUs or other agreements 

with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide 

inmates with confidential emotional support services related 

to sexual abuse and (2) help 

victims of sexual abuse during 

their transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, 

MM-3). The agency maintains 

copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to 

enter into agreements.

The culture of the correctional environment can make staff and 

offenders fearful of reporting. In Baron v. Hickey, a correctional officer 

reported misconduct that he observed in his facility in 2003.16 As a result, 

his tires were slashed, he was called a “rat,” and coworkers threatened 

him.17 He complained more than 30 times to leadership and ultimately 

resigned. He filed suit against the agency for these retaliatory actions and 

was awarded $500,000 in damages.

Correctional facilities have to demonstrate a commitment to protecting individuals who report abuse from retaliation. As former Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction Kathleen Dennehy 

told the Commission, “We need 

to create environments where 

inmates fully disclose incidents 

of sexual violence.”18 The Commission’s standard in this area requires facilities to monitor prisoners and 

staff who report abuse for at least 90 days to ensure that they are not experiencing retaliation or threats. If threats or actual retaliation do occur, the 

facility must take immediate action to stop the threatening behavior. The 

“Remember if you tell anyone anything, you’ll have to look 

over your shoulder for the rest of your life.”
106 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

standard also requires facilities to take affirmative steps to prevent retaliation. Such precautions also may be essential to the investigation because 

victims and witnesses who feel intimidated are less likely to cooperate 

with investigators.

Protective measures may include moving a prisoner to a different 

housing unit, transferring them to a different facility, or adjusting staff 

work assignments. Transfers, however, should not be an automatic response, especially since they may involve disrupting an investigation, provision of needed services, and in some cases access to family. Talking to 

prisoners about their safety concerns can be constructive and suggest a 

range of possible precautions. Case-by-case assessments will help prevent 

transfers that prisoners could perceive as punitive. Because segregation 

can have a negative impact on a prisoner’s mental health, staff should 

only use segregation when absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the 

prisoner and integrity of the investigative process.19 As noted above, some 

prisoners who would otherwise report abuse remain silent because they 

cannot bear the restrictions of life in segregation. 

Agency protection against 

retaliation

The agency protects all inmates 

and staff who report sexual 

abuse or cooperate with sexual 

abuse investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff. 

The agency employs multiple 

protection measures, including 

housing changes or transfers 

for inmate victims or abusers, 

removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact 

with victims, and emotional 

support services for inmates 

or staff who fear retaliation for 

reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The 

agency monitors the conduct 

and/or treatment of inmates or 

staff who have reported sexual 

abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any inmate 

disciplinary reports, housing, or 

program changes, for at least 

90 days following their report 

or cooperation to see if there 

are changes that may suggest 

possible retaliation by inmates 

or staff. The agency discusses 

any changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member as 

part of its efforts to determine 

if retaliation is taking place 

and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the 

inmate or staff member.

Investigating Without Fail

E

ventually Necole Brown contacted a lawyer, who helped her report the officer who was abusing her. “Investigators interviewed 

me, but failed to follow up on information about my complaint,” 

Brown told the Commission.20 She testified that the local prosecutor also declined to pursue the case because he believed the evidence was 

insufficient. The Commission’s standards on investigation are intended to 

ensure that every allegation of sexual abuse is thoroughly investigated. 

The stakes are high: failure to investigate allegations sends a message to 

staff and prisoners that speaking out may put the victim at risk but has 

no consequences for the abuser. In such environments, silence prevails 

and abuse flourishes. Unless investigations produce compelling evidence, 

corrections administrators cannot impose discipline, prosecutors will not 

indict, and juries will not convict abusers.

Six years after the passage of PREA, many statewide correctional 

systems and individual facilities now have policies, protocols, and staff 

in place to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. (See the PREA Initiatives appendix for a sample.) Prison and jail staff across the country have 

attended professional training programs on investigating sexual abuse. 

According to Lorie Brisbin, an investigator working for the Idaho Department of Correction, PREA was a catalyst for improving investigations in 

facilities statewide, and the results have been dramatic: “We have a case 

that is going through the courts right now [where one prisoner raped another prisoner]. Our staff did such a good job securing the crime scene 
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 107

that it is a solid case. This would not have happened before PREA. . . . 

We have never had an inmate-inmate prosecution at all.”21 The Georgia 

Department of Corrections also implemented sweeping reforms, including 

a policy to investigate all allegations of sexual abuse and the provision of 

specialized training for investigators. According to Angela Grant, Deputy 

Warden of Care and Treatment at Pulaski State Prison, “We have investigators now who only deal with sexual assault cases. There are specialists 

in all four of our regions. We are doing more thorough investigations. We 

referred eight cases in 2007 for prosecution. . . . We are now more proactive and definitely pursue these cases all the way to prosecution.”22

Although advances such as those in Idaho and Georgia are extremely encouraging, there are still facilities—particularly those that confine juveniles, those under the umbrella of community corrections, and 

smaller jails—that lag behind in this crucial area.23 Weaknesses and gaps 

are not necessarily for lack of effort. Training and resources specifically for 

staff of juvenile facilities, for example, have only been available recently.24

The Commission’s first standard on investigation is clear: facilities 

have a duty to immediately and thoroughly investigate every allegation of 

sexual abuse to completion, including reports by third parties and anonymous reports. Investigators must pursue direct and circumstantial evidence, 

whether or not the alleged victim confirms that the abuse occurred and 

is willing to cooperate. Even if 

the person who reported the 

abuse later wants to withdraw 

the complaint, the investigation 

must continue if the facts indicate that abuse may have occurred. The transfer or release 

of prisoners involved in an investigation, either as victims or witnesses, 

and the reassignment, termination, or resignation of involved staff may 

complicate an investigation but do not justify closing it before completion. 

Complainants must be notified in writing about the outcome of the investigation and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions imposed, consistent 

with what laws in the jurisdiction allow.

Duty to investigate

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous 

reports, and notifies victims 

and/or other complainants in 

writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or 

criminal sanctions, regardless 

of the source of the allegation. 

All investigations are carried 

through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged 

abuser or victim remains at the 

facility.

Allegations of sexual abuse always warrant an administrative investigation; a criminal investigation is often necessary as well. Criminal 

and administrative investigations conform to different rules and procedures. A criminal investigation focuses on determining whether there is 

sufficient evidence to prove that the alleged abuser violated specific criminal statutes and, therefore, should be prosecuted. The focus of a criminal 

investigation is relatively narrow, the standard of proof stringent, and the 

potential penalties severe. An administrative investigation, which is wider 

in scope, is two pronged: first, it focuses on whether sufficient evidence 

exists to demonstrate that the alleged abuser violated agency policies and 

The stakes are high: failure to investigate allegations sends 

a message to staff and prisoners that speaking out may put 

the victim at risk but has no consequences for the abuser. 

In such environments, silence prevails and abuse flourishes.
108 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

should be disciplined; second, it assesses whether training, practices, or 

policies should be revised to prevent future sexual abuse. 

Many correctional agencies rely on outside law enforcement agencies to conduct criminal investigations, and some agencies enlist outsiders to conduct administrative investigations, although that practice is less 

common. Whenever agencies outsource investigations, the Commission’s 

standards require that the correctional agency attempt to develop a memorandum of understanding with the law enforcement agency; the Commission suggests specifying roles and responsibilities in the agreement. 

More than a mere formality, such agreements can improve the quality of 

investigations. According to Kimberly Hendricks, PREA coordinator in the 

Oregon Department of Corrections, the department’s memorandum of understanding enabled law enforcement to begin investigating much sooner 

following an allegation of abuse. “Everyone is clear [about] roles and timelines. It got a more rapid response. It has improved the information flow.”25

The Commission’s standard establishing the duty to investigate is 

followed by a detailed standard to ensure the quality of investigations. 

The quality of an investigation and resulting written report will determine 

whether the process is viewed as credible and greatly influences decisions 

to prosecute and/or impose administrative sanctions. As stated in this 

standard, effective sexual abuse investigations are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by individuals who have received special training 

in sexual abuse investigations. Additionally, the standard specifies that all 

investigations must meet the following requirements: 

•	 Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes

established by the highest-ranking facility official, and the highestranking official approves the final investigative report. 

•	 Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged 

victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior 

complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected 

perpetrator. 

•	 When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled 

interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution. 

•	 Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence

gathered and a determination of its probative value.

•	 The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an

individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as 

inmate or staff. 

Agreements with outside law 

enforcement agencies

If an agency does not have the 

legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency 

to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or 

inmates, the agency maintains 

or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement 

specific to investigations of 

sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible 

for conducting investigations. 

If the agency confines inmates 

under the age of 18 or other 

inmates who fall under State 

and local vulnerable persons 

statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into 

an MOU with the designated 

State or local services agency 

with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations 

related to the sexual abuse of 

vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the 

agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing 

policy covering responsibilities 

for all criminal investigations, 

including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new agreement. The 

agency maintains a copy of the 

agreement or documentation 

showing attempts to enter into 

an agreement.
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 109

•	 Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur. 

•	 Administrative investigations are documented in written reports

that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence 

and the reasoning behind credibility assessments. 

•	 Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that

contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits. 

•	 Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal are

referred for prosecution. 

Many of these requirements are discussed in the sections that follow.

Criminal and administrative 

agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are 

prompt, thorough, objective, and 

conducted by investigators who 

have received special training 

in sexual abuse investigations 

(TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, 

the facility has a duty to keep 

abreast of the investigation and 

cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations 

also include the additional elements listed on pp. 108–109.

Proceeding Without Delay

T

imeliness is essential. An investigation of sexual abuse must begin as soon as possible after the alleged incident. Physical evidence degrades quickly. In addition, launching an investigation 

immediately reassures victims and witnesses that officials are 

taking their allegations seriously, which can facilitate cooperation and increase the likelihood of gathering strong evidence. 

Completing investigations without delay is equally important. Although particularly complex investigations will take more time and deadlines should reflect that reality, the goal in every investigation must be 

to work efficiently and adhere to the timeline established by the highestranking facility official. Protracted investigations undermine the facility’s 

credibility and become increasingly difficult as evidence disappears and 

key witnesses’ memories fade. It is unfair to victims as well as the accused 

to allow allegations of sexual abuse to linger unresolved for months or 

years.26 In some States (including California, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, 

and Rhode Island), an investigation must be completed within 1 year, or 

no administrative discipline may be imposed.27 Such policies should put 

pressure on officials to complete investigations quickly. Without strong 

and committed leadership, however, these policies could become a reason 

to allow investigations to linger or wither.

Of course, when victims and witnesses report abuse long after it 

occurred, investigators operate under compromised circumstances. U.S. 

Attorney for the Northern District of Florida Gregory Miller captured what 

is at stake in his testimony to the Commission: “Delays in reporting put 

the investigators at a disadvantage from the outset. During the interval 

between the time when the crime is committed and when it is brought 

to law enforcement’s attention, valuable physical evidence can be lost or 
110 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

destroyed. As days and even months intervene, the victim’s memory of the 

details or the date or time of the assault may blur, making it difficult to corroborate their account through prison work schedules or other means.”28

Texas prosecutor Gina DeBottis told the Commission that “if [a victim] 

waits over 96 hours, it’s very difficult to collect [physical] evidence.”29 In a 

2006 study of sexual abuse in the Texas prison system, research confirmed 

that in a majority of substantiated cases—those in which an investigation 

determined that sexual abuse occurred—reports were made on the same 

day or within 2 days of the assault.30

Gathering Evidence

I

nvestigating sexual abuse that has occurred in correctional facilities is 

complex, requiring skill and sensitivity.31 In some States and localities, 

however, individuals responsible for investigating sexual abuse in correctional facilities receive no specialized training.32 Moreover, many 

facilities around the country rely on State or local police officers, who may 

have little or no experience investigating cases in a correctional facility.33 

According to a report published by the National Institute of Corrections, 

many sexual abuse investigators are so unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional facility that they cannot operate effectively, making 

mistakes that are in some instances glaring.34 A staff member in one correctional facility remembered an investigator who “came in and asked a 

whole housing unit of inmates if they had witnessed an assault.”35 Serious 

missteps in interviewing victims, witnesses, and suspects can undermine 

or even ruin an investigation. 

“[The] investigator was so frightening and insensitive,” Dana Ragsdale recalled in her testimony to the Commission.36 “He propped his feet 

up on his desk, he crossed his arms, and he glared at me.” Investigators 

need to understand and be responsive to the dynamics of 

victimization, not only to be 

sensitive but also to be effective. Victims are often reluctant 

to discuss a sexual assault with 

someone who is or appears to 

be unsympathetic to their situation.37 One corrections staff member commented, “You can’t just ask an 

inmate point blank if he has been assaulted. Part of the job is building rapport with inmates. You have to lead up to these questions.”38

“In the practice of interviewing victims of sexual abuse, there are 

many times when what the victim is not saying speaks volumes about what 

has happened or what is not happening,” Chief Inspector of the Rhode Island 

According to a report published by the National Institute 

of Corrections, many sexual abuse investigators are so 

unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional facility 

that they cannot operate effectively, making mistakes 

that are in some instances glaring.
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 111

Department of Corrections Aaron Aldrich told the Commission.39 “Active 

listening is so much more than just remaining silent when the victim is 

speaking. It’s about getting the trust of that person. It’s about convincing 

the victim that you are willing to do whatever it takes to make a bad situation better. It’s not about asking a question and receiving an answer. It’s 

about asking a question and gauging a response. Each victim is different. 

Some are emotionally shattered. Some are angry and exhibit negative actions. . . . [S]ome might quite coolly deny that anything ever happened or 

took place.”At the most fundamental level, according to Aldrich, investigators must be able to see the prisoner as a victim. “Investigative personnel 

can be trained [and] proficient [in] investigatory techniques, standards, 

[and] protocols and yet fail in securing either successful prosecution or 

termination of violators if they do not recognize the basic premise that an 

offender can also be a victim. . . .”40

A thorough investigation obtains all direct and circumstantial evidence of the alleged incident. In most situations, investigators have to aggressively and creatively pursue corroborating evidence. When victims 

and witnesses are not cooperating—out of fear or adherence to a code of 

silence—or when they cooperate initially and later recant, corroboration 

can clarify otherwise perplexing events and salvage an investigation. As 

Cynthia Schnedar, Counsel to the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice, told the Commission, “[T]he key to any successful prosecution is corroboration, corroboration, corroboration.”41

Best practices for gathering evidence include: visitor lists, camera 

footage, telephone logs, staff time cards, post assignment records, descriptions of areas where incarcerated persons are not generally allowed, 

statements from co-workers and housing mates, and patterns of abuse documented in past complaints and investigations.42 Gathering that evidence 

requires training as well as special tools. Body wires, electronic monitoring, controlled calls, and polygraphs are among the tools that investigators 

may have available to them.43

Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections A. T. Wall 

captured the nature of this kind of investigative work in his testimony to the 

Commission. In a correctional facility, “[e]verybody talks to everybody all the 

time. And so an aggressive investigator has options. You talk to everybody 

anywhere near the alleged perpetrator or the victim. You get statements. You 

look at logs. You review camera footage. You monitor the recorded telephone 

calls. You take it to the community. You talk to former cellmates who are 

now living in freedom. You talk to family members. You consider controlled 

phone calls. You look at possibly, in some cases. . . using a wire. And ultimately you also, as I’ve said before, have to get the investment of staff. . . . 

[I]f they think the security risk is great enough or they are offended enough 

by the content, they will tell you what you need to know, but you have to till 

that soil by working with staff to change their attitudes.”44
112 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Getting the “investment of staff” often hinges on having the support of unions. Labor and management should structure agreements in 

ways that facilitate, or at least do not impede, thoroughly investigating 

staff accused of sexual misconduct.45 (See Chapter 2 for more information 

about collective bargaining agreements.)

Although results from polygraphs and computerized stress voice 

analyzer tests do not constitute admissible evidence in a courtroom, agencies do rely on them when evaluating whether to pursue a case. Polygraph 

findings or refusal to take a polygraph should never be used as the only 

reason to suspend or close an investigation or as the sole basis for determining whether or not an allegation is true, however.46

Proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings is also critical. 

In Garrity v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled that statements taken 

under threat of terminating employment are considered compelled statements and cannot be used directly or indirectly against the suspect in a 

criminal investigation or prosecution.47 The standard Garrity warning includes the following notice: “If you do answer, neither your statements nor 

any information or evidence 

which is gained by reason of 

such statements can be used 

against you in any subsequent 

criminal proceeding. However, 

these statements may be used 

against you in relation to subsequent departmental charges.”48 

Whether and when to compel a statement depends on a variety of factors, 

including the nature of the offense and the likelihood of criminal prosecution. Caution should be used in making this decision and also in determining how to use such statements and whether to share them with officers 

assigned to the criminal investigation.

Analyzing the Evidence

I

n some cases, the most difficult component of an investigation is reviewing the evidence and reaching findings consistent with what the 

evidence shows. Objectivity is obviously crucial. An investigator must 

be able to weigh and analyze the evidence without bias toward any 

party or the outcome. For example, irrelevant discrepancies in testimony 

or the inability to recall detail should never become the basis for deciding that testimony is unreliable. Similarly, investigators must not scrutinize evidence in cases involving staff more strictly than evidence in cases 

among prisoners. 

“Investigative personnel can be trained [and] proficient [in] 

investigatory techniques, standards, [and] protocols and yet 

fail in securing either successful prosecution or termination of 

violators if they do not recognize the basic premise that 

an offender can also be a victim. . . .”
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 113

In situations where one prisoner has allegedly abused another prisoner, “the question of consent goes to the heart of the matter,” Wall told 

the Commission, “because investigators are going to have to find ways 

to interpret and understand the relationship that took place. And that’s 

going to be a particular challenge for the profession.”49 Distinguishing between consensual and nonconsensual sex in an environment in which sex 

is traded for protection or comfort is difficult, especially absent physical 

injury and witnesses. In a study of women prisoners published in 2008, 

participants suggested that “young, naive, or scared offenders entered 

into relationships with more aggressive women, offering commissary and 

sexual intimacy in return for protection. Yet, female inmates typically saw 

these relationships as consensual.”50 The study of the Texas prison system 

previously mentioned revealed that line staff in one facility for women 

expect the prisoners to have sex with one another and viewed it as “part 

of the[ir] life style.”51 Although consensual sex may be a reality in correctional facilities for women as well as for men, when confronted with an 

allegation of abuse between prisoners, investigators must not erroneously 

or prematurely conclude that the encounter was not forced. 

Through training, investigators can learn the characteristics of an 

objective investigative process and outcome and how to recognize and 

reject stereotypes that hinder objectivity.52 They may learn, for example, 

not to assume that a sexual encounter is consensual simply because there 

are no discernible physical injuries or because the alleged victim or perpetrator is homosexual. Although training cannot overcome deeply rooted 

prejudices, when it is accompanied by good supervision, investigators are 

more likely to remain objective as they weigh the evidence and formulate 

their findings. 

To promote objectivity when investigating allegations of sexual 

abuse by staff, some correctional agencies now require that staff based 

outside the facility where the incident allegedly occurred conduct the 

criminal investigation. It also may be prudent to request independent law 

enforcement agencies to criminally investigate high-profile cases. The 

involvement of an outside law enforcement agency can reduce concerns 

about conflicts of interest as well as Garrity violations that could compromise the criminal case.53

Investigators also need clear guidance on what the evidence must 

show to substantiate allegations in an administrative investigation and to 

refer a case to a prosecuting authority. To ensure that the standard of proof 

in administrative investigations is fair and consistently applied whether 

the alleged perpetrator is a staff member or a prisoner, the Commission’s 

standards explicitly require investigators to base their conclusions on what 

the “preponderance of the evidence” shows. This standard of proof is significantly less stringent than what is required to convict someone of a 

Evidence standard for 

administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are 

substantiated if supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence.
114 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

crime but is adequate to protect individuals from being labeled as perpetrators and punished without cause. The Commission’s standards require 

the lead investigator to provide a written report of the findings, accompanied by supporting documentation, to the highest-ranking facility official.

Because specialized training for sexual abuse investigators is so important and because the deficits in some correctional systems and facilities 

are so great, the Commission’s standards require facilities to ensure that 

investigators are trained in the most up-to-date approaches to investigating 

sexual abuse in a correctional setting and to maintain written documentation showing that investigators have completed such training. The standard on training specifies minimum components for training programs: 

techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda

and Garrity warnings when interviewing alleged perpetrators, protocols 

for collecting evidence in a correctional facility, and the evidentiary criteria required to substantiate a case for administrative sanctions and, separately, for referral to a prosecuting authority. 

The Commission also recognizes that, in many correctional facilities 

and their surrounding local jurisdictions, investigators are scarce. One correctional administrator commented, “We need three investigators for 500 

inmates. I have one.”54 Jail administrators often have difficulty getting local 

police to investigate reports of sexual abuse in their facilities.55 Several prison administrators have commented that law enforcement in their jurisdictions is stretched so thin that the State police asked the legislature to allocate 

additional resources to the department of corrections so that the department 

could hire internal affairs investigators with the authority to make arrests.56

Specialized training: 

Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees 

(TR-1), the agency ensures that 

agency investigators conducting sexual abuse investigations 

have received comprehensive 

and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in 

confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual 

abuse victims, proper use of 

Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence 

collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate 

a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The 

agency maintains written documentation that investigators 

have completed the required 

specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

Coordinating Responders

Any report of sexual abuse in a correctional facility must trigger 

an immediate response from security staff; forensic, medical, 

and mental health care practitioners; investigators; and the head 

of the facility. To meet the needs of victims while conducting a 

thorough investigation likely to hold perpetrators accountable, the Commission’s standards require these professionals to coordinate their efforts. 

Facility administrators have a responsibility to specify the scope and nature 

of what must be coordinated. Formal coordination in response to reports of 

sexual abuse is already a feature in some State correctional systems, including Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, 

and Utah.57 Corrections departments should work with community-based 

sexual abuse advocates to develop a model of coordination intended to be 

truly responsive to the needs of victims in a correctional setting.58

Coordination sounds simple but can be challenging to realize in practice. Cross-training is crucial because each responder needs to understand 
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 115

the impact of his or her work on the situation overall. Clear channels of 

communication and flexibility are also important so that the professionals 

involved can adapt how they work together based on the circumstances of 

the incident and when it is reported. For example, if a prisoner reports an 

illicit relationship that occurred 6 months earlier with a corrections officer, 

an investigator will likely take the lead, working in coordination with any 

mental health practitioners involved. In contrast, if a prisoner reports being 

raped by an officer earlier that same day, a forensic medical examiner, a 

housing/security officer, and medical and mental health practitioners may 

take the lead initially, working closely with an investigator. 

Corrections officers or other security personnel often respond to reports of sexual abuse before anyone else. Their first duty, under the Commission’s standards, is to ensure the immediate safety of the victim by 

separating the victim and alleged abuser. Their other immediate actions, 

as mandated under the Commission’s standards, have a significant impact 

on the investigation. They are responsible for securing the crime scene and 

instructing the victim not to take any actions that could destroy semen, 

saliva, skin cells, hair, and other physical evidence. For many victims, 

their initial instinct is to take a shower or throw away clothing they were 

wearing during the assault.59 “They get rid of this evidence because of 

their shame. . . and ignorance. . .” one corrections officer commented.60 

Such feelings are normal and common among victims of sexual abuse. 

First responders set the stage for the work of forensic examiners. 

When the sexual abuse has occurred recently and the allegation is rape, 

the Commission’s standards require facilities to offer the victim a forensic 

exam by a specially trained professional. Sexual assault forensic examiners 

and sexual assault nurse examiners (SANEs) have the knowledge and 

skills to document physical findings and collect pertinent evidence from 

victims, including evidence that the sexual activity was not consensual.61

They recognize what evidence is important, how to preserve it, how to 

establish a chain of custody, and how to prepare the evidence for submission to a crime lab for analysis. Skill in this area is critical to successfully 

investigating and prosecuting sexual abuse. 

As forensic nurse Leanne Holland told the Commission, “[W]hen 

I was an emergency room nurse, not that I wasn’t qualified, but I did not 

have the specialized training that I have today. . . . [T]hose cases did not 

go forward with prosecution, and those offenders, those perpetrators, are 

most likely still out there. . . compared to last week when there were three 

guilty pleas as a result of my education and training and working collaboratively with a team to, hopefully, make a difference in someone’s life.”62

An evaluation of SANE programs and multidisciplinary sexual assault response teams published in 2003 by the National Institute of Justice found 

that they improve the quality of forensic evidence and increase the ability 

of law enforcement to collect information, file charges, and prosecute and 

Coordinated response

All actions taken in response 

to an incident of sexual abuse 

are coordinated among staff 

first responders, medical and 

mental health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated 

response ensures that victims 

receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, 

mental health, and support services and that investigators are 

able to obtain usable evidence 

to substantiate allegations and 

hold perpetrators accountable.
116 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

convict perpetrators while also providing better emergency health care for 

women who have been sexually assaulted.63

According to the International Association of Forensic Nurses, at 

least 276 SANE programs operate throughout the United States and its territories. Most (75 percent) are based in hospitals, but some (25 percent) 

operate in other settings.64 The Commission recognizes that specially 

trained forensic examiners are not readily available in all communities, 

particularly in rural areas. Forensic professionals who provided advice to 

the Commission have expressed an interest in expanding the network of 

trained examiners to ensure that victims of rape in any correctional facility have the option of receiving a thorough forensic exam. 

Because physical evidence is crucial to a successful investigation, 

the Commission’s standards require correctional facilities to implement 

a protocol that dictates how to collect, maintain, and analyze physical 

evidence and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic examiner. 

In developing a custom protocol, facilities must consult the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/

Adolescents” (or subsequent editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004).65 At the time of its publication, 

law enforcement officials and forensic medical examiners considered the 

national protocol the gold standard of sexual assault evidence protocols. 

Several correctional agencies, including the Arizona Department of 

Corrections, have adapted the national protocol to reflect the significant 

differences of collecting forensic evidence in a confinement setting as opposed to in the community, including that the victim and perpetrator are 

usually located within the same facility, that the offender may be in a position of authority, that confidentiality is seldom possible, and that victims 

are less likely to cooperate with the investigation.66 Given the prevalence 

of sexual abuse in correctional facilities and the need to improve evidence 

collection, the Commission recommends that the Department of Justice 

develop a forensic evidence protocol specifically adapted to confinement 

and that can be used in all correctional facilities. 

Criminal and administrative investigators should be involved as soon 

as possible after an incident of sexual abuse is reported, and the Commission’s standards require investigators to coordinate their separate efforts. In 

particular, individuals conducting an administrative investigation must coordinate with criminal investigators as well as prosecutors, facility administrators, and their legal counsel before taking compelled statements, which, 

as discussed, cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal case.67

When responders coordinate their work, each person can be more 

effective. Investigators may have more success interviewing victims and 

assessing their credibility, for example, if they consult first with mental 

health practitioners. Clinical input about the effects of trauma can help 

Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that an inmate 

was sexually abused within 

a time period that still allows 

for the collection of physical 

evidence, the first security staff 

member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate 

the alleged victim and abuser; 

(2) seal and preserve any crime 

scene(s); and (3) instruct the 

victim not to take any actions 

that could destroy physical 

evidence, including washing, 

brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, 

defecating, smoking, drinking, 

or eating. If the first staff responder is a non-security staff 

member, he or she is required 

to instruct the victim not to take 

any actions that could destroy 

physical evidence and then 

notify security staff.
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 117

an investigator properly assess the person’s statements, especially if the 

victim appears under- or over-emotional. Even basic coordination between 

investigators and victim advocates can have a benefit.68 A woman who 

was sexually abused in a California prison and was initially uncooperative 

later gave the investigator all the information he needed to refer the case 

for prosecution after he told her that she would be able to talk confidentially with a counselor from a local rape crisis center. “My impression is 

that the inmate viewed the offer of confidential counseling services as a 

gesture of trust and concern,” Wendy Still, former Associate Director of 

Female Offender Programs for the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation, told the Commission.69 (See Chapter 6 for information 

about the many benefits of providing outside counseling to incarcerated 

victims of sexual abuse.) 

Security staff also have a role to play beyond their immediate response. For example, many correctional systems designate specific staff 

to handle housing and other security issues that arise in conjunction with 

allegations of sexual abuse.70 Individuals in that role should coordinate 

with other responders to ensure that their decisions support the victim’s 

recovery and do not unnecessarily restrict the victim’s movements within 

the facility and participation in work, education, and other programming.

Evidence protocol and 

forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform 

evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence 

for administrative proceedings 

and criminal prosecutions. 

The protocol must be adapted 

from or otherwise based on 

the 2004 U.S. Department of 

Justice’s Office on Violence 

Against Women publication “A 

National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” 

subsequent updated editions, 

or similarly comprehensive and 

authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the 

agency’s evidence collection 

protocol, all victims of inmateon-inmate sexually abusive 

penetration or staff-on-inmate 

sexually abusive penetration 

are provided access to forensic medical exams performed 

by qualified forensic medical 

examiners. Forensic medical 

exams are provided free of 

charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim 

through the forensic medical 

exam process.

Unsubstantiated but Not Untrue 

Consistently and thoroughly investigating reports of abuse encourages incarcerated persons and staff to speak out and facilitates holding perpetrators accountable. No national data have 

been collected on how often correctional facilities investigate 

reported abuses, and there is no body of research describing the quality 

of those investigations. We do know, however, that correctional facilities 

substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates. According to a 

report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, facilities substantiated just 17 

percent of all allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment 

investigated in 2006.71 That same year, 29 percent of allegations were determined to be “unfounded”—meaning that investigators concluded that 

sexual abuse did not occur. But the majority of allegations—55 percent—

were “unsubstantiated,” which means that investigators could not determine whether or not the abuse occurred. 

Substantiation rates in some States are considerably lower than 

the national rate. For example, the 2006 study conducted in Texas found 

that only 43 out of 1,938 allegations of sexual assaults by inmates, or approximately 2 percent, were substantiated.72 The situation in California 

appears similar. “The California correctional system today houses about 

167,000 human beings inside its walls,” State Senator Gloria Romero told the 
118 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Commission.73 “Yet when we took a look at the statistics that were reported stemming from [PREA], the State [substantiated] 23 inmate-on-inmate 

sexual assaults and 75 staff-on-inmate assaults in the prison walls within 

the last year. . . . If we take a look at the Division of Juvenile Justice in California, formerly known as the California Youth Authority, there were nine 

[substantiated] allegations of sexual assaults that were made in a population of about 3,000. . . . So if we look at those statistics collectively, clearly 

we find [that] either California is doing tremendously well, we’re very safe, 

or California just hasn’t gotten it right. I tend to think it’s the latter.”

An “unsubstantiated” finding may be the result of a poor-quality 

investigation or reflect the legitimate difficulty of gathering sufficient 

evidence. Whatever the cause, the high proportion of unsubstantiated 

allegations—coupled with a failure to understand the difference between 

“unsubstantiated” and “unfounded”—can lead legislators, judges, and the 

public to conclude that sexual abuse of prisoners is less prevalent and serious than it really is. 

Prisoners do sometimes fabricate accounts of sexual abuse, for example, to punish or control a staff member or another inmate, to be moved 

to a different housing unit, 

or to avoid shame and 

possibly also disciplinary 

action when caught in a 

consensual sexual act with 

another inmate.74 There is 

no reason to believe, however, that extremely low 

substantiation rates are attributable to a high number of false allegations. 

There is very limited research on false reporting and no consensus on rates. 

The more rigorous studies of false reporting in the community (as opposed 

to in confinement) suggest that rates might range from 2 to 8 percent.75 Certainly, there are motivations and rewards for falsely reporting sexual abuse 

in a correctional facility that have no parallel in the community. At the same 

time, the real risks associated with reporting even genuine sexual abuse 

are a strong disincentive to fabricating allegations.

So why are so few allegations of sexual abuse substantiated? As 

discussed, many problems can compromise the success of investigations, 

starting with a lack of clear policies on reporting and investigations and 

failure to establish a coordinated response. Other common problems include: too few investigators and not enough resources to support their 

work, a lack of specialized training for investigators, a weak protocol for 

the collection and preservation of evidence, the difficulty of investigating 

delayed reports of abuse, and a lack of coordination between administrative and criminal investigators. 

No national data have been collected on how often 

correctional facilities investigate reported abuses, and 

there is no body of research describing the quality of those 

investigations. We do know, however, that correctional facilities 

substantiate allegations of sexual abuse at very low rates.
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 119

Prosecuting Abusers

T

he corrections officer that Dana Ragsdale reported for sexual 

abuse continued to work at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia and at one point assaulted a woman so brutally she hemorrhaged and was sent to the hospital. He was eventually charged 

with and pleaded guilty to felony counts of engaging in sexual acts with 

three women prisoners, but he was not prosecuted for assaulting the woman who first confided in Ragsdale. The officer received 4 months in jail for 

sexual misconduct with three incarcerated women, followed by 3 years of 

probation—“in my view an inexcusably short sentence,” Ragsdale told the 

Commission.76

No culture of safety and of zero tolerance for sexual abuse can 

exist when perpetrators operate with impunity, without fear of serious 

consequences for their behavior, and are free to retaliate against or further 

victimize their accusers or others. If perpetrators are not held accountable, 

victims and witnesses of abuse will view reporting as futile and remain silent.77 Punishing perpetrators also has a deterrent effect, cautioning those 

who might be inclined to engage in abuse to think twice.78 And it is, of 

course, what justice requires. 

The reality today, however, is considerably different. Despite the 

fact that most incidents of sexual abuse constitute a crime in all 50 States 

and under Federal law, very few inmate and staff perpetrators of sexual 

abuse in correctional settings are prosecuted. According to data collected 

by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 33 percent of substantiated cases 

of sexual abuse between prisoners and 45 percent of substantiated cases 

involving staff perpetrators were referred for prosecution in 2006, the most 

recent year for which data are available.79 Given that the substantiation 

rate nationally is just 17 percent, the proportion of cases referred for prosecution is small indeed. 

There are no national data on how many referred cases are actually prosecuted; however, the Commission repeatedly heard testimony that 

prosecutors decline most referrals. Data provided by the Colorado Department of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons provide encouraging counterpoints. From 2005 to 2008, prosecutors in Colorado accepted 31 

of the 65 cases referred. Over nearly a decade, from October 1999 to April 

2009, 1,622 complaints of sexual abuse were submitted to the U.S. Office of 

the Inspector General. During this same time period, Federal prosecutors 

accepted 166 of the 321 cases presented and prevailed in 133 cases, either 

by verdict, plea, or pretrial diversion.

Prosecutors cite several reasons for turning away cases: the investigations were too poorly conducted to support a successful prosecution, 

the potential criminal penalties are minimal, and juries are generally unsympathetic toward incarcerated victims and unwilling to believe their 
120 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

allegations.80 As Martin Horn told the Commission, overburdened prosecutors “choose not to prosecute crimes when committed behind bars by 

individuals already serving a long sentence.”81 According to John Rees, 

Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections, the difficulty 

of winning cases of staff sexual misconduct is a significant disincentive 

for prosecutors. In his testimony to the Commission, Rees described these 

cases as “extremely difficult and extremely complicated. . . . [U]nfortunately. . . the weight of the testimony of a convicted felon is held in the 

balance when put up against an individual who has not been convicted 

of a felony.”82

In some jurisdictions, other dynamics are in play: some prosecutors 

do not view incarcerated individuals as members of the community and 

as deserving of their services as any other victim of crime. In smaller jurisdictions where the correctional facility is a major employer, a “company 

town” mentality may predominate, with prosecutors reluctant to take on 

cases in which the defendant is a corrections officer. 

Limited views about what constitutes sexual abuse and who engages in abuse also can be a barrier to prosecution. Patricia Caruso, Director of the Michigan Department of Corrections, testified to the Commission 

about a case in which a female staff member had sexually abused a male 

prisoner: “I know that sometimes people feel that parties may be in love or 

that it is ‘consensual.’ There may be things in the world that fit that criteria. 

In prison they do not. . . . For a long time, it was more acceptable for women 

[than men] to resign and go on with their life. That is not acceptable in this 

department.”83 Caruso went to the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of 

Michigan and talked to them specifically about issues of staff sexual misconduct.84 In her experience, stereotypes can be overcome, in this case by 

educating prosecutors and juries about how female staff have helped male 

prisoners escape, brought dangerous contraband into the facility, and put 

other prisoners’ lives in danger by sharing confidential information. 

Caruso requires prison wardens throughout Michigan to take the 

same kind of initiative. “I told the wardens when you have a case of sexual 

misconduct, I expect you to go personally to your local prosecutor. Part 

of being a warden—I was a warden more than half of my career in this 

department. . . is having a personal relationship in your community with 

local law enforcement,” Caruso said.85 Jesse Neely, Executive Assistant 

to the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, agreed 

about the need to raise awareness. “State attorneys general and district 

attorneys need to be educated regarding PREA” to become more “sympathetic to the cause,” he told the Commission.86

Dialogue between corrections professionals and prosecutors should 

continue to occur through workshops and trainings organized by each 

group’s professional associations. The process began through a project 

sponsored by the Washington College of Law at American University and 

Agreements with the 

prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written 

MOU or other agreement with 

the authority responsible for 

prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a 

copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to 

enter into an agreement.
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 121

funded by the National Institute of Corrections to train prosecutors on investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct with offenders.87 There also 

are national models of prosecutorial collaboration. In Massachusetts, for example, county district attorney 

offices have appointed a “prison 

liaison.”88 In Pennsylvania, from 

1998 through 2005, corrections 

officials worked with district attorneys to convict 10 staff members of sexual misconduct.89 The State of 

Texas has taken an unusual step. A special unit, funded through the governor’s office, is charged with prosecuting all crimes that occur within any 

State correctional facility.90 Prosecutors in the unit encounter many of the 

above-mentioned difficulties, but their specialized experience, according to 

Chief Prosecutor Gina DeBottis, has enabled them to develop specific strategies for cases of prison sexual violence.91 The conviction rate for inmate and 

staff sexual abuse is modest but increasing annually.92

The Commission’s standards require correctional agencies to attempt to formalize a relationship with the prosecuting authority in their 

jurisdictions through a memorandum of understanding or other agreement. These agreements should be the basis for making cases of prison 

sexual violence a higher priority for prosecutors. They can also provide 

a framework for the kind of working relationship that leads to effective 

investigations and more criminal convictions. As Aaron Aldrich told the 

Commission, such agreements are “imperative.”93

Although prosecutors must endeavor to take on and win more cases 

in court, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey reminded the Commission that just the fact of a referral can have a deterrent effect on prisoners 

who might otherwise perpetrate sexual abuse. “[Confinement facilities] 

have very effective grapevines, . . . and inmates know what’s taken seriously and what’s not taken seriously. And if a person is. . . booked and 

charged with sexual assault in a county jail, even if there [is no] prosecution because of evidence or witness problems, they know that that has 

happened. . . . [I]f [the perpetrator goes] to another institution, . . . when 

the State prison officers classify that person, they’re going to red flag it. . . ,

and that may prevent sexual assault at the next facility. . . .”94

Tightening Administrative Sanctions

E

very allegation of sexual abuse must trigger an administrative 

investigation; when the investigation substantiates those allegations, the perpetrator of the abuse must be disciplined. Sanctions 

should never be the sole response to rape and other serious forms 

of sexual abuse. Until more cases are successfully prosecuted, however, 

“I told the wardens when you have a case of sexual 

misconduct, I expect you to go personally to your local 

prosecutor.”
122 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

many perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject only to administrative discipline, making sanctions in these cases especially important. 

It is crucial that sanctions be fair, consistent, and sufficiently stringent to 

serve as a deterrent to continued abuse. Applying sanctions in an arbitrary 

or biased fashion undermines their purpose and the broader mandate to 

demonstrate zero tolerance to sexual abuse. Unfortunately, no national 

data exist on which to base conclusions about whether correctional facilities are consistently meting out discipline appropriate for the culpability 

and conduct of perpetrators. The data available provide only a basic breakdown of the sanctions applied.

According to data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on 

substantiated incidents of sexual abuse in 2006, the sanctions for staff 

perpetrators of sexual abuse, applied alone or in combination, were: discharge (44 percent of all sanctions), demotion/diminished responsibilities 

(1 percent), reprimand/discipline (10 percent), and transfer to another facility (1 percent).95 In addition, although not technically sanctions, the outcomes also included resignation prior to the investigation (26 percent) and 

resignation after the investigation was completed (7 percent). When the 

perpetrators of abuse were other prisoners, the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

reported the following sanctions, applied alone or in combination: placement in solitary confinement (78 percent of all sanctions), cell confinement 

(16 percent), placement in a higher level of custody (22 percent), loss of 

privileges (20 percent), and transfer to another facility (22 percent).96

When staff perpetrate sexually abusive contact or penetration, 

termination must be the presumptive sanction according to the Commission’s standards. Termination 

may also be the appropriate response when staff deliberately 

or repeatedly violate sexual 

abuse policies, such as the duty 

to report. Union contracts affirm the ability of employers to 

discipline staff for just cause, although in practice, some agreements either 

limit an agency’s ability to sanction staff or provide avenues that too easily 

allow sanctions to be overturned. Agencies and unions should amend such 

agreements. Institutional safety is impossible without equilibrium between a union’s obligation to protect its members and management’s duty 

to impose reasonable sanctions. Correctional agencies must also provide 

law enforcement agencies and relevant licensing entities with the names 

of all terminated staff to help prevent an employee fired for sexual abuse 

from being employed by a facility in another jurisdiction and potentially 

abusing prisoners there.

When prisoners perpetrate sexual abuse, the Commission’s standards require that discipline be commensurate with the nature of the 

Until more cases are successfully prosecuted, however, 

many perpetrators of serious sexual abuse will be subject 

only to administrative discipline, making sanctions 

in these cases especially important.

Disciplinary sanctions for 

staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary 

sanctions up to and including 

termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members 

who have engaged in sexually 

abusive contact or penetration 

is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination 

for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency sexual abuse 

policies are to be reported to 

law enforcement agencies and 

any relevant licensing bodies.
C H A P T E R 5 : R E P O R T I N G , I N V E S T I G AT I O N , A N D P U N I S H M E N T 123

abuse, the prisoner’s disciplinary history, and the sanctions imposed in 

response to similar offenses by other prisoners with comparable histories. 

When determining what type of sanction, if any, to impose, the disciplinary process must consider whether a mental disability or mental illness 

may have contributed to the abusive behavior. Interventions designed to 

address and correct underlying reasons or motivations for sexual abuse, 

such as requiring the perpetrator to participate in therapy or counseling, 

also must be considered. 

Sanctions should support the facility’s zero-tolerance policy without being unduly punitive or counterproductive. In particular, perpetrators should not be placed for prolonged periods in disciplinary segregation 

because conditions in these units have the potential to cause or aggravate 

symptoms of mental illness and to limit access to needed mental health 

services.97 Finally, facilities should fully integrate their disciplinary process with their classification system, triggering a review of the prisoner’s 

classification to manage the risk that the person will sexually abuse other 

prisoners. 

Although agencies must sanction staff for sexual contact with prisoners, incarcerated persons should not be punished for their involvement, 

regardless of whether or not the encounter was allegedly consensual. The 

power imbalance between staff and prisoners vitiates the possibility of 

meaningful consent. In addition, the threat of being punished for a relationship deemed to be consensual would deter prisoners from reporting 

sexual abuse by staff. 

Of course, prisoners sometimes engage in sexual relationships with 

staff to further illicit activities. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of 

the Inspector General found that Federal prisoners had engaged in sexual 

relations with staff to obtain drugs; use unmonitored phones; communicate with other prisoners while in isolation; learn sensitive information 

about other prisoners, such as who may be acting as an informant; or access information that could help them escape.98 Prisoners should be held 

responsible for these crimes and rule violations but not for any underlying 

sexual relationship with staff that facilitated their behavior.

In sum, everyone who engages in sexual abuse in a correctional 

facility or other corrections setting must be held accountable for their actions. There has been too little accountability for too long. The Commission 

designed its standards in this area to change the dynamic by encouraging 

incarcerated individuals and staff to report abuse and by requiring correctional facilities to protect those who speak out, conduct effective investigations, and ensure appropriate punishment. 

Disciplinary sanctions for 

inmates

Inmates are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to 

a formal disciplinary process 

following an administrative ruling that the inmate engaged 

in inmate-on-inmate sexual 

abuse or following a criminal 

finding of guilt for inmate-oninmate sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with 

the nature and circumstances 

of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and 

the sanctions meted out for 

comparable offenses by other 

inmates with similar histories. 

The disciplinary process must 

consider whether an inmate’s 

mental disabilities or mental 

illness contributed to his or 

her behavior when determining 

what type of sanction, if any, 

should be imposed. Possible 

sanctions also include interventions designed to address and 

correct underlying reasons or 

motivation for the abuse, such 

as requiring the offending inmate to participate in therapy, 

counseling, or other programs.
Victims are unlikely to receive the 

treatment and support known to 

minimize the trauma of abuse. 

Correctional facilities need to ensure 

immediate and ongoing access to 

medical and mental health care and 

supportive services.
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 125

6

Treating Trauma

Daskalea testified in court that she felt “constant stress, 

anxiety, and dread of imminent sexual attack.” Even her 

release from jail in August 1995 did not free her. Daskalea 

suffered from insomnia, struggled with eating disorders, 

and “spent months emotionally and psychologically 

debilitated, withdrawn and depressed.”

I

t was a warm July night in the District of Columbia and the jail’s air 

conditioning was not working, so staff left the cell doors open.1

 The senior officer in charge, a woman, was known to organize events where 

women inmates stripped and danced naked on the dining room tables. 

As inmates and male and female

staff mingled in the heat on 

this particular evening in 1995, 

an officer started playing loud 

music in the dining room. A 

crowd soon formed and several 

inmates began dancing. Sunday 

Daskalea, the victim of ongoing

sexual harassment while detained at the jail, fled to her cell, 

afraid of being forced to participate. After a few minutes, the officer in 

charge demanded that Daskalea be brought out. The music stopped and 

the crowd, which now also included maintenance workers, began chanting Daskalea’s name. 

Two inmates dragged Daskalea out of her cell and into the center of 

the crowd, where the officer in charge ordered her to dance. Daskalea complied, removing all her clothes except her underwear, but was so frightened that her legs trembled. Staff and inmates watched her as she danced, 

“shouting and clapping; some flashed money.”2

 One inmate grabbed Daskalea and rubbed baby oil all over her body. When Daskalea fell to the 

floor, that inmate lay on top of her, rubbing her body against Daskalea’s. 

When Daskalea was questioned about the incident a few days later, she 

told the interviewer she was afraid something would happen to her if she 

provided any details. Indeed, a few days later, all of her underwear was 

confiscated as “contraband” and she was placed in solitary confinement, 

initially without a mattress.3

This was only the latest in a string of abusive incidents Daskalea 

had suffered at the facility. On one earlier occasion, an officer pulled her 

out of her cell and forced her into a room where a male inmate, known for 
126 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

his sexual misconduct, was waiting. The man attacked Daskalea and attempted to rape her. The sexual harassment and abuse escalated over time. 

Daskalea reported the abuse to jail officials and to the judge who sentenced 

her; although the judge held a hearing and recommended that Daskalea 

be moved out of the D.C. jail for her safety, jail authorities took no action.4

 Completely without protection, Daskalea became crippled by 

fear. She slept only during the day, afraid of what officers might do to 

her at night. She testified in court that she felt “constant stress, anxiety, 

and dread of imminent sexual attack.”5

 Even her release from jail in August 1995 did not free her. Daskalea suffered from insomnia, struggled 

with eating disorders, and “spent months emotionally and psychologically debilitated, withdrawn and depressed.” According to the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia, “These injures are hardly surprising or unexpected in light of the abuse Daskalea suffered. . . . [I]t 

does not take an expert to confirm the jury’s common sense with respect 

to both their existence and cause.”6

 The court awarded Daskalea compensatory damages for mental and emotional distress. Court records do 

not reveal what clinical treatment, if any, Daskalea received following the 

attempted rape and the extraordinary abuses she endured while confined, 

but her testimony suggests that she was in urgent need of counseling and 

support services while she was incarcerated and after her release. 

As corrections administrators work to create a protective environment in the facilities they manage, they also have a legal duty to ensure 

that when systems fail and abuse occurs, victims have unfettered access 

to appropriate medical and mental health services.7

 Healing from sexual 

abuse is difficult under the best circumstances; without adequate treatment, recovery may never occur. This chapter describes common mental 

and physical effects of sexual abuse—underscoring why treatment is so 

important—and explores why many victims do not seek or receive the 

medical and mental health care they need and to which they are entitled 

by law. 

An Assault on Body and Mind 

As sexual assault nurse examiner Jennifer Pierce-Weeks told the 

Commission, experiences of sexual abuse have the potential 

to harm a person in every dimension of life: “psychological, 

physical, spiritual, and social. . . .”8

 Potentially long-lasting 

psychological aftereffects of sexual abuse are well documented. They include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety disorders, fear of loud 

noises or sudden movements, panic attacks, and intense flashbacks to the 

traumatic event.9

 Each of these consequences alone has the ability to retraumatize victims for years.10
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 127

Almost all victims of an invasive or violent sexual assault develop 

some symptoms of PTSD, although the symptoms may not show up until 

weeks or months after the abuse.11 PTSD is not unique to victims of sexual 

abuse; it is a possible response to any life-changing event that is destructive 

and destabilizing.12 Symptoms of PTSD vary and include sadness, explosive 

anger, feelings of hopelessness, changes in memory or thinking, feeling 

marked or changed in a permanent way, obsessing about the event or persons involved, relating to others differently, losing trust in others, and other 

detrimental reactions.13 Some victims experience PTSD for just a few weeks 

or months; for others, the symptoms are long lasting and hard to overcome. 

Hope Hernandez was raped by a corrections officer in 1997 in the 

hospital ward of the same jail in which Daskalea was sexually abused. In 

her testimony to the Commission, Hernandez spoke about the lasting effects of sexual assault. “Although it’s been eight years, I’m still suffering 

from the effects of that rape. On the one-year anniversary of this rape, I 

kept seeing the guard’s face over me. . . . I wanted to see something besides 

his face. . . . [M]y husband has tried to be intimate with me. All I could see 

was this guard’s face flashing back in my mind, and I would become ill.”14

Such vivid flashbacks are not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse.15 

Avoiding stimuli likely to trigger a flashback or other emotional responses is particularly difficult in a correctional facility, where victims may 

regularly encounter the setting 

where the abuse occurred—in 

some cases their own cell. It 

also may be impossible to avoid 

their abuser, causing them to 

continually relive the incident 

and maintaining the trauma.16

When victims remain at risk of 

repeated abuse, their fears are 

both rational and debilitating. 

For this reason, the Commission’s standards require first responders to separate the victim from the 

alleged abuser. (See Chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of responsibilities 

of first responders.)

“I’ve abused drugs and alcohol and tried to kill myself on the installment plan,” Chance Martin told the Commission. “I couldn’t successfully commit suicide; although, I wanted to worse than anything in the 

world.”17 At age 18, Martin was sexually abused while incarcerated in the 

Lake County Jail in Crown Point, Indiana. Martin’s wish to end his life 

is not atypical among victims of sexual abuse. In non-correctional settings, one-third to one-half of rape victims consider suicide; between 17 

and 19 percent actually attempt suicide.18 Young women are particularly 

susceptible to thoughts of suicide following a traumatic personal event.19

“Although it’s been eight years, I’m still suffering from the 

effects of that rape. On the one-year anniversary of this 

rape, I kept seeing the guard’s face over me. . . . I wanted to 

see something besides his face. . . . [M]y husband has tried 

to be intimate with me. All I could see was this guard’s face 

flashing back in my mind, and I would become ill.” Such vivid 

flashbacks are not uncommon for victims of sexual abuse.
128 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

For young women and girls, any experience that threatens their sense of 

safety or one that unsettles their understanding of morality can lead to 

thoughts of self-harm.20 

There also appears to be a strong correlation between the psychological responses to trauma and self-mutilating behaviors, such as headbanging, cutting, and swallowing razors or glass.21 A study of teenage girls 

who had experienced sexual 

abuse found that almost half of 

them suffered from clinical levels of depression, anxiety, and 

PTSD, and 62 percent engaged 

in self-mutilating behavior.22

Victims may use self-mutilation 

as punishment if they blame 

themselves for the abuse, or 

they may be using physical 

pain to block unbearably painful emotions.23 The risk of suicide and selfmutilation make it especially important for sexual abuse victims to have 

immediate access to treatment and for medical and mental health care 

professionals and other corrections staff to monitor survivors closely and 

respond quickly to any warning signs.

Studies of incarcerated individuals also suggest that men and women victims may react differently and in varying degrees to sexual trauma.24 

In addition to the psychological responses already described, reactions of 

males to sexual victimization by other men in confinement may include 

feeling that one has lost “status” in the facility, lack of confidence in one’s 

masculinity, and feeling that one has been made more feminine as a result of the abuse.25 Male victims who did not identify as gay or bisexual prior to their incarceration may develop confusion about their sexual 

orientation or gender identity if sexually victimized by other men. Other 

prisoners or staff also may taunt a male victim about being a “woman” 

or make the victim feel that his sexual orientation was compromised as a 

result of the experience.26

Sexual abuse and emotional and psychological responses may also 

lead to serious medical conditions. For both men and women, responses 

like chronic anxiety, hyper-arousal, sleep disturbances, and eating disorders are strongly associated with development of long-term health problems, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and a weakened immune 

system.27 Women victims can develop fibromyalgia, a chronic disorder 

characterized by musculoskeletal pain and tender spots across the body.28

Rape of women by men also carries the risk of pregnancy.29 Studies indicate that sexual abuse victims have poorer physical functioning in general 

and more physical ailments than non-abused individuals, even after controlling for emotional disturbances such as depression.30 

Sexual abuse and emotional and psychological responses 

may also lead to serious medical conditions. For both 

men and women, responses like chronic anxiety, hyperarousal, sleep disturbances, and eating disorders are 

strongly associated with development of long-term health 

problems, including cardiovascular disease, ulcers, and 

a weakened immune system.
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 129

In addition to the mental and physical problems that stem from 

sexual abuse, many victims are physically injured during the course of a 

sexual assault. Depending on the degree of force, the size of the perpetrator in relation to the victim, and any weapons involved, physical injuries 

can include bruises, lacerations, bleeding, broken bones, concussions, 

knocked-out teeth, internal injuries, and even more serious physical damages.31 Physical injuries incurred by women as a result of rape also may 

lead to persistent pelvic pain, excessive menstrual bleeding and cramping, 

and other gynecological disorders.32

A study of incarcerated men found that more than half of all sexual 

assaults resulted in physical injury. Men assaulted by other prisoners were 

somewhat more likely than those assaulted by corrections staff to be injured physically (67 percent compared with 53 percent). Only a quarter of 

the injuries documented in this study—those to the anus or throat—were 

a direct consequence of forced penetration. However, victims of sexual 

assaults by other prisoners were more likely to sustain internal injuries or 

be knocked unconscious than victims of physical but nonsexual assaults.33

Exposure to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections is another 

potential consequence of sexual abuse, although if a prisoner is infected 

with one of these diseases, the symptoms may not be evident for months 

following an assault. Michael Blucker tested negative for HIV when he 

was admitted to the Menard Correctional Center in Illinois in 1993 but, approximately a year later, after being raped multiple times by other prisoners, 

Blucker tested positive.34 Although he eventually lost his lawsuit against 

the corrections staff he believes were deliberately indifferent to his victimization, his case prompted Illinois legislators to pass a law protecting 

prisoners against acts that have the potential to result in an “unadjudicated 

death sentence.”35

In 2005–2006, 21,980 State and Federal prisoners were HIV positive 

or living with AIDS.36 Researchers believe the prevalence of hepatitis C in 

correctional facilities is dramatically higher, based on number of prisoners 

with a history of injecting illegal drugs prior to incarceration. Sexually 

transmitted infections, such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia, are 

also prevalent in the incarcerated population.37 According to testimony 

before the Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) lacks data to assess the 

extent to which sex in correctional facilities, whether rape or 

consensual, contributes to the 

high prevalence of HIV in prisons and jails.38 One CDC study did find that 

individuals in confinement may contract HIV in a variety of ways, including sexual contact.39

The CDC has made a number of recommendations to address and 

potentially mitigate the risk of HIV/AIDS for incarcerated individuals and 

A study of incarcerated men found that more than half 

of all sexual assaults resulted in physical injury. 
130 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

the community, including HIV education, peer-education programs, testing, and prevention counseling for prisoners.40 The CDC study also noted 

that “providing condoms to sexually active persons is an integral part of 

HIV prevention interventions outside of prison.”41 The Commission does 

not endorse the use of condoms in prisons and notes that sexual activity, 

whether consensual or not, is generally prohibited in correctional systems, 

but refers to this study because we believe that the incidence of HIV in 

certain populations outside correctional systems is likely attributable in 

part to such activity within correctional systems. 

Because of the disproportionate representation of minority men and 

women in correctional settings, it is likely that the spread of these diseases in confinement will have an even greater impact on minority men, 

women, and children and their communities. As such, the Commission 

recommends that funds be made available to the appropriate entities for 

research into whether consensual and/or nonconsensual sexual activity 

in the corrections system may play a role in infecting populations outside 

corrections with HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections.

A Duty to Care and Unmet Needs 

While incarcerated in the Women’s Correctional Institute in 

New Castle, Delaware, in 1995, Valerie Daniels was sexually assaulted by one of the officers working in the facility.42

The officer entered Daniels’s cell, forced her to perform oral 

sex on him, and then proceeded to vaginally rape her. Daniels did not 

report the rape or seek treatment until she began to feel ill and suspected 

she might be pregnant. A positive pregnancy test conducted at the facility’s 

health center confirmed her suspicions. Although Daniels reported feeling 

upset following the rape and had a history of emotional problems as well 

as developmental disabilities, she was not offered rape counseling or any 

other form of therapy at the facility, but only prescribed antidepressants. 

Daniels failed to persuade the court that prison officials were deliberately 

indifferent to her health care needs. However, experts testified on her 

behalf that antidepressants alone are not an appropriate form of treatment 

for a woman who has been raped.

More than three decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court 

established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate indifference to the health of 

prisoners is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.43 Since then, correctional agencies have struggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results, 

to meet the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often ill 

prisoner population. According to surveys of prisoners conducted by the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in 2004, 44 percent of people confined in 

State correctional facilities and 39 percent of Federal prisoners reported a 
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 131

current medical condition.44 Self-reports of mental illness are even higher. 

In the same BJS survey, more than half of incarcerated individuals reported a recent history or symptoms of a mental heath problem—56 percent 

of State prisoners, 45 percent of Federal prisoners, and 64 percent of jail 

inmates.45 Medical and mental health care for adults and youth in confinement deserves careful attention.

BJS is also the primary source of national data about the availability of treatment. A study published in 1999 that focused on mental health 

care found that only 60 percent of Federal and State prisoners and 41 percent of individuals confined in jails reported receiving necessary mental 

health services.46 More recently, independent researchers analyzed BJS’ 

2002 survey of jail inmates and 2004 survey of State and Federal prisoners and found that many prisoners with persistent problems had never 

been examined by a health care professional in the facility where they 

were incarcerated.47 This problem was much worse in jails than in prisons: 68 percent of jail inmates with medical problems reported never 

being examined, compared with 14 percent of Federal prisoners and 20 

percent of State prisoners. 

Although the National Commission on Correctional Health Care 

(NCCHC) developed a set of standards that clearly define what is needed 

to run a functional medical and mental health program, prisons and jails 

are not required to comply with those standards.48 NCCHC accreditation 

requires a fee and is strictly voluntary; many facilities elect not to engage 

in this process. As a result, only 225 jails, 135 prisons, and 59 juvenile 

detention facilities are currently NCCHC accredited.49 

Correctional health care is seriously underfunded almost everywhere, 

and most facilities are in dire need of additional skilled and compassionate 

health care practitioners.50 Appropriate mental health screening and treatment, in conjunction 

with careful classification, will 

protect vulnerable prisoners 

from sexual victimization. (See 

Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of risk and vulnerability.) 

When abuse does occur, providing appropriate treatment often 

is the most effective way to promote recovery and reduce the chance that the trauma of sexual abuse will 

lead to lasting or life-threatening medical or mental health problems.

More than three decades have passed since the U.S. Supreme 

Court established in Estelle v. Gamble that deliberate 

indifference to the health of prisoners is a form of cruel and 

unusual punishment. Since then, correctional agencies have 

struggled, and sometimes failed with tragic results, to meet 

the medical and mental health care needs of a large and often 

ill prisoner population.
132 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Access to emergency 

medical and mental health 

services

Victims of sexual abuse have 

timely, unimpeded access to 

emergency medical treatment 

and crisis intervention services, 

the nature and scope of which 

are determined by medical and 

mental health practitioners according to their professional 

judgment. Treatment services 

must be provided free of charge 

to the victim and regardless of 

whether the victim names the 

abuser. If no qualified medical 

or mental health practitioners 

are on duty at the time a report 

of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders take 

preliminary steps to protect the 

victim (OR-3) and immediately 

notify the appropriate medical 

and mental health practitioners.

Delivering Quality Care by Trained Professionals

Given the potentially severe and long-lasting medical and mental 

health consequences of sexual abuse, the Commission’s standards require facilities to ensure that victims have unimpeded 

access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention 

as well as continuing medical and/or mental health evaluations and care 

for as long as necessary. 

Generally, emergency care after sexual assaults includes diagnosing 

and treating any physical injuries, arranging for a forensic medical exam 

when appropriate and with the victim’s consent, assessing the victim’s 

medical and mental health needs, and planning follow-up care. Health 

practitioners, not security or other staff, must determine the nature and 

scope of the treatment based on their professional judgment. The quality 

of this initial response is crucial. As Jennifer Pierce-Weeks told the Commission, “receiving compassionate care at the time of the assault by an 

appropriately trained examiner. . . can assist all victims in their short and 

long-term healing process.”51

The initial response is only the beginning. The Commission designed its standard on ongoing treatment to ensure that skilled medical 

and mental health care practitioners assess and respond to a victim’s 

evolving medical and mental health care needs. Victims of sexual abuse 

may experience health problems that manifest weeks or months after the 

abuse has occurred. In terms of ongoing medical care, the Commission 

strongly urges medical staff to encourage victims to be tested for HIV and 

viral hepatitis 6 to 8 weeks following an incident of abuse and to obtain 

pregnancy tests in cases of vaginal penetration. These tests must be voluntary. The standard also requires facilities to conduct a mental health evaluation of all known abusers and to provide the treatment recommended.

Although diagnosing and treating emotional and psychological repercussions of sexual abuse is complex, there are a number of effective 

interventions and treatment modalities.52 In particular, studies suggest 

that group therapy is an effective intervention for victims of sexual abuse 

because it offers a supportive environment, prevents victims from feeling 

isolated, and validates their experiences and feelings.53 Because correctional facilities are closed environments, the use of group therapy should 

be carefully handled—victims could be in danger if sensitive information 

filters out beyond the group to other prisoners or staff. Clinicians have 

used other treatment approaches with victims of sexual abuse, including psycho-education and cognitive behavioral therapy, and can easily 

adapt these approaches to correctional settings.54 The challenge, clinicians agree, is finding the right intervention for victims at each stage of 

the healing process. 
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 133

Incarcerated individuals often do not report sexual abuse. In such 

cases, ensuring appropriate treatment hinges on knowing when an incarcerated individual’s mental or physical health problems might indicate that 

abuse has occurred. For this reason, the Commission’s standards require 

correctional facilities to ensure and document that all full- and part-time 

medical and mental health care practitioners receive training in the detection and assessment of sexual abuse. Correctional administrators seeking 

guidance on how to meet this standard can look to their peers in Alabama, 

Minnesota, and Texas. These systems provide this kind of training to the 

health care practitioners who work in their facilities.55 

The appropriate treatment method for victims of sexual abuse may 

vary, depending on the type of facility or setting. For example, the more 

open, communal nature of community corrections may allow for types of 

treatment that would not work as well in more secure settings. Treatment 

in juvenile facilities will also differ from treatment in adult facilities due to 

the psychological, cognitive, and developmental differences between youth 

and adults. As a result of these differences, the Commission’s Standards 

for juvenile facilities require that medical and mental health practitioners 

working with youth be specially trained on how to provide treatment to 

young victims of sexual abuse.

The Commission’s standard on ongoing medical and mental health 

treatment requires that care provided in correctional facilities match what 

is generally acceptable to medical and mental health care professionals. 

The Commission acknowledges that meeting this seemingly simple standard is a real challenge, especially for facilities in remote locations, where 

specialists, community providers, and other treatment resources may

be scarce. Partnerships between 

correctional systems and local 

medical and mental health care 

providers are helping to meet this 

need. Hampden County, Massachusetts, was one of the first places to pilot such a program, referred to as Community Oriented Correctional 

Health Services. Through the program, doctors, nurses, and case managers 

from the community serve as the medical and mental health care practitioners in the jail. Hampden County’s success inspired other jurisdictions, 

including Washington, D.C., and Ocala, Florida.56 Similar partnerships are 

in place elsewhere. For example, the Connecticut Department of Correction 

contracts with the University of Connecticut to provide health care to all 

State prisoners. Incarcerated individuals who are victims of sexual assault 

can receive free counseling and other medical and mental health services 

for as long as necessary.57

Such partnerships operate with the goal of raising the quality of correctional medical and mental health care and ensuring that all victims of 

“[R]eceiving compassionate care at the time of the assault by 

an appropriately trained examiner. . . can assist all victims in 

their short and long-term healing process.”

Ongoing medical and mental 

health care for sexual abuse 

victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing 

medical and/or mental health 

evaluation and treatment to all 

known victims of sexual abuse. 

The evaluation and treatment 

of sexual abuse victims must 

include appropriate follow-up 

services, treatment plans, and, 

when necessary, referrals for 

continued care following their release from custody. The level of 

medical and mental health care 

provided to inmate victims must 

match the community level of 

care generally accepted by the 

medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health 

evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as 

deemed necessary by qualified 

mental health practitioners.
134 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

sexual abuse have access to adequate treatment during and after their period of confinement.58 Continued care is important to the long-term medical 

and mental health of victims and also to protecting community health—

each year, jails and prisons release more than 1.5 million people with infectious diseases, many of which can spread through sexual contact.59 

Specialized training: Medical 

and mental health care

The agency ensures that all 

full- and part-time medical and 

mental health care practitioners working in its facilities 

have been trained in how to 

detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical 

practitioners are trained in how 

to preserve physical evidence 

of sexual abuse. All medical 

and mental health care practitioners must be trained in how 

to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual 

abuse and how and to whom to 

report allegations or suspicions 

of sexual abuse. The agency 

maintains documentation that 

medical and mental health 

practitioners have received this 

specialized training.

Addressing an Ethical Dilemma “as Old as Prisons 

Are Themselves”

Regardless of the quality of available treatment, some victims of 

sexual abuse in confinement settings may be reluctant to access 

medical and mental health services.60 When sexual abuse occurs 

in the community, victims—unless they are children—can see 

a doctor or counselor and be assured that the information they provide 

will remain confidential. Anyone can understand the desire for absolute 

confidentiality, especially when the circumstances involve something as 

intimate as sexual abuse, but the nature of life in a correctional facility 

and the goals of safety and security make that impossible. “Absolute confidentiality is a nice idea. And in an ideal world, I would concur wholeheartedly,” Art Beeler told the Commission.61 Beeler, a former warden of the 

Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, North Carolina, explained that facility staff need to know when abuse occurs and who is allegedly involved 

to adequately protect victims. “Without [this information], a correctional 

officer or unit staff member may house the [victim] with the perpetrator’s 

best buddy. Or worse yet, with the perpetrator. . . . If this information was 

not available to correctional personnel, your decision in housing an offender may be, in fact, a death sentence.”62

Former Medical Director of the New Mexico Department of Corrections Mike Puisis raised the same concerns in his testimony to the 

Commission, “Medical professionals [who work in correctional facilities] 

should be required to report rape. . . . [M]edical ethics and patient safety 

are the reasons that reporting rape should be a professional obligation. 

Hopefully, the reporting of rape will result in the safety of the patient.”63 

Although the potential consequences of withholding information 

are clear, striking the right balance in terms of sharing sensitive information among corrections staff is not easy. As Beeler noted, “The ethical 

dilemma of whom to share information with in a prison environment is 

probably as old as prisons are themselves. On one side. . . is the desire that 

the information not be shared with those who do not have the sensitivity 

to handle the information in a professional manner. On the other side is the 

need to keep staff and inmates safe and the institution secure.”64

The Commission believes that absolute confidentiality is not in the best 

interest of the victim or the safety of the facility. The standards require that 
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 135

all facility staff, including medical and mental health care practitioners, 

report any allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. Many States—including 

New Mexico where Puisis worked, as well as California, Georgia, and 

Texas—already have policies that meet this standard. At the same time, 

correctional mental and medical health care professionals must discreetly 

handle information provided by victims of sexual abuse, sharing it with 

other staff only on a need-to-know basis and following clear protocols. 

They also must inform prisoners of their duty to report before providing 

services. 

Because physician-patient confidentiality is a hallmark of medical 

care in the community, doctors, nurses, and counselors must be clearly 

informed about their duties as 

mandatory reporters. The Commission’s standard on training 

for medical and mental health 

practitioners requires facilities to 

ensure that all full- and part-time 

staff receive training on how and 

to whom to report information 

about sexual abuse. Policies on mandatory reporting must also be covered 

in sexual abuse education programs for prisoners. Clear policies communicated effectively to both medical and mental health care practitioners 

and prisoners ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what 

mandatory reporting entails.

Offering Other Options

Many incarcerated individuals will only access medical or 

mental health treatment if they feel confident that doing 

so will not put them at risk for further harm. Individuals 

who testified before the Commission often expressed fear 

that speaking out about abuse and naming abusers may lead to retaliation.65 Retaliation can take many different forms. Lost privileges, internal 

sanctions, and threats of injury are possible when individuals name perpetrators of sexual abuse. Victims as well as witnesses may be reluctant 

to seek treatment because they are afraid to name the perpetrator and 

follow through with a formal complaint and investigation. (See Chapter 

5 for a more detailed discussion.) For these reasons, the Commission’s 

standards mandate that medical and mental health care practitioners 

provide a sexual abuse victim needed treatment, regardless of whether 

he or she names the perpetrator. Without this policy, sexual abuse victims may decide that the risk of further harm is too great and elect not 

to access treatment.

“Absolute confidentiality is a nice idea. And in an ideal 

world, I would concur wholeheartedly,” Art Beeler told the 

Commission. Beeler explained that facility staff need to 

know when abuse occurs and who is allegedly involved to 

adequately protect victims.
136 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

The Commission realizes that some victims will never feel comfortable or safe disclosing their experience of sexual abuse to a corrections 

employee. The standards, therefore, require facilities to give prisoners information about how to contact victim advocates and other support services in the community and underscore that victim communication with 

outside advocates be private and confidential to the extent permitted by 

law. Meeting this standard can be as simple as prominently posting tollfree hotline numbers. However, the Commission requires correctional 

facilities to try to develop real relationships with community-based organizations, formalized through memoranda of understanding—not only to 

fulfill this particular standard but, when possible, to ensure that victims of 

sexual abuse have support as they transition from the facility back to their 

home communities. Collaborations with community-based crisis centers 

are currently in place in numerous States, including California, Iowa, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, and Utah.66

“Paths to Recovery,” a pilot program operated by Just Detention International (formerly Stop Prisoner Rape) in collaboration with the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, pairs community-based rape 

crisis professionals with nearby prisons. As of early 2009, the program was 

being tested in two sites. Sexual abuse counselors travel to these prisons 

to provide confidential services to survivors of sexual abuse regardless of 

whether the abuse occurred in that facility or elsewhere. Wendy Still, former 

Associate Director of Female Offender Programs and Services for the department, believes the program is accomplishing much more than its frontline 

service objective. “If survivors of sexual assault know that confidential 

support services are available, if they see the institution providing for their 

emotional as well as medical needs, they will be more likely to access 

the services and. . . feel safe enough to file these formal complaints so 

that proper action may be taken against the perpetrator.”67 As Still highlighted in her testimony, the impact of providing quality treatment services 

reaches beyond individual victims to foster an environment in correctional 

facilities that actively discourages sexual abuse. 

Inmate access to outside 

confidential support services

In addition to providing on-site 

mental health care services, 

the facility provides inmates 

with access to outside victim 

advocates for emotional support services related to sexual 

abuse. The facility provides 

such access by giving inmates 

the current mailing addresses 

and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, 

of local, State, and/or national 

victim advocacy or rape crisis 

organizations and enabling 

reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations. The facility ensures 

that communications with such 

advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to the 

extent allowable by Federal, 

State, and local law. The facility 

informs inmates, prior to giving 

them access, of the extent to 

which such communications 

will be private, confidential, 

and/or privileged.

Eliminating Cost as a Barrier to Treatment

Cost may also be a barrier to treatment for victims of sexual 

abuse. In the majority of States, legislatures have passed laws 

authorizing correctional agencies to charge prisoners for medical care.68 Fees and co-payments are viewed as a way to reduce 

budget deficits and eliminate abuses of the sick call system, assuming 

that prisoners are willing to pay only when they really need to see a doctor, nurse, or therapist. The problem, however, is that an unknown and 

perhaps large number of prisoners who “opt out” actually need medical 
C H A P T E R 6 : T R E AT I N G T R A U M A 137

or mental health care. Most incarcerated individuals have scant financial 

resources, and some delay seeking treatment until their symptoms worsen 

or until they need emergency care because a fee as little as $5 is beyond 

their means. When New Jersey implemented a $5 co-payment for medical 

care in prisons in the mid-1990s, for example, a 60 percent drop in sick 

calls followed.69 Recent research across 36 States indicates that co-payment 

programs reduced sick calls between 16 and 50 percent.70

Victims of sexual abuse should not have to consider whether they 

can afford to see a doctor or a counselor. The Commission’s standards 

require facilities to provide emergency medical and mental health care 

services to victims of sexual abuse free of charge. Meeting this standard 

in facilities that currently charge prisoners for emergency care will require 

changes in policy and practice. Many correctional systems go further by 

crafting co-pay and fee-for-service systems that include exemptions for 

chronic care. Because sexual abuse can lead to ongoing medical and 

mental health problems, and because victims may delay reporting abuse, 

the Commission urges systems that already have such exemptions to include common and persistent aftereffects of sexual abuse among the list 

of chronic health problems. For those correctional systems without such 

exemptions, the Commission encourages them to consider this approach.

Financial barriers to treatment come in other forms, as well. In her 

written testimony for the Commission, Sandra Matheson, Director of the 

State Office of Victim/Witness 

Assistance at the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, 

described a case involving a corrections officer at Shea Farm Halfway House in Concord and the multiple 

abuses he perpetrated against women confined there during the early 

2000s.71 (See Chapter 8 for more details on this case.) After describing the 

physical brutality and sexual assaults women residents at Shea Farm endured, Matheson went on to explain how the New Hampshire Department 

of Corrections responded when the abuse came to light. 

Matheson worked with the Director of Community Corrections to 

set up a meeting for women at Shea Farm to brief them on the case and 

to offer support services. The department also brought in mental health 

practitioners and a local rape crisis center. Because of their lack of trust 

in the system after the assaults, the women were not comfortable seeking treatment from the department’s mental health practitioners; they 

wanted to see a therapist within the community.72 In recognition of the 

costs associated with obtaining outside treatment, Matheson helped victims file a claim with the State’s Victim Compensation Program. However, the women of Shea Farm suffered another setback: the State denied 

their claims due to a rule that prohibited inmates from receiving compensation for these services. 

Victims of sexual abuse should not have to consider whether 

they can afford to see a doctor or a counselor.
138 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

The prohibition in New Hampshire on compensating formerly incarcerated individuals stems from the 1984 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). 

Money from the Act funds victim assistance and crime compensation programs. Office for Victims of Crime guidelines prohibit using VOCA money 

to serve incarcerated victims of sexual violence, even if the victimization 

occurred while in custody. Similarly, grants administered under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) cannot be used to assist incarcerated 

victims of sexual abuse who have been convicted of domestic or dating 

violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The Commission recommends that 

the VOCA grant guidelines be changed and that Congress amend VAWA 

to acknowledge that all survivors of sexual abuse deserve treatment and 

support services.

Unimpeded access to treatment, care by qualified medical and 

mental health care practitioners, and structured collaborations with outside providers are critical to ensuring that incarcerated victims of sexual 

abuse receive the medical and mental health care services they need to 

heal, be safe, and begin rebuilding their lives.
PART III 

SPECIAL POPULATIONS
Juveniles in confinement are much 

more likely than incarcerated adults 

to be sexually abused, and they are 

particularly at risk when confined 

with adults. To be effective, sexual 

abuse prevention, investigation, and 

treatment must be tailored to the 

developmental capacities and 

needs of youth.
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 141

7

When Children Are Involved

I

n summer 2004, the Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility in Indiana 

housed nearly 300 boys, most between the ages of 12 and 18.1

 Based 

on reports of rampant physical violence and sexual abuse, the U.S. Department of Justice began investigating conditions of confinement and 

the safety of the residents. That investigation revealed pervasive sexual activity of almost unimaginable proportions. Acts of sexual abuse occurred 

throughout the facility—in dormitories, day rooms, the recreation area, 

bathrooms and showers, storage closets, and even in the campus security 

van. Sexual contact among youth was so widespread that authorities at the 

facility used flow charts to document the incidents, charting each youth 

involved and the nature of the sexual activities. One incident involved 

eight boys; another involved 14.

The investigators were especially concerned by the “alarming” age 

and size disparity between many of the youth involved and noted that 

“[w]hen older, bigger, and/or more sophisticated youths have access to 

younger and/or smaller youths, the risk of abuse and exploitation is particularly high.”2

 Youth as old as 18 were assaulting or coercing children as 

young as 12; children weighing as little as 70 pounds were sexually abused 

by youth outweighing them by 100 pounds. Older youth were inappropriately housed with and had easy access to 12-year-old boys. In one case, a 

16-year-old gave a 12-year-old clothing to entice him into having sex with 

him in the dayroom. In another, an 18-year-old youth attempted on two 

occasions to force a 12-year-old to have sex with him in a bathroom. 

Very little seemed to deter abusive behavior at Plainfield. Assaults 

often occurred without staff intervening or even being aware of them. 

At their best, staff ratios were one staff member for 30 youth, and sometimes there was only one staff member to supervise 48 youth, decimating 

the ability of staff to prevent incidents, protect vulnerable residents, or 

“respond in a safe and timely manner” when sexual assaults did occur.3 

Housing arrangements at Plainfield exacerbated the danger. For example, 

sexual offenders were housed in large dormitories with bunk beds—a

design known to increase the risk of sexual abuse. 
142 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

In its report, the Department of Justice emphasized that Plainfield 

administrators had a duty under the U.S. Constitution to take reasonable 

measures to protect vulnerable residents from abuse and exploitation by 

more sophisticated, sexually predatory youth and also to provide a “rehabilitative environment for all young sex offenders.”4

 State officials converted Plainfield into an adult facility in October 2005, shortly after they 

received the report.5

A daily snapshot of juveniles in custody in 2006 showed that approximately 93,000 youth ages 20 and under were confined in juvenile facilities 

in the United States; more than half (55,978) were 16 years old or younger.6 

Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse in these facilities 

demands age-appropriate interventions. The Commission’s standards for juvenile facilities parallel those for adult prisons and jails, with modifications 

to reflect the developmental capacities and needs of children. 

This chapter discusses why confined youth are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and how to protect them, with an emphasis on standards that are significantly different in a juvenile justice context.

Heightened Vulnerability, Special Responsibility

Historically, the juvenile justice system was designed to provide 

a therapeutic and rehabilitative environment for youth who violate the law.7 Therefore, most juvenile facilities differ from adult 

prisons and jails in their theoretical emphasis on rehabilitation. 

Notwithstanding recent punitive approaches to juvenile delinquency, new 

scientific evidence confirms that youth are especially amenable to treatment. As the Supreme Court noted in 2005, the character of a juvenile is 

less “fixed” than that of an adult.8

 Researchers have identified several features of adolescence that make youth particularly open to rehabilitation, including significant and rapid changes in intellectual capacities and evidence 

of positive responses to adjustments in family, peer group, school, and other 

settings that influence development.9

 As a result, most youth will mature out 

of misdemeanor and other criminal behavior between the teenage years and 

young adulthood; few youth persist in a life of crime as adults.10 

Youth may pass through the system once or twice, never to return. 

Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with lifelong consequences.11

Juvenile justice agencies thus have an opportunity and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now, or risk long-term consequences for victims. 

Juveniles are not yet fully developed physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally and are ill-equipped to respond to sexual advances 

and protect themselves.12 Younger teenagers and preteens, in particular, 

are unprepared to cope with sexualized coercion or aggression from older, 
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 143

more experienced youth or adult corrections staff, and such abuse may 

permanently damage them.13 Because of their age, youth are entitled to 

even greater protections from abuse and unnecessary pain than incarcerated adults. Youth in criminal justice settings have a right to “bodily integrity” under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, as would any child in 

school.14 Indeed, when the State exercises custodial authority over children, 

“its responsibility to act in the place of parents (in loco parentis) obliges it to 

take special care to protect those in its charge, and that protection must be 

concerned with dangers from others and self-inflicted harm.”15

It is especially egregious when staff are the perpetrators of sexual 

abuse against youth and when facilities fail to hold perpetrators accountable. Over a period of almost a year in 1997 and 1998, L.C. was allegedly sexually abused by two 

staff members of the residential juvenile detention facility 

in Chalkville, Alabama.16 On 

one occasion, when L.C. was 

16 years old, she was granted 

a pass to travel to another town 

to visit her mother. A Chalkville 

corrections officer followed her 

there without her knowledge and coerced her into meeting him at a local 

restaurant. By threatening to use his authority over her at the facility, he 

made her accompany him to a motel. Once at the motel, he raped her. These 

off-site rapes happened on two occasions. The officer repeatedly made sexually explicit statements to L.C., said she didn’t seem like a virgin, and told 

her about having sex with other girls at the facility. L.C. submitted a written 

complaint reporting the abuse to the facility superintendent, but he wrote 

back that “he could not control the actions of Chalkville Campus’ employees 

when they were off-site.”17 

The State’s obligation to protect youth in juvenile facilities covers 

not just staff but also residents, contract employees, and volunteers. The 

story of A.S., a 15-year-old girl at Chalkville, illustrates the harm caused by 

failure to protect youth from sexual abuse. Over a period of months beginning in September 2000, a male security guard employed by the Department of Youth Services (DYS) allegedly sexually abused A.S.18 One night, 

when agency records confirm that he escorted her back to her cottage, 

the security guard raped her. He continued to threaten and harass her for 

the rest of his time at the facility. Eight months later, when allegations of 

sexual abuse at Chalkville reached the police, the assailant was placed 

on administrative leave. The girl continued to fear for her safety, however, because other staff on leave for sexual abuse still visited the facility. 

When DYS took no action to reassure her, her emotional trauma escalated 

Youth may pass through the system once or twice, never to 

return. Yet if they are sexually abused, they may live with 

lifelong consequences. Juvenile justice agencies thus have 

an opportunity and a challenge: prevent sexual abuse now, 

or risk long-term consequences for victims. 
144 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

until she became suicidal. She was placed in in-patient care, where she 

remained for the duration of her sentence. 

The pervasive misconduct at Chalkville and the systemic failure to 

respond led 49 girls to bring charges that “male staff had fondled, raped 

and sexually harassed” them.19 DYS officials received notices about sexual 

abuse in the form of letters, complaint forms, and incident reports beginning in 1994 and continuing into 2001.20 Although DYS investigated some 

of the complaints, it ignored many because the girls were “presumed to be 

liars and troublemakers.”21 One 

court opinion noted that—with 

the number of complaints of 

sexual abuse over such a long 

period of time, often involving 

the same staff members—any 

“reasonable supervisor should have realized that he or she had a bigger 

problem.”22 Ultimately, the pervasiveness of the abuse was impossible for 

the State to ignore, and legislation was passed making custodial sexual 

misconduct a crime.23 Fifteen employees were fired or resigned as a result 

of the allegations. The litigation ended with a $12.5 million settlement.24

The gravity of what happened in Chalkville cannot be overstated; 

the risk and consequences of abuse among confined youth deserve serious attention. Rates of sexual abuse appear to be much higher for youth 

in confinement than they are for adult prisoners. This is true of recorded 

allegations of sexual abuse as well as incidents that investigators deemed 

“substantiated.” The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that the rate 

of sexual abuse in adult facilities, based only on substantiated allegations 

reported to corrections authorities that were captured in administrative 

records, was 2.91 per 1,000 incarcerated prisoners in 2006.25 The rate in juvenile facilities, also reported by BJS and based on administrative records, 

was more than five times greater: 16.8 per 1,000 in 2006.26 This difference 

in rates may be due, in part, to State and local mandatory reporting laws 

specifying that sexual acts involving persons under a certain age are nonconsensual by definition and must be reported to authorities. 

The actual extent of sexual abuse in residential facilities is still 

unknown.27 At the time this report went to press, the best national data 

available on the sexual abuse of youth in confinement were based on 

juvenile facilities’ administrative records of allegations and substantiated 

or unsubstantiated incidents. To be substantiated, the abuse first has to 

be reported and recorded by the facility. Substantiating an allegation also 

requires a formal investigation, availability of adequate and still-viable 

evidence, and entering a finding that sexual abuse occurred into official 

records. All these steps can be compromised by reluctance on the part 

of youth or staff to report abuse or to conduct or participate in an investigation, officials’ concerns about publicity and liability, and a lack of 

The officer repeatedly made sexually explicit statements 

to L.C., said she didn’t seem like a virgin, and told her 

about having sex with other girls at the facility.
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 145

adequate procedures or training on how to respond to reports and investigate alleged incidents.28 

As directed by PREA, BJS is now conducting the first nationally 

representative survey of sexual abuse in residential detention, based on 

computer-assisted interviews. Youth use a touch screen to respond to a 

questionnaire accompanied by audio instructions delivered through headphones.29 This research will provide the best estimate yet on rates of abuse 

in juvenile facilities and allow comparisons with BJS’ groundbreaking sexual abuse surveys of adult prisoners. A pilot study of 645 residents in nine 

facilities for youth adjudicated for committing severe offenses suggests 

that juveniles may be more vulnerable to sexual abuse in confinement 

than anyone imagined. Nearly one of every five youth surveyed (19.7 percent) reported at least one sexual contact during the preceding 12 months 

or since they had arrived at that facility if they had been there less than 12 

months.30 Staff were as likely as youth to perpetrate sexual abuse: nearly 

8 percent of the youth interviewed reported sexual contacts with staff involving physical force or threat of force; other types of force or pressure; or 

sex in return for money, protection, or other special treatment. 

Who’s at Risk

I

n September 2008, the Department of Justice Review Panel on Prison 

Rape prepared a report on sexual assault in Federal and State prisons 

that included a comprehensive profile of common characteristics of 

victims and perpetrators of 

rape in adult correctional facilities.31 To date, there has been no 

similarly comprehensive study 

of the characteristics of youth 

who are at greatest risk of being 

victimized or of perpetrating 

sexual abuse in juvenile facilities.32 However, some characteristics—including past abuse history, small size, inexperience with the 

justice system, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and mental and 

physical disabilities—may be associated with higher vulnerability to sexual abuse. 

Youth in juvenile detention span a wide range of ages and developmental stages. In some States, youth as young as 6 and as old as 20 fall 

within juvenile court jurisdiction and can be housed, at least in theory, in 

the same facility.33 This mix is fraught with danger because younger and 

smaller residents may be particularly vulnerable to force, violence, sexual 

abuse, and intimidation from older and stronger residents.34 A 2005–2006 

Youth in juvenile detention span a wide range of ages 

and developmental stages. In some States, youth as young 

as 6 and as old as 20 fall within juvenile court jurisdiction 

and can be housed, at least in theory, in the same facility. 

This mix is fraught with danger.
146 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

BJS survey of juvenile facilities found that, across facilities that provided 

data, 60 percent of victims of substantiated incidents of sexual violence 

perpetrated by other youth were 15 years of age or younger. In contrast, 

victims of staff sexual violence were usually older: 65 percent of staff victims were 16 or 17, and 19 percent were 18 or above.35 

Studies in the community suggest that youth with a history of 

abuse or neglect may be extremely vulnerable to subsequent victimization as well—a risk that can persist into adulthood.36 President of the 

National Juvenile Detention Association Leonard Dixon testified before 

the Commission that “[y]outh who enter the juvenile justice system often 

come to [the facility] from abusive and neglect[ful] families. In Michigan 

alone, twenty percent of the juvenile justice youth have been victims of 

child abuse and neglect.”37 These youth often feel powerless at the hands 

of adults: a feeling likely to be heightened in the authoritarian environment of juvenile detention, where they are expected to follow all orders 

issued by the adults in charge, submit to strip searches by adults, and 

depend on those in authority to meet basic needs and protect them from 

potential perpetrators. 

Inexperience with the criminal justice system and commingling 

juveniles with different offense histories also contribute to the vulnerability of thousands of confined youth. When M.W., a 14-year-old boy 

weighing 98 pounds, was detained in the reception area of the West Palm 

Beach, Florida, juvenile detention center after an arrest for burglary, he 

was placed in a cell by himself.38 Microphones and cameras allowed staff 

to monitor cells in the detention 

center, but some officers lacked 

access to the monitoring equipment, so cell doors were often 

left open to give counselors a 

direct view of the youth inside. 

Officers later placed another 

boy in the cell with M.W. This boy was 15 years old, 6’2” tall, and weighed 

160 pounds. Half an hour later, officers placed an additional boy in the cell. 

This boy was 16 years old, 6’2” tall, weighed 195 pounds, and had a long 

history of violent crimes. 

Less than 1 hour after the boys entered the cell, one boy attempted 

to force M.W. to perform oral sex while the other boy watched. An officer, 

who noticed that the cell door was almost completely closed, entered and 

witnessed the assault in progress. The officer pulled M.W. out of the cell 

and asked if he had been hurt. However, M.W. was never given a medical 

examination or provided mental health treatment while detained at the 

facility. Several months after the assault, M.W. developed chronic nightmares and posttraumatic stress disorder. A court later awarded $100,000 in 

compensatory damages to him and $5,575 to his father.

“Youth who enter the juvenile justice system often come 

to [the facility] from abusive and neglect[ful] families. In 

Michigan alone, twenty percent of the juvenile justice youth 

have been victims of child abuse and neglect.”
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 147

In many jurisdictions, the juvenile justice system is responsible not 

only for the care and confinement of youth charged with crimes, but also 

for youth identified as “status offenders” for violating rules that only apply to persons under a certain age. Status offenses are typically minor 

and include curfew violations, running away, disobeying parental orders, 

and truancy.39 Some runaways are fleeing abuse and violence at home.40 

Youth who are in the custody of child protective services agencies also 

may end up in the juvenile justice system for minor offenses that would 

not involve the justice system if they were living with their parents.41 Although States that receive formula grants under the Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002 are prohibited from placing status 

offenders in secure facilities, many jurisdictions take advantage of exceptions to this rule and confine youth with minor infractions in facilities for 

serious offenders.42

According to national census data, approximately 4,800 status offenders were in the custody of a juvenile residential facility on census day 

in 2006.43 This tally increases to nearly 20,000 (or more than one-fifth of all 

youth in custody) if juveniles who have committed a technical violation, 

such as a violation of probation or other valid court order, are included.44 In 

2002, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division found that 75 percent of girls in two training schools in Mississippi were confined solely for 

status offenses, probation violations, or contempt of court.45 These youth 

often have little or no experience with the juvenile justice system and are 

particularly vulnerable to abuse or coercion by more experienced, sophisticated, and violent residents as well as by staff. 

Simply being female is a risk factor. Girls are disproportionately 

represented among sexual abuse victims in general and in juvenile justice 

settings. The 2005–2006 BJS 

survey found that 36 percent 

of all victims in substantiated 

incidents of sexual violence in 

the State systems and local or 

private juvenile facilities providing data were female, even 

though girls represented only 15 percent of youth in residential placement 

in 2006.46 Girls were the victims in more than half (51 percent) of all substantiated incidents perpetrated by staff, compared to being the victims in 

only 21 percent of incidents perpetrated by other youth. 

During the past two decades, the number of girls in the juvenile 

justice system as a whole—and in secure detention facilities in particular—increased substantially, due in part to an increase in arrests and detention for technical violations of probation.47 This shifting demographic 

poses a significant challenge to the juvenile justice system and individual 

facilities, which were traditionally designed to meet the needs of boys and 

According to Jody Marksamer, Director for the Youth 

Project of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, juvenile 

facilities are often homophobic places that are emotionally, 

physically, and sexually unsafe for these youth.
148 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

may not have enough women staff to supervise and monitor girls who 

enter the system. 

Facilities also may be ill-equipped to protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, 

and gender-nonconforming youth. According to Jody Marksamer, Director 

for the Youth Project of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, juvenile 

facilities are often homophobic places that are emotionally, physically, and 

sexually unsafe for these youth.48 A lawsuit filed by the Hawaii chapter 

of the American Civil Liberties Union provides a stark illustration of how 

youth who are gay, transgender, or merely perceived to be gay may be 

threatened by staff or assaulted and harassed by other youth. This case resulted in a $25,000 settlement to be used for developing new policies at the 

facility and a $600,000 settlement to three plaintiffs who were subjected to 

unwanted sexual touching, threatened with rape, and repeatedly harassed 

because of their sexual orientation.49 

Transgender girls are especially vulnerable. Despite their feminine 

gender and appearance, they are almost always placed in boys’ facilities, 

where they are expected to shower and sleep with boys.50 Cyryna Pasion 

told the Commission about the sexual abuse she faced as a transgender 

girl in the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility in 2004 and 2005.51 Placed 

in a boys’ unit against the advice of medical staff and counselors, Cyryna 

suffered sexual harassment, unwanted touching, taunting, and threats of 

violence and rape. “I felt tortured and alone,” she told the Commission.52

“The boys threatened to beat me up if I wrote a complaint. . . .” 

Youth with physical and mental disabilities who are dependent on 

others for care are another vulnerable group and may have special difficulty comprehending and communicating danger.53 “Robert,” a severely 

mentally disabled 15-year-old boy with an IQ of 32, was raped by another 

resident after corrections officers at the Leon Regional Juvenile Detention 

Center in Tallahassee, Florida, delegated the duties of bathing and changing Robert’s diaper to a 17-year-old sex offender.54 For these actions, the 

older boy was later convicted of one count of sexual battery on a victim 

with a mental defect.55 There are no national data on the prevalence of 

cognitive and emotional disorders among confined youth, but studies suggest rates are much higher than in the general population of U.S. youth.56 

Disorders most commonly noted among confined youth in juvenile facilities include depression, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning 

disabilities, posttraumatic stress disorder, and developmental disabilities.57

Obtaining information about 

residents

During intake and periodically 

throughout a resident’s confinement, employees obtain and 

use information about each resident’s personal history and behavior to keep all residents safe 

and free from sexual abuse. At 

a minimum, employees attempt 

to ascertain information about 

prior sexual victimization or abusiveness; sexual orientation and 

gender identity; current charges 

and offense history; age; level of 

emotional and cognitive development; physical size/stature; 

mental illness or mental disabilities; intellectual/developmental 

disabilities; physical disabilities; 

and any other specific information about individual residents 

that may indicate heightened 

needs for supervision, additional safety precautions, or 

separation from certain other 

residents. This information may 

be ascertained through conversations with residents at intake 

and medical and mental health 

screenings; during classification 

assessments; and by reviewing 

court records, case files, facility 

behavioral records, and other 

relevant documentation from 

the residents’ files. Medical and 

mental health practitioners are 

the only staff permitted to talk 

with residents to gather information about their sexual orientation or gender identity, prior 

sexual victimization, history of 

engaging in sexual abuse, mental health status, and mental 

or physical disabilities. If the 

facility does not have medical 

or mental health practitioners 

available, residents are given an 

opportunity to discuss any safety concerns or sensitive issues 

privately with another employee.
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 149

Identifying and Protecting Vulnerable Youth 

Without evidence-based information on risk factors for confined youth, juvenile facilities are at a disadvantage in 

identifying potential victims and perpetrators, yet they can 

be held liable for failing to separate vulnerable residents 

from those most likely to harm them.58 Judgments about placements are 

frequently made through informal procedures, which may be swayed by 

bias and are rarely consistent enough to be fair and effective.59 The Commission’s standard on obtaining information about residents of juvenile 

facilities requires a more stringent approach to screening. Until more research on vulnerability factors for confined youth is conducted, agency 

and facility staff should use available evidence and professional judgment 

to develop screening and information-gathering protocols that take into 

account the risk of sexual abuse in juvenile facilities, and they should 

develop procedures to keep residents safe without penalizing those who 

are vulnerable. 

At a minimum, facility staff must attempt to gather information 

about the risk factors described above—both during intake and periodically throughout a youth’s confinement. A variety of sources can provide this information, including facility records, case files, conversations 

with residents, and court records. Judges often have wide, although by 

no means absolute, discretion to take into account many factors when 

making sentencing determinations.60 As a result, facility staff should look 

to judicial opinions, which may shed light on certain vulnerabilities or 

other relevant characteristics in the information-gathering process. Because addressing certain personal issues can be traumatic for youth, the 

standard limits questioning about sexual orientation, gender identity, prior 

sexual victimization, history of engaging in sexual abuse, and mental and 

physical health to medical and mental health practitioners. In addition to 

screening, facilities can take a simple step to protect youth from sexual 

abuse: encourage all residents during intake to tell staff if they fear being 

abused. This message, combined with affirmative statements about the 

facility’s commitment to safety and zero tolerance of sexual abuse, makes 

it more likely that vulnerable youth will seek protection when they need 

it—before an assault occurs.

The Commission’s standard on the placement of youth in juvenile facilities mandates that staff use all information about the risk of sexual abuse 

to determine safe housing, 

bed, program, education, and 

work assignments. Any information that may indicate heightened vulnerability to sexual 

abuse, including those elements 

Placement of residents in 

housing, bed, program, 

education, and work 

assignments

Employees use all information 

obtained about the resident at intake and subsequently to make 

placement decisions for each 

resident on an individualized 

basis with the goal of keeping 

all residents safe and free from 

sexual abuse. When determining 

housing, bed, program, education and work assignments for 

residents, employees must take 

into account a resident’s age; 

the nature of his or her offense; 

any mental or physical disability 

or mental illness; any history of 

sexual victimization or engaging in sexual abuse; his or her 

level of emotional and cognitive 

development; his or her identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

or transgender; and any other 

information obtained about the 

resident (AP-1). Residents may 

be isolated from others only as 

a last resort when less restrictive measures are inadequate to 

keep them and other residents 

safe, and then only until an alternative means of keeping all 

residents safe can be arranged.

“Robert,” a severely mentally disabled 15-year-old boy with 

an IQ of 32, was raped by another resident after corrections 

officers. . . delegated the duties of bathing and changing 

Robert’s diaper to a 17-year-old sex offender.
150 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

identified in the standard, must be taken into consideration in determining 

appropriate placements. The Commission strongly discourages the practice of segregating vulnerable residents because isolation may aggravate 

symptoms of mental illness and limit access to education, programming, 

and mental health services. Youth may be segregated as a last resort for 

short periods when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them 

and other residents safe.61 

In cases of ongoing danger, the Commission suggests that facilities consider transferring vulnerable youth to other facilities better able 

to meet their needs. Because vulnerability factors, the mix of potential 

predators and victims, and other characteristics change over time, staff 

must reassess residents periodically and adjust placements when necessary to keep all residents safe from sexual abuse. If an incident of sexual 

abuse occurs and is discovered, staff must reassess placement decisions 

for the victim and, if the abuse was perpetrated by another resident, for 

the perpetrator as well.

Resident reporting

The facility provides multiple 

internal ways for residents to 

report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation 

by other residents or staff for 

reporting sexual abuse, and 

staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual 

abuse. The facility also provides 

at least one way for residents to 

report the abuse to an outside 

public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has 

agreed to receive reports and 

forward them to the facility head 

(RP-3). Staff accepts reports 

made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties 

and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports 

of sexual abuse and refers all 

third-party reports of abuse to 

the designated State or local 

services agency with the authority to conduct investigations 

into allegations of sexual abuse 

involving child victims (IN-1 and 

RP-4). At the conclusion of the 

investigation, the facility notifies in writing the third-party 

individual who reported the 

abuse and the resident named 

in the third-party report of the 

outcome of the investigation. 

The facility distributes information on how to report sexual 

abuse on behalf of a resident 

to residents’ parents or legal 

guardians, attorneys, and the 

public.

Encouraging Reporting

Reducing sexual abuse requires creating conditions in which every incident is reported and triggers an immediate response. 

Just crossing that first hurdle can be a challenge, however.62

Many youth are reluctant to report abuse for understandable 

reasons. They must weigh the ramifications of disclosure, including 

shame, stigma, the risk that they won’t be believed, the possibility that 

they will be housed in isolation, and retaliation by perpetrators. Staff who 

sexually abuse youth may threaten to extend their period of confinement 

or move them to a more restrictive housing unit or even to a different 

facility if they report the abuse.63 

Recognizing the developmental, emotional, and systemic barriers 

that discourage youth from reporting sexual abuse, the Commission’s standards require internal reporting procedures to be easy, private, and secure; 

teenagers and even younger children cannot be expected to follow complicated or impractical grievance procedures. Specifically, the Commission requires facility staff to accept reports from victims and third parties verbally 

or in writing, including anonymous reports. The standard on reporting also 

requires that agencies provide youth with at least one way to report sexual 

abuse to a person or entity not affiliated with the facility or agency. 

Many confined youth will look to their parents or to another known 

and trusted adult in a time of crisis. For this reason, and because juveniles 

are unlikely to comprehend or appreciate the complex legal procedures involved in a claim of sexual abuse, the Commission requires facilities to provide residents with unimpeded access to their families, attorneys, or other 
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 151

legal representatives. Under the Commission’s standards, information about 

the facility’s grievance system and sexual abuse must be made available to 

parents and lawyers, who can help residents understand their rights and 

procedures within the facility. 

Reforms designed to make it easier for youth to report sexual abuse 

must be grounded in education for residents on the nature of sexual abuse, 

the facility’s policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse, procedures for reporting abuse, and the facility’s response to allegations. Because many 

youth fail to recognize certain coercive and harmful behaviors as “rape” 

or “abuse”—particularly if they come from backgrounds in which this conduct has occurred—juvenile facilities should work to improve sexual education programs and sexual abuse prevention curricula. 

Educational materials and presentations for youth will be of little 

value, however, if they do not use age-appropriate language and concrete 

examples, especially when discussing how to report abuse. Given the 

range of ages in many facilities, a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. 

Presentations, materials, and follow-up contacts should be structured to 

match the emotional, cognitive, and sexual development of particular age 

groupings of children and teens and must reach youth who speak limited 

or no English, have limited reading skills, are visually impaired, or are 

deaf. Agencies must also implement appropriate technologies and procedures to ensure that youth with disabilities can report abuse and access 

medical and mental health services without relying on other residents to 

translate or relay information. 

Training for staff is equally important. Staff often do not understand the distinctive nature of sexual abuse involving children and teens 

or its potential consequences. This kind of education must include training about the nature of sexual abuse, its effects on youth, and the unique 

dynamics of dealing with children and adolescents around sexual topics and reporting, coupled with training on the facility’s zero-tolerance 

policies and reporting and response procedures. Staff must know that they 

will be held accountable for their actions and omissions. When sexual 

abuse occurs, all staff—from line staff to leadership—have the responsibility to ensure that the incident 

is reported and addressed. In 

2005, the Department of Justice 

found that numerous female 

staff in an Oklahoma juvenile 

facility had sexual relations 

with male youth and concluded 

that the State failed to provide 

adequate supervision and monitoring to protect youth from inappropriate 

sexual relationships with staff and other residents.64 In facilities such as 

these, the failure of administrators and management to adopt and enforce 

Resident access to outside 

support services and legal 

representation

In addition to providing on-site 

mental health care services, 

the facility provides residents 

with access to outside victim advocates for emotional 

support services related to 

sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving 

residents the current mailing 

addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline 

numbers, of local, State, and/

or national victim advocacy or 

rape crisis organizations and 

enabling reasonable communication between residents and 

these organizations. The facility ensures that communication 

with such advocates is private, 

to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The 

facility informs residents, prior 

to giving them access, of the 

extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged. The 

facility also provides residents 

with unimpeded access to their 

attorney or other legal representation and their families.

In 2005, the Department of Justice found that 

numerous female staff in an Oklahoma juvenile facility 

had sexual relations with male youth and concluded that 

the State failed to provide adequate supervision and 

monitoring to protect youth.
152 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

a zero-tolerance policy sends mixed messages to staff and confined youth 

about the acceptability of sexual abuse in that setting.

Studies of child sexual abuse survivors outside confinement settings have found that children and youth faced with interviews and formal 

investigative processes may become intimidated or demoralized; attempt 

to escape the painful aftereffects of abuse or the dangers of retaliation by 

denying that the incident ever occurred; and recant, change their reports, 

or refuse to cooperate with investigators.65 Risks for youth in confinement 

are even greater. To address these challenges, interviewers must be trained 

to communicate effectively and in a manner sensitive to the specific vulnerabilities and developmental capacities of young victims.66

In spite of efforts to educate youth and train staff, some victims 

will remain silent following an incident of sexual abuse. Although trauma, 

fear of retaliation, and limited knowledge of legal rights and procedures 

discourage reporting among adults, the impact of these factors on youth 

is even greater. Youth in confinement express serious doubts that their reports will be formally investigated and recount multiple incidents in which 

officers destroyed grievance forms and refused to follow through on investigations in an effort to protect themselves or their co-workers.67

The Commission’s standards mandate that administrative remedies 

be deemed exhausted no later than 90 days after a report of sexual abuse 

is made. State agencies must not dismiss complaints by youth who fail to 

file a report within a specific time period and should not impose complicated exhaustion requirements before youth can access the courts. Legal 

precedent supports this view. At least one court has found that the developmental stage of youth is integral to the question of whether a plaintiff has satisfied the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. As long as the State has fair notice of a complaint, 

juveniles’ “young age, their lack of experience with the criminal system, 

and their relatively short period of confinement entitle them to greater 

protection. . . .”68 When the victim of abuse seeks urgent, emergency intervention or injunctive relief from the court to prevent imminent harm, the 

State agency must deem the resident’s administrative remedies exhausted 

48 hours after the report.

The Commission requires that any report of sexual abuse received 

in any form trigger an agency response and investigation. To be successful, investigators of sexual abuse in juvenile settings need special skills. To 

ensure that investigators have the knowledge and skills to work sensitively 

and effectively with child and teen victims of sexual assault, the Commission requires special training. Investigators should understand the developmental capacities and sexual development of children, build rapport 

with the youth in a safe and private space, pay attention to physical cues 

from the youth, ask open-ended questions that eventually shift to specific 

details, and remain nonjudgmental throughout the interview.69 

Resident education

During the intake process, staff

informs residents of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to 

report incidents or suspicions 

of sexual abuse in an ageappropriate fashion. Within a 

reasonably brief period of time 

following the intake process, the 

agency provides comprehensive, 

age-appropriate education to 

residents regarding their right to 

be free from sexual abuse and 

to be free from retaliation for 

reporting abuse, the dynamics 

of sexual abuse in confinement, 

the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency 

sexual abuse response policies 

and procedures. Current residents are educated as soon as 

possible following the agency’s 

adoption of the PREA standards, 

and the agency provides periodic 

refresher information to all residents to ensure that they know 

the agency’s most current sexual 

abuse policies and procedures. 

The agency provides resident 

education in formats accessible 

to all residents, including those 

who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as 

well as inmates who have limited 

reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of 

resident participation in these 

education sessions.
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 153

Helping Young Victims Heal

Y

outh who are sexually abused in confinement and other justice 

settings are likely to experience serious and long-standing emotional and psychological consequences throughout adolescence 

and into adulthood.70 Because the experience of sexual abuse 

is severely damaging, it can increase tendencies toward criminality and 

substance abuse among youth in confinement.71 Other potential long-term 

effects include major and persistent depression and posttraumatic stress 

disorder. Like adult victims of sexual abuse, youth may experience significant problems with impulse control, flashbacks, dissociative episodes, anger, persistent distrust and withdrawal, loss of faith, hopelessness, despair, 

and a poor sense of self resulting in shame, guilt, and self-blame.72 A history of childhood sexual abuse is strongly correlated with higher rates of 

attempted suicide, alcohol dependence, nicotine dependence, social anxiety, and divorce.73 For those with a history of sexual abuse, victimization 

in confinement may recall past experiences and replicate prior traumas, 

exacerbating negative outcomes.74

Sensitivities about sexual development and body changes add to 

the damage that may occur as a result of sexual abuse. In 2000, two girls 

with histories of mental health problems were subjected to numerous invasive strip searches in juvenile detention facilities in Connecticut.75 Facility 

staff performed several of these searches without any reasonable suspicion 

that the girls had contraband or posed any other threat. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Second Circuit, in its decision regarding the searches, quoted the Supreme Court’s view on the vulnerability of children: “‘youth. . . 

is a. . . condition of life when a person may be most susceptible. . . to psychological damage.’”76 Because of this, the court reasoned that “children 

are especially susceptible to possible traumas from strip searches.”77 The 

court ultimately found that several of the searches were unconstitutional 

after balancing “the risks to the psychological health of the children from 

performing the searches and the risks to their well-being and to institutional safety from not performing the searches.”78

Studies suggest that justice-involved girls tend to have higher rates 

of major depression and anxiety disorders, including posttraumatic stress 

disorder and somatization, than their male counterparts.79 Adding to the 

complexity, girls are more likely than boys to enter the juvenile justice 

system with histories of physical and sexual abuse, which can lead to 

significant and long-lasting mental health problems. These may be compounded if sexual trauma reoccurs.80 Unfortunately, mental health and 

other services in many juvenile facilities are “generic, coeducational, and 

not gender-sensitive or trauma-informed.”81 

Medical and mental health practitioners must be able to recognize the signs of sexual abuse and should understand and know how to 

Accommodating residents 

with special needs

The agency ensures that residents who are limited English 

proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled 

are able to report sexual abuse 

to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through 

non-resident interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey 

all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how 

to report sexual abuse, verbally 

to residents who have limited 

reading skills or who are visually 

impaired.

Employee training

The agency trains all employees 

to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual 

abuse prevention, detection, and

response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and 

under relevant Federal, State, 

and local law. The agency trains 

all employees to communicate 

effectively and professionally 

with all residents. Additionally, 

the agency trains all employees 

on a resident’s right to be free 

from sexual abuse, the right of 

residents and employees to be 

free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics 

of sexual abuse in confinement, 

and the common reactions of 

sexual abuse victims. Current 

employees are educated as soon 

as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides 

periodic refresher information to 

all employees to ensure that they 

know the agency’s most current 

sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains 

written documentation showing 

employee signatures verifying 

that employees understand the 

training they have received.
154 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

respond to the developmental and psychological needs of young victims. 

They must also be trained in the provision of ongoing age-appropriate 

treatment and care. To ensure staff are prepared to meet these complex 

obligations, the Commission requires that all full- and part-time medical 

and mental health care practitioners receive special training. 

Sexual abuse incidents occurring within a facility often leave victims without enough confidence in the environment or its staff to report 

the incident or seek help within the facility. To ensure that young victims 

receive the care and support they need, facilities must provide residents 

with access to emotional support from outside victim advocates as well, 

such as local, State, or national victim support groups, rape crisis organizations, or toll-free abuse hotlines. Perhaps the most effective way to provide access to these services is to establish relationships with community 

service organizations and transition services, thereby linking residents to 

the range of services available in the community. 

Specialized training: 

Investigations

In addition to the general training 

provided to all employees (TR-1), 

the agency ensures that agency 

investigators conducting sexual 

abuse investigations have received comprehensive and upto-date training in conducting 

such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for 

interviewing young sexual abuse 

victims, proper use of Mirandaand Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in 

confinement settings, and the 

criteria and evidence required to 

substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution 

referral. The agency maintains 

written documentation that 

investigators have completed 

the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse 

investigations.

Specialized training: Medical 

and mental health care

The agency ensures that all 

full- and part-time medical and 

mental health care practitioners 

working in its facilities have been 

trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and 

that all medical practitioners are 

trained in how to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All 

medical and mental health care 

practitioners must be trained 

in how to respond effectively 

and professionally to young victims of sexual abuse and how 

and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual 

abuse. The agency maintains 

documentation that medical and 

mental health practitioners have 

received this specialized training.

Responding to Young Perpetrators

Y

outh who perpetrate sexual violence in juvenile facilities present 

a particularly complicated challenge for facility administrators, 

who must apply developmentally appropriate discipline or other 

interventions. Youthful perpetrators of sexual abuse may need 

treatment as much as, or more than, punishment. Studies have shown 

that youth who commit sexual offenses typically have a history of severe 

family problems, separation from parents, neglect, physical abuse, sexual 

abuse, social awkwardness or isolation, and academic or behavioral problems at school.82 In addition, developmental research suggests that adolescent immaturity and inexperience may limit a youth’s decision-making 

capacity, especially in highly stressful environments, and cause youth to 

make poor, shortsighted judgments.83 Successful treatment models address 

multiple aspects of a child’s life, including behavior modification, family 

relations, peer relations, and academic performance.84 

When abuse perpetrated by a resident is discovered in juvenile justice settings, interventions and decisions about punishment must take into 

account the social, sexual, emotional, and cognitive development of the 

juvenile as well as any mental health problems that may have contributed 

to the abusive behavior. Accordingly, treatment, counseling, educational 

programs, disciplinary sanctions, and other interventions must ensure the 

safety of all residents and staff while working to rehabilitate the young 

perpetrator so that he or she can interact with others in a safe and constructive manner. 

If a facility decides to impose disciplinary sanctions on a juvenile 

perpetrator, the discipline must be proportional to the offense committed 
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 155

and commensurate with the perpetrator’s disciplinary history. Discipline 

also should be consistent with that meted out to other residents for similar conduct and with similar disciplinary histories. Juvenile disciplinary sanctions should be fully integrated with screening and placement 

decisions to promote safety and security. Any act of sexual abuse by a 

juvenile perpetrator must trigger a reassessment of placement decisions 

to address the individual’s risk of being sexually abusive toward other 

residents. Disciplining residents with prolonged periods of isolation, however, is potentially very dangerous for the resident, and the Commission 

strongly discourages this practice.85 The facility also must ensure that the 

perpetrator understands his or her rights and responsibilities during the 

disciplinary process. These safeguards will promote fairness and legitimacy in the system of discipline and foster a sense of responsibility and 

accountability on the part of the perpetrator.

Discipline must also account for the stage of the youth’s psychosocial and sexual development. Adolescence is a time of sexual confusion 

and experimentation. This developmental reality should be kept in mind 

when determining interventions, supports, and sanctions.86 

Exhaustion of administrative 

remedies

Under agency policy, a resident 

has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to 

a claim of sexual abuse either 

(1) when the agency makes a 

final decision on the merits of 

the report of abuse (regardless 

of whether the report was made 

by the resident, made by a third 

party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 

90 days have passed since 

the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of 

sexual abuse triggers the 90-

day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that 

has passed between the abuse 

and the report. A resident seeking immediate protection from 

imminent sexual abuse will be 

deemed to have exhausted his 

or her administrative remedies 

48 hours after notifying any 

agency staff member of his or 

her need for protection.

Confined with the Grown-Ups

Although the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 

2002 prohibits the incarceration of juveniles with adults except 

in very limited circumstances, this protection does not apply to 

youth who are prosecuted as adults.87 Approximately 200,000 

youth are tried as adults each year; in some States, there is no minimum 

age at which a youth can be tried as an adult.88 Between 1990 and 2004, the 

number of juveniles in adult jails increased 208 percent.89 Currently, children as young as 13 and 14 are housed in adult facilities.90 Data collected in 

2006 show that, on any given day, almost 8,500 youth under the age of 18 

are confined with adults in adult prisons and jails.91 Two-thirds are held in 

jails, and the others are incarcerated in State and Federal prisons.92 

In terms of risk for sexual abuse while in confinement, youth incarcerated in adult prisons and jails are probably at the highest risk of 

all. For example, juveniles comprised less than 1 percent of 

jail inmates in 2005, yet they 

accounted for 21 percent of all 

victims of substantiated incidents of inmate-perpetrated sexual violence in 

jails that year.93 Although the risks appear somewhat lower, youth do not 

fare much better in State prisons. Youth accounted for less than 0.2 percent 

of all inmates under State correctional control, yet in 2005 they represented 

0.9 percent of all victims of substantiated incidents of inmate-perpetrated 

Youthful perpetrators of sexual abuse may need treatment 

as much as, or more than, punishment.
156 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

sexual violence. To give the bigger picture, 7.7 percent of all victims of 

substantiated violence perpetrated by people confined in adult prisons and 

jails combined were under the age of 18 in 2005.94

Although only 20 percent of youth in juvenile facilities are confined 

for a violent offense, nearly 50 percent of adult prisoners are violent offenders sentenced for greater lengths of time than youth in juvenile facilities.95

The environment is especially difficult for juveniles to navigate safely because many adult facilities fail to provide juveniles with basic services, 

such as prison survival skills, family counseling, career training, and educational programming.96 Research consistently shows that youthful prisoners who lack the experience and knowledge to cope with the volatile, 

predatory environment common in prisons and jails are at greater risk for 

sexual abuse while housed there.97 Recent efforts have hinted at the extent 

of the problem by bringing to light the previously undocumented stories of 

young prisoners who were sexually victimized.98 

Civil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that 80 

percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in three States—

Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri—reported that, within the first year of 

their sentence, they had been sexually assaulted by at least one adult male 

prisoner.99 She also told the Commission that girls as young as 14 years old 

were being housed along with adult women under the supervision of male 

staff and asserted that girls confined in an adult prison are 20 times more 

likely to be sexually assaulted by staff than by prisoners in the general 

population.100 Risks of negative effects following sexual assault, such as 

suicide, are compounded by the lack of special programming for juveniles 

in most State adult facilities.101 

Confining youth with an adult and more experienced criminal 

population has very little deterrent value and has failed to improve public 

safety.102 In fact, a recent study found that youth transferred to the criminal justice system are more likely to reoffend.103 As long as youth remain 

in adult prisons and jails, facility staff and State administrators must 

recognize this group as an especially vulnerable population 

requiring additional protection. Accordingly, the Commission has designed a number of 

standards to protect vulnerable 

populations within adult facilities, including youth. Specifically, the Commission requires 

that, during intake into adult prisons and jails, agency staff screen prisoners for risk of victimization, including youthfulness in age or appearance, and use the information gathered to make appropriate housing, 

bed, work, education, and program assignments. 

Interventions for residents 

who engage in sexual abuse

Residents receive appropriate interventions if they engage in resident-on-resident sexual abuse. 

Decisions regarding which types 

of interventions to use in particular cases, including treatment, counseling, educational 

programs, or disciplinary sanctions, are made with the goal of 

promoting improved behavior by 

the resident and ensuring the 

safety of other residents and 

staff. When imposing disciplinary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to other interventions, the 

facility informs residents of their 

rights and responsibilities during 

the disciplinary process, including how to appeal sanctions, 

and only imposes sanctions 

commensurate with the type 

of violation committed and the 

resident’s disciplinary history. Intervention decisions must take 

into account the social, sexual, 

emotional, and cognitive development of the resident and the 

resident’s mental health status.

Civil rights attorney Deborah LaBelle told the Commission that 

80 percent of the 420 boys sentenced to life without parole in 

three States—Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri—reported that, 

within the first year of their sentence, they had been sexually 

assaulted by at least one adult male prisoner.
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 157

Because of the extreme risk of sexual victimization for youth in adult 

facilities, the Commission urges that individuals below the age of 18 be held 

separately from the general population. This may present difficulties for 

smaller facilities, where separating youth from adults might mean housing 

youth in an infirmary or in administrative segregation. Transferring such 

youth to facilities more suited to their needs should be considered; in any 

case, careful attention should be paid to ensure that youth have the support, education, and programming necessary for healthy development. 

At Risk While Under Community Supervision

Y

outh are also vulnerable to sexual victimization while under 

juvenile justice supervision in the community. Nearly half (48 

percent) of the more than 1.1 million youth who received some 

juvenile court sanction in 2005 were placed under the supervision of State, local, or county probation officers or counselors.104 These 

youth can be assigned to a wide range of community settings, such as 

small group homes, therapeutic foster care, therapeutic day centers, and 

day and evening reporting centers.105 Not much is known about the prevalence of sexual abuse among youth supervised in the community. Despite 

the lack of data, however, sexual abuse does occur. 

In October 2005, a 50-year-old man who had served as a youth probation officer for 11 years with the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) was sentenced to 80 years in prison for sexually abusing the boys in his care.106 

Victims and their families complained to OYA officials for years about this 

officer, but they took no action and the man continued to supervise young 

boys.107 D.B., a 14-year-old mentally disabled boy with ADHD, fell under the 

officer’s supervision in 1994 after the boy was arrested for firing a cap gun in 

his front yard. The officer promised D.B.’s grandmother that “the boy would 

receive the best treatment the state had to offer.”108 She reluctantly gave up 

custody of D.B., and the boy was placed in Lakeside Shelter in Corvallis, 

Oregon, which conducts mental health evaluations.109 The grandmother became concerned that something was wrong when the officer “began to rub 

her grandson’s back, neck and shoulders ‘erotically’” during a meeting to 

plan his treatment.110 An investigation later revealed that the officer checked 

D.B. out of the shelter on several occasions, taking him to his home for 

hours at a time. When shelter officials recommended that D.B. be placed in 

a more secure facility, the probation officer intercepted the order and had 

him placed in a foster home in Portland instead, where a police affidavit 

later confirmed that the man was “a frequent visitor.”111 Although the boy’s 

grandmother wrote repeatedly to OYA officials reporting her suspicions of 

sexual abuse, D.B. was left in the foster home under the officer’s supervision 

for nearly a year.
158 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

While D.B.’s grandmother “fought unsuccessfully” to protect him, 

another developmentally disabled boy, A.M., was placed on the officer’s 

caseload.112 Although A.M. never said anything about sexual abuse while 

under the officer’s supervision, his aunt became suspicious when she found 

out that A.M. spent nights at the man’s home. The officer also tried to cut off 

communication between A.M. and his aunt. She too reported her concern to 

the authorities, but they told her that she was being “‘overly sensitive [and] 

that [the officer] was a good caseworker’. . . .”113 In 1998, the officer placed 

A.M. in the same foster home where D.B had been abused. When his aunt 

visited the home, she discovered that it had photos of naked men on the 

walls and several sexually explicit statues. She confronted the officer, then 

called his supervisor, who told her, “‘Officer M. knows what he’s doing, 

and we really don’t have another place for [A.M.].’” The boy remained under the officer’s supervision for 4 years, until he was sent to prison at age 

18 for commission of an assault.

It wasn’t until the officer was finally arrested for the sexual abuse

of minors in 2004 that A.M. began to describe the abuses he had suffered. His 

aunt stated that, “Everything you can imagine happening to a child happened 

to him” under the officer’s care.114 The probation officer was charged with the 

sexual abuse of five boys and more than 70 counts of sex crimes with minors. 

But reporting the abuse began to haunt A.M.; his aunt reported that his “mood 

turned dark and he was having trouble coping—afraid that if the trial became 

too public, he would be labeled a homosexual and a snitch.” Just 5 days before 

he was scheduled for release from prison in January 2005, A.M. hanged himself. Law enforcement officials said that “at least seven additional victims. . . 

[were] either unwilling or too emotionally unstable to testify.”

As with other corrections staff, the men and women who supervise youth in the community should be adequately supervised to ensure 

they do not engage in abuse. Even well-intentioned staff should be trained 

in how to maintain appropriate 

boundaries with the youth they 

supervise and must be clearly informed that any sexual 

misconduct will be punished. 

Similar to the Commission’s approach to youth in other correctional settings, the community 

corrections standards recognize that juveniles are less developed than 

adults and therefore are especially vulnerable to abuse. Accordingly, education about sexual abuse for youth under supervision must incorporate ageappropriate information and methods.

Youth under community supervision may have more access to services and protections provided by the community than confined youth; they 

are protected by State or local vulnerable persons statutes, for example. To 

“Everything you can imagine happening to a child 

happened to him” under the officer’s care. The probation 

officer was charged with the sexual abuse of five boys 

and more than 70 counts of sex crimes with minors. 
C H A P T E R 7: W H E N C H I L D R E N A R E I N V O LV E D 159

take advantage of existing protections, the Commission requires that agencies convey reports of sexual abuse made by youth to the entity responsible 

for enforcing these statutes and also outsource investigations regarding allegations of sexual abuse to this entity. Youth who do not feel comfortable 

reporting sexual abuse internally would then have this avenue, among others, for reporting abuse and accessing support services. 

The Commission’s inquiry into the sexual abuse of youth in juvenile 

justice and adult corrections has revealed disturbing information about the 

prevalence, gravity, and consequences. Youth deserve, and are legally entitled to, care and protection; hope lies in the fact that necessary precautions 

and remedies are clear and rehabilitation remains a guiding principle in the 

field of juvenile justice.
Individuals under correctional 

supervision in the community, who 

outnumber prisoners by more than 

two to one, are at risk of sexual abuse. 

The nature and consequences of 

the abuse are no less severe, and 

it jeopardizes the likelihood of their 

successful reentry. 
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 161

T

he Shea Farm Halfway House in Concord, New Hampshire, is a 

minimum-security facility for women transitioning back to the 

community after being incarcerated in State prison. In 2002, an 

officer who had been accused of sexual harassment against a 

woman corrections officer at another facility was transferred to become 

the night supervisor at Shea Farm. In this position, he had a significant 

amount of power over the approximately 45 women living there. “He 

had the authority to lower their security classification, approve or limit 

overnight leave requests, telephone privileges, and/or visits with family 

members, and essentially, he had the ability to write the women up for 

disciplinary infractions and ‘send them back behind bars,’” Sandra Matheson, Director of the State Office of Victim/Witness Assistance at the New 

Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, told the Commission.1

 As Matheson 

and others would later learn, he used this power to repeatedly sexually 

abuse and violently assault residents. According to Matheson, he told the 

women that nobody would believe them, that he was a good friend of the 

Director of Community Corrections, and that if the Director did not believe 

a corrections officer who had accused him of acting inappropriately, the 

Director certainly would not believe them.2

Despite these warnings, in June 2005, one woman came forward 

to report the abuse. After a lengthy State police investigation, the supervisor was indicted on 54 charges involving 12 different women in the 

halfway house. The charges included multiple counts of violent sexual

assault; vaginal, oral, and anal rape; and punching and choking the 

women in his care. 

As Kimberly Hendricks, PREA Coordinator for the Oregon Department of Corrections, observed, “PREA is not just about prisons.”3

 Individuals under community supervision are also at risk of sexual abuse. By the 

end of 2007, there were more than 5.1 million adults under supervision in 

the community, either on probation or parole.4

 This figure translates to 

about one out of every 45 adults in the United States, and the numbers are 

growing.5

 During 2007, the community supervision population expanded 

by more than 100,000 people.6

 Seventy percent of the adult corrections 

8

Community Corrections: 

The Next Frontier 
162 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

As both Federal and State governments attempt 

to reduce incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, 

the number of individuals under some form of community 

supervision—before, after, or in lieu of confinement— 

is likely to rise. With this expected increase comes 

 a greater burden to ensure that these women, men, 

and children are protected from sexual abuse.

population is now under some form of community corrections supervision.7

 As both Federal and State governments attempt to reduce incarceration costs in the face of looming deficits, the number of individuals 

under some form of community supervision—before, after, or in lieu of 

confinement—is likely to rise. With this expected increase comes a greater burden to ensure that these women, men, and children are protected 

from sexual abuse. 

Leaders in community corrections have already undertaken 

promising efforts to address the problem of sexual abuse. For nearly a 

decade, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has provided information, training, and technical assistance to the field on staff sexual 

misconduct.8

 For example, in 2005, NIC convened a town hall meeting at 

the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference and held a meeting of Statewide Probation and Parole Network 

executives in 2008. Community corrections professionals 

from around the country discussed implications of PREA 

for their work and outlined a 

systematic approach for dealing with sexual abuse in community corrections settings.9

As this report goes to press, 

the American Probation and 

Parole Association, in conjunction with the International Community Corrections Association and 

the Pretrial Justice Institute, is developing a handbook for frontline 

community corrections staff and supervisors on preventing and responding to sexual abuse.10

In addition to standards governing secure correctional settings, 

the Commission has developed a full set of standards for community 

corrections. Standards addressed here emphasize aspects of community 

corrections that distinguish it from traditional custodial settings. This 

chapter discusses the wide range of practices known collectively as community corrections; dynamics and circumstances of supervising people 

in the community that increase the risk of sexual abuse by staff or by 

other supervisees; and reasons why efforts to prevent, detect, and respond to sexual abuse have taken shape more gradually in this segment 

of corrections. 
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 163

Many and Varied 

Community corrections is an umbrella term encompassing a diverse array of agencies, facilities, and supervision structures on 

the Federal, State, and local levels. The Commission’s standards 

define community corrections as the “supervision of individuals, whether adults or juveniles, in a community setting as a condition 

of incarceration, pretrial release, probation, parole, or post-release supervision.”11 Supervision can occur in halfway houses like Shea Farm, prerelease centers, treatment facilities, and other places where individuals 

reside pursuant to a court order or condition of supervision for purposes 

of confinement, care, and/or treatment. These facilities may be owned by 

public, private, or nonprofit agencies. 

Supervision provided in a community-based residential facility is 

similar to what may occur in a prison, jail, or juvenile facility, but there are 

also significant differences. Residents in community corrections facilities 

usually are allowed to work, attend school, participate in treatment and 

other support programs in the community, and receive medical care in the 

community. Consequently, their supervision extends beyond the walls of 

a facility. Thus, they have greater freedom than individuals confined in 

prisons, jails, or secure juvenile facilities. 

Nonresidential supervision is even more diverse and less structured. It can include probation, parole, pretrial supervision, courtmandated substance abuse treatment, court diversionary programs, 

day-reporting centers, community service programs, probation before 

judgment, furloughs, electronic monitoring, and home detention. Individuals generally live in their own homes and have an even greater degree of freedom, as long as they abide by the conditions of their release 

agreement. They may report to a community corrections officer to update 

their status or for drug testing, or an officer may visit them at their home 

or workplace. These meetings may take place at predetermined times or 

randomly, and they can occur at any hour, day or night. 

There is also great variety in the number and type of agencies 

responsible for providing residential and nonresidential supervision in 

the community. Responsibility for community corrections may reside 

with the judiciary, the executive branch, departments of corrections, or 

some combination of these or other government entities.12 In the Federal 

system, courts—specifically Federal judges—are responsible for supervising individuals in the community. Each State varies in the way community corrections is organized and operated. A State’s department of 

corrections may control community supervision, or supervision may be 

decentralized, with authority over community corrections located at the 

county or municipal level.13
164 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

The mix of entities involved in community corrections 

in a particular jurisdiction, and the wide range of 

operational models around the country, 

make it uniquely challenging to 

develop and implement regulations to 

protect individuals from sexual abuse.

In some States, a separate statewide agency oversees community 

corrections; in other States, authority resides with the State in some localities, whereas other localities administer their own system.14 In addition, 

government entities often contract with for-profit and nonprofit organizations to operate residential facilities, conduct nonresidential supervision, 

and provide programming.15 The mix of entities involved in community 

corrections in a particular jurisdiction, and the wide range of operational 

models around the country, make it uniquely challenging to develop and 

implement regulations to protect individuals from sexual abuse.

 Increasing reliance on contractors to provide direct services will 

likely accompany the rapid growth of community corrections.16 Contractors are often the most cost-effective way to provide a wide variety of services, especially over a large geographic area.17 Governments contract with 

other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private corporations to 

provide services. Outsourcing carries the risk, however, that contractors 

will fail to adhere to the agency’s policies and meet the same standards. 

This is particularly troubling when the policies concern the safety of individuals under supervision. 

Community corrections agencies are accountable for sexual abuse 

incidents, regardless of whether the circumstances in which the abuse 

occurred were under the direct control of the agency or a separate organization working under contract with the agency.18 Community corrections 

authorities should make special provisions so that people under their 

jurisdiction who are supervised by others remain safe from sexual abuse. 

The Commission’s standards mandate that community corrections agencies must make certain that any public or private entities contracted to 

provide residential housing or supervision are committed to eliminating 

sexual abuse and adhere to the community corrections agency’s policies and procedures as well as the standards for responding to sexual 

abuse incidents. They must also ensure that contract entities and their 

staff are trained about sexual abuse and their roles in implementing 

the agency’s policies and procedures. Community corrections agencies 

must contract only with organizations committed to eliminating sexual abuse. Only in 

emergency situations, after 

failing to find an organization 

that meets the Commission’s 

standards, can the agency 

use another organization.

Contracting to house or 

supervise defendants/

offenders under community 

corrections authority

If public community corrections 

agencies contract for housing or 

supervision of their defendants/

offenders, they do so only with 

private agencies or other entities, including nonprofit or other 

government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse, 

as evidenced by their adoption 

of and compliance with the 

PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to 

adopt and comply with the PREA 

standards and specify that the 

public agency will monitor the 

entity’s compliance with these 

standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance. 

Only in emergency circumstances, in which all reasonable attempts to find a private agency 

or other entity in compliance 

with the PREA standards have 

failed, should a contract be 

entered into with an entity that 

fails to comply with these standards. The public agency must 

document these efforts.
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 165

Prevalence Unknown

Despite the increasingly high number of people under some form 

of community supervision, there is a lack of research on this 

population.19 Although the Bureau of Justice Statistics now conducts comprehensive national surveys of people confined in 

prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities to assess rates of sexual abuse, no 

similar survey of people under supervision in the community has been 

conducted. This leaves a critical gap in knowledge about the prevalence of 

sexual abuse, both in residential and nonresidential settings.

The Commission’s standards require community corrections agencies to regularly and systematically collect data on staff sexual abuse as 

well as abuse that occurs between persons under supervision in the community. Although improving administrative data does not negate the need 

for surveys and other research, it will increase knowledge about prevalence of sexual abuse in community corrections settings. The data will 

also help community corrections agencies develop a more complete understanding of the circumstances under which sexual abuse occurs; risk 

factors associated with victimization and perpetration; and how sexual 

abuse may relate to community reintegration, recidivism, and other issues. 

Using this information, community corrections agencies can then develop 

and implement informed policies and procedures to prevent sexual abuse.

Community corrections agencies also have an opportunity to increase understanding of the prevalence of sexual abuse in custody by 

collecting data on reports of 

prior sexual abuse that occurred 

while individuals were confined 

in a prison, jail, or a juvenile 

residential facility. Although 

some victims of sexual abuse in 

secure facilities report the abuse 

while still incarcerated, others do not disclose their experience until after 

they are released.20 Collecting these data and reporting back to the facilities 

where the abuse occurred will help administrators of those facilities maintain more accurate records of sexual abuse and will also provide insights on 

reasons people choose not to report abuse until they are released. With this 

information, correctional facilities can begin to address gaps in reporting 

structures and data collection and, most importantly, the safety concerns of 

victims who delay reporting until after they are released.

Although some victims of sexual abuse in secure 

facilities report the abuse while still incarcerated, 

others do not disclose their experience until after 

they are released. 

Data collection

The agency or facility collects 

accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual 

abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. 

The agency aggregates the 

incident-based sexual abuse

data at least annually. The 

incident-based data collected 

includes, at a minimum, the 

data necessary to answer all 

questions from the most recent 

version of the BJS Survey on 

Sexual Violence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, 

including reports, investigation 

files, and sexual abuse incident

reviews. The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from every 

community corrections facility 

with which it contracts.
166 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Same Rights and Protections

As in other correctional settings, courts have found that sexual 

abuse in community corrections violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual 

punishment.21 As a result, community corrections agencies, 

like prisons and jails, have a special responsibility to protect the people 

they supervise. 

When determining liability, courts also have determined that the 

authority staff have over the individuals they monitor makes a truly consensual sexual relationship impossible.22 Courts will look closely at an agency’s 

efforts to prevent sexual abuse, including staff training, reporting policies, 

and how the agency investigates allegations, sanctions perpetrators, and 

responds to victims.23 Finally, courts will look to make sure that community 

corrections agencies protect anyone who reports abuse from retaliation.24

Judicial decisions have also expanded protection of individuals in 

community corrections by holding agencies responsible for the actions of 

anyone in a supervisory position.25 For example, in Smith v. Cochran, Pamela 

Smith was in jail but on a work release program and assigned to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). While working there, Smith’s supervisor on 

the job sexually assaulted her.26 After her release, Smith filed a lawsuit, 

alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. Although the DPS supervisor 

claimed that, because they were co-workers, the Eighth Amendment did 

not apply, the court ruled that “[i]mportant penological responsibilities 

were delegated to him as an employee of DPS” and that individuals “acting 

under that delegated authority also bore the duty under the Eighth Amendment to refrain from using excessive force against prisoners.”27

Gaps in legal protection under the law remain, however. Although 

42 States and the District of Columbia specifically prohibit sexual contact or abuse between community corrections staff and individuals they 

monitor, many limit coverage to staff with “supervisory or disciplinary authority.”28 This definition overlooks the possibility of a community corrections staff member who does not directly supervise a parolee but who can 

still influence that person’s community corrections status. For example, a 

nonsupervisory staff member may retaliate against someone who resists 

sexual advances by persuading 

their supervisor to change the 

parolee’s status or by reporting 

false parole violations. A parolee might be coerced into sexual 

relations with a community 

corrections officer if threatened 

with the possibility of losing 

parole or probation status. 

As in other correctional settings, courts have found

that sexual abuse in community corrections violates

the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting

cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, community

corrections agencies, like prisons and jails, have a special

responsibility to protect the people they supervise.

Employee training

The agency or facility trains all 

employees to be able to fulfill

their responsibilities under agency or facility sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response

policies and procedures; the 

PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local 

law. The agency or facility trains 

all employees to communicate 

effectively and professionally 

with all defendants/offenders. 

Additionally, the agency or facility trains all employees on a 

defendant/offender’s right to 

be free from sexual abuse, the 

right of defendants/offenders 

and employees to be free from 

retaliation for reporting sexual 

abuse, the dynamics of sexual 

abuse, and the common reactions of sexual abuse victims. 

Current employees are educated as soon as possible following 

the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, and 

the agency or facility provides 

periodic refresher information 

to all employees to ensure that 

they know the agency’s or facility’s most current sexual abuse 

policies and procedures. The 

agency or facility maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that 

employees understand the training they have received.
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 167

Only 25 States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government have statutes explicitly stating that consent is not a defense to allegations of staff sexual misconduct.29 In Marion County, Illinois, a male 

community corrections supervisor was jailed for an alleged relationship 

with a former prisoner in home detention. The officer was charged with 

three felony counts of sexual misconduct for engaging in a relationship 

with a woman he was monitoring on home detention. According to the Marion County prosecutor, the relationship was “consensual” but “completely 

inappropriate.”30

Even when State laws are explicit, some agencies have taken the 

step of instituting policies stating that staff are not permitted to engage in 

sexual relationships with any individual under the agency’s supervision.31

In Prince William County, Virginia, two women officers were arrested for 

having sexual relations with a man on house arrest.32 In this case, it was 

unclear if either woman had actual supervisory authority over the man. 

However, according to State law and department policy, they were deemed 

to have supervisory authority by nature of their employment.33

Hiring and promotion 

decisions

The agency or facility does not 

hire or promote anyone who has 

engaged in sexual abuse in an 

institutional setting or who has 

engaged in sexual activity in the 

community facilitated by force, 

the threat of force, or coercion. 

Consistent with Federal, State, 

and local law, the agency or 

facility makes its best effort to 

contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual 

abuse and must run criminal 

background checks for all applicants and employees being 

considered for promotion and 

examine and carefully weigh 

any history of criminal activity at 

work or in the community, including convictions or adjudications 

for domestic violence, stalking, 

and sex offenses. The agency or 

facility also asks all applicants 

and employees directly about 

previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

A Complex Relationship 

Although an individual confined in a locked correctional facility 

obviously cannot flee a potential abuser, the relative mobility 

of someone under supervision in the community is no guarantee of safety. Less structured environments and highly personal 

modes of supervision carry unique risks. Individuals under community 

supervision may experience sexual abuse at the hands of other supervisees, but the dynamics of community corrections may make them more 

vulnerable to staff sexual abuse. 

In both residential and nonresidential community supervision, 

staff have virtually unlimited access to individuals, sometimes in private 

and intimate settings. Barbara Broderick, Chief Probation Officer for the 

Maricopa County Adult Probation and Parole Department in 

Arizona, described the risks to 

the Commission, noting that 

“staff contact clients in their 

homes, at their places of business, at community offices, at 

counseling offices and educational programs, etc.”34 In 

Ramsey County, Minnesota, for 

example, a male community corrections officer, visiting a former prisoner’s apartment to discuss her failure in a drug treatment program, instead 

Less structured environments and highly personal modes 

of supervision carry unique risks. Individuals under 

community supervision may experience sexual abuse 

at the hands of other supervisees, but the dynamics of 

community corrections may make them more vulnerable 

to staff sexual abuse.
168 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

requested and had sex with her.35 Broderick also noted that because community corrections staff work with significantly less direct supervision 

than their counterparts in secure correctional facilities, it is much easier 

for them to conceal sexual abuses, “making the task of detecting and responding to abuse all the more difficult.”36

Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director of NIC, made similar points 

in his testimony to the Commission. “Community corrections workers 

generally work autonomously and have large caseloads. . . . [M]uch of 

their work allows significant discretion and is done outside normal office 

parameters and away from supervisors and peers. . . . [B]y the very nature 

of their work, staff and offenders can be put in difficult situations.”37 

The different roles staff are called upon to play also present risks. 

Staff not only monitor and try to control the behavior of individuals they 

supervise, they also aim to facilitate behavior change.38 They operate as 

enforcement officers in the interest of public safety and also function as 

counselors and social workers, helping with job preparation, determining appropriate living environments, recommending treatment programs, 

and providing moral support. Drawing and maintaining boundaries is a 

challenge even for staff with the best intentions.39 The ambiguity of the 

supervisor’s role may be especially pronounced in smaller communities, 

where staff are already familiar with some of the individuals they supervise, perhaps from school or previous employment, and also know and 

interact with their families. These connections may influence staff to relax 

the professional boundaries their role requires.40 

An individual’s conditional release status gives supervising officers significant leverage, which can also be used to facilitate sexual 

abuse. As Barbara Broderick pointed out, “the issue of intimidation or 

retaliation may be [even] greater when the abuse occurs outside of an 

institutional setting.”41 Staff may explicitly or implicitly threaten to revoke an offender’s community status and return them to prison or jail 

by falsely reporting that the offender has not complied with the terms 

and conditions of their release. Such threats carry great weight because 

individuals under supervision in the community are typically desperate 

to avoid being incarcerated. Unlike in a prison or jail setting, where other 

staff or prisoners may be in a position to confirm or deny that the person 

violated a regulation, in the community corrections context, there may 

be no one to challenge the supervisor’s version of events other than the 

individual in question. This power imbalance makes people under community corrections supervision extremely vulnerable to staff who abuse 

their authority.42 

Clear policies rooted in an ethic of zero tolerance of sexual abuse 

coupled with good training can mitigate these dangers by giving staff the 

direction, knowledge, and skills they need to maintain appropriate relationships with the individuals they supervise.43

Screening for risk of 

victimization and 

abusiveness

All defendants/offenders are 

screened during intake to assess 

their risk of being sexually abused 

by other defendants/offenders 

or sexually abusive toward other 

defendants/offenders. Employees 

must review information received 

with the defendant/offender as 

well as discussions with the 

defendant/offender. Employees 

must conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of 

the population being screened. 

Although additional factors may 

be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and 

the agency’s or facility’s own data 

analysis, screening instruments 

must contain the criteria described below. For defendants/

offenders under the age of 18 or 

applicable age of majority within 

that jurisdiction, screening must 

be conducted by medical or mental health practitioners. If the facility does not have medical or 

mental health practitioners available, these young defendants/

offenders are given an opportunity to participate in screenings 

in private. All screening instruments must be made available 

to the public upon request.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen male 

defendants/offenders for risk of 

victimization: mental or physical 

disability, young age, slight build, 

nonviolent history, prior convictions 

for sex offenses against an adult or 

child, sexual orientation of gay or 

bisexual, gender nonconformance 

(e.g., transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and 

the defendant/offender’s own perception of vulnerability.

(continued on adjoining page)
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 169

Of course, preventing sexual abuse begins with hiring the right 

staff. Community corrections agencies must be committed to thoroughly vetting all job applicants by conducting criminal background checks, 

making diligent efforts to consult prior employers, and directly questioning applicants about any previous misconduct. Agencies should also elicit 

applicants’ views about maintaining appropriate relationships with the 

individuals they supervise. The Commission’s standards expressly prohibit hiring or promoting anyone with a history of sexual abuse. 

Screening for risk of 

victimization and 

abusiveness

(continued from adjoining page)

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen male 

defendants/offenders for risk of 

being sexually abusive: prior acts 

of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen female 

defendants/offenders for risk of 

sexual victimization: prior sexual 

victimization and the defendant/

offender’s own perception of vulnerability.

At a minimum, employees use the 

following criteria to screen female 

defendants/offenders for risk of 

being sexually abusive: prior acts of 

sexual abuse.

Use of screening information

Employees use information from 

the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments. 

In many community corrections 

facilities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep defendants/

offenders totally separate or 

segregated from each other. 

However, the facility can determine, based on the screening 

information, whether a particular 

defendant/offender should receive greater supervision, should 

have more frequent contact with 

staff, or is more appropriately 

housed in some alternative type 

of placement. The facility makes 

individualized determinations 

about how to ensure the safety 

of each defendant/offender. 

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender-nonconforming defendants/offenders are 

not placed in particular housing 

assignments solely on the basis 

of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity.

Screening and Responding

Having trained staff screen individuals during intake is essential 

to preventing sexual abuse in residential community corrections 

settings. The Commission’s standards require staff to use a written screening instrument to identify individuals who may be 

potential victims or perpetrators of sexual abuse. Effective and systematic 

screenings are critical to preventing future sexual abuse and providing 

appropriate support services to victims. Research on the most effective 

methods for screening sexual abusers and victims in community corrections is evolving. However, it is clear that screening strategies must address 

the full range of factors affecting the conduct of individuals under supervision.44 Criteria and risk factors may differ, depending on age, developmental stage, gender identity, and whether the individual is male or female. 

The Commission’s standards require screening at intake and recommend 

reviews on a periodic basis, depending on the length of involvement of the 

person under residential supervision. The Commission also urges staff to 

review the screening results within 60 days of the initial screening and 

every 90 days thereafter. Screening strategies and assessment instruments 

should also be reviewed over time for effectiveness and suitability. The 

Commission encourages community corrections officials to consult emerging research to ensure the most up-to-date screening instruments are used 

in the community corrections arena. 

The use of objective risk and needs assessments to develop treatment and other programming plans is the core of any good community 

corrections program.45 Results from screenings and assessments enable 

community corrections agencies to effectively assign people to programs 

that will provide the most benefit while reducing risks to others and the 

community at large.46 Information from secure facilities about sexual victimization or aggression involving former prisoners also substantially improves the screening and placement process. Jeff Renzi, Associate Director 

of Planning and Research at the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 

spoke about the importance of alerting community corrections staff to 

known victims and perpetrators of sexual abuse in confinement when 
170 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

he said, “No one is walking out tomorrow without probation and parole 

knowing who is a victim and a perpetrator.”47 Upon learning of sexual victimization or abusiveness during initial screenings or from staff at secure 

facilities, community corrections officers must consider that information 

when making decisions about work assignments, treatment or interventions, appropriate housing, and the type of supervision that may be necessary to ensure safety and successful reintegration. 

Staff and agency or facility 

head reporting duties

All staff members are required 

to report immediately and according to agency or facility policy any knowledge, suspicion, or 

information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse 

that occurred in a facility setting or while under supervision; 

retaliation against defendants/

offenders or staff who reported 

abuse; and any staff neglect 

or violation of responsibilities 

that may have contributed to 

an incident of sexual abuse or 

retaliation. Apart from reporting 

to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any 

information related to a sexual 

abuse report to anyone other 

than those who need to know, 

as specified in agency or facility 

policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and 

management decisions. Unless 

otherwise precluded by Federal, 

State, or local law, staff medical 

and mental health practitioners 

are required to report sexual 

abuse and must inform defendants/offenders of their duty 

to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is under the 

age of 18 or applicable age of 

majority within that jurisdiction, 

or considered a vulnerable adult 

under a State or local vulnerable 

persons statute, staff must report the allegation to the designated State or local services 

agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

Duty to Report 

T

he silence surrounding sexual abuse may be even greater in the 

field of community corrections than in some prisons, jails, lockups, and juvenile facilities, especially in the arena of nonresidential supervision. Staff may mistakenly believe that consensual 

relationships with individuals under their supervision are permissible, 

and individuals under supervision are often afraid to resist or report staff 

who perpetrate sexual misconduct.

Staff who work in the field of community corrections have a duty 

to report any knowledge or suspicion of sexual abuse involving individuals under supervision. This obligation, according to the Commission’s 

standards, is no different than what is required of any other corrections 

staff member. All corrections staff must receive training on their agency’s 

reporting policies and protocols to fulfill their responsibilities.48 In addition to developing clear zero-tolerance policies and training staff in their 

implementation, administrators should consistently discipline staff when 

they fail to uphold their duty to report.

If individuals in community corrections report sexual abuse that 

occurred while they were incarcerated, community corrections staff may 

find themselves serving as “first responders” to abuse incidents that are 

long past. In these situations, the community corrections agency must 

report back to the facility where the incident occurred or to the agency 

overseeing that facility. Correctional facilities have an obligation under the 

Commission’s standards to thoroughly investigate every report of sexual 

abuse, regardless of whether or not the victim is still incarcerated in the 

facility where the incident took place. (See Chapter 5 for detailed discussion of reporting and investigation.)

Although this requirement seems simple enough, Jacqueline Kotkin, 

Field Services Executive for the Vermont Department of Corrections, told 

the Commission, “Because probation and parole may be organizationally and geographically 

removed from prison, jail and 

other corrections residential 

The silence surrounding sexual abuse may be even greater 

in the field of community corrections than in some 

prisons, jails, lockups, and juvenile facilities.
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 171

settings, reporting allegations of prior institutional abuse often proves 

challenging.”49 Kotkin stressed the importance of developing “clear, understandable procedures” for reporting allegations in accordance with department policies and State laws.50 For example, in North Carolina, the Division 

of Community Corrections (part of the Department of Corrections) has a 

policy requiring any report of sexual abuse involving an employee or agent 

of the Department of Corrections be forwarded to the head of the department.51 This kind of clear directive enables community corrections staff to 

know what to do when they receive reports of past sexual abuse. Although 

such procedures are essential everywhere, they are easier to develop in 

States such as North Carolina with a unified correctional system.52 In decentralized systems, it may be useful to designate a particular entity that 

could act as a clearinghouse for this type of information, ensuring that 

administrators receive information about sexual abuse that occurred in a 

facility they manage. 

Reporting to other agencies 

or facilities

When the agency or facility receives an allegation that a defendant/offender was sexually 

abused while in a community 

corrections facility or while under supervision, the head of the 

agency or facility where the report was made notifies in writing 

the head of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the agency 

or facility where the alleged 

abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to 

an allegation of sexual abuse 

are coordinated among staff 

first responders, medical and 

mental health practitioners, investigators, and agency or facility leadership. The agency’s or 

facility’s coordinated response 

ensures that victims receive all 

necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, 

and support services and that 

investigators are able to obtain 

usable evidence to substantiate 

allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

A Real Communal Effort

Responding effectively to an incident of sexual abuse requires 

cooperation and coordination among a range of professionals: 

agency staff who will be first responders, forensic specialists, 

mental health professionals, victim advocates, investigators, 

prosecutors, and agency leadership. Because community corrections operates in the community, rather than apart from it, these agencies may 

have access to skilled professionals with experience in responding to 

sexual abuse. In her testimony before the Commission, Anadora Moss, 

President of The Moss Group, Inc., stressed the importance of collaborating with community partners in the context of community corrections. 

“In partnering with groups such as faith based organizations, sexual 

assault experts, counseling professionals, and law enforcement, the community corrections universe must wrap these partnerships around the 

mission of reentry. . . for all clients and offenders suffering from sexual 

victimization.”53 

Coordinated sexual assault response teams (SARTs) are widely recognized as an optimal way to respond to incidents of sexual abuse. SARTs 

exist in many communities and 

may be available to partner 

with local correctional agencies. 

Where SARTs do not exist, the 

Commission’s standards require 

community corrections agencies to ensure multidisciplinary collaboration 

by some other means. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “A National Protocol 

for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations: Adults/Adolescents” is 

SARTs exist in many communities and may be available 

to partner with local correctional agencies.
172 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

the recommended resource.54 (Appendix A of the protocol provides methods 

to customize sexual abuse investigations for diverse community settings.55) 

Establishing formal partnerships with victim advocates and other 

support services in the community is essential. Individuals under community supervision may not be comfortable reporting recent or past sexual 

abuse to a staff member of the agency. Although some individuals have 

constructive relationships with their supervising officers, that is not always the case. When staff perpetrate the abuse, it may be difficult or impossible for individuals to be confident that the agency will believe abuse 

allegations and protect them from retaliation. Therefore, the Commission’s 

standards require that individuals under supervision have the option of 

reporting abuse to an outside agency and are able to request confidentiality, if they prefer.

Additionally, community-based advocates are likely to be the only 

source of professional counseling for victims of sexual abuse. As discussed 

in detail in Chapter 6, medical and mental health effects of sexual abuse 

may be severe and long-lasting. The trauma of recent or past sexual abuse 

may hinder a person’s ability to integrate into the community, restore connections with family or other intimates, refrain from abuse of alcohol or 

other drugs, and find and maintain stable employment. Without the necessary support, victims may find themselves violating conditions of supervision and perhaps facing incarceration as a result.56 In the most extreme 

cases, individuals who were sexually abused while incarcerated may act 

out their anger by perpetrating physical or sexual violence when they return to the community.57 For all these reasons, community corrections 

agencies have an obligation to ensure that victims of sexual abuse receive 

the ongoing mental health care they need to heal. Fulfilling that requirement depends on forging strong and formal partnerships with communitybased victim advocates and other appropriate services providers. 

The Commission’s standards require community corrections agencies to attempt to establish memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with 

appropriate community-based agencies to receive reports of sexual abuse 

and immediately forward that information to the agency, unless the person had requested confidentiality, and to provide emotional support and 

other specialized services to victims. If partnerships with local service 

providers are not possible, victims must be given information about how 

to contact regional or national groups that can meet these needs. 

The work of investigating and prosecuting sexual abuse also 

is challenging, requiring cooperation among corrections administrators, investigators, medical and mental health care providers, victim 

advocates, prosecutors, and others. Very few community corrections 

agencies employ their own investigative staff. Smaller agencies simply 

cannot afford to hire investigators, and even some larger agencies do 

not have legal authority to conduct criminal investigations.58 As a result, 

Agreements with outside 

public entities and 

community service providers

The agency or facility maintains 

or attempts to enter into written 

memoranda of understanding 

(MOUs) or other agreements 

with an outside public entity

or office that is able to receive and immediately forward

defendant/offender reports of 

sexual abuse to agency or facility heads (RE-1). The agency 

also maintains or attempts 

to enter into MOUs or other 

agreements with community 

service providers that are able 

to: (1) provide defendants/offenders with confidential emotional support services related 

to sexual abuse and (2) help 

victims of sexual abuse during 

their transition from a community corrections facility into the 

community. The agency or facility maintains copies of written 

agreements or documentation 

showing attempts to enter into 

agreements.

Agreements with outside law 

enforcement agencies

If an agency or facility does not 

have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or 

has elected to permit an outside 

agency to conduct criminal or 

administrative investigations of 

staff or defendants/offenders, 

the agency or facility maintains 

or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement 

specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for 

conducting investigations. If the 

agency or facility confines defendants/offenders under the

age of 18 or applicable age of

(continued on adjoining page)
C H A P T E R 8 : C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S : T H E N E X T F R O N T I E R 173

community corrections agencies typically depend on local police, State 

bureaus of criminal investigation, or some other law enforcement entity 

to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. 

Reliance on outside law enforcement entities to conduct these investigations creates a need for agreement on the roles and responsibilities of outside investigators as well as the agency’s expectations in terms 

of timeliness, gathering and sharing evidence, informing victims, and 

other key issues. The Commission’s standards mandate that community 

corrections agencies attempt to establish MOUs or other formal agreements with outside law enforcement agencies. For some community corrections agencies, forging such agreements is new terrain. Even when 

agencies rely on external investigators, however, community corrections 

staff will be the first responders and, therefore, need clear direction and 

training on how to secure a crime scene and preserve evidence. 

Formal agreements with prosecuting authorities are just as important; diligent attempts to establish MOUs with prosecutors are also 

required under the Commission’s standards. One of the most effective 

ways to demonstrate zero tolerance is to prosecute perpetrators to the 

full extent permitted by law. In some jurisdictions, however, prosecutors 

do not prioritize these cases and may be even less aware and informed 

about sexual abuse in community corrections than about abuse that occurs in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities.59 In the process of forging 

an MOU, community corrections officials have opportunities to educate 

prosecutors about the reality and repercussions of sexual abuse in this 

context. They also can learn from prosecutors about how to improve investigations so that more perpetrators are held accountable. 

The Director of Probation and Parole for Louisiana, Eugenie Powers, 

told the Commission, “To the extent that offenders are treated humanely 

while they are detained or incarcerated, it is expected they will integrate 

more successfully into the community.”60 Community corrections has the 

opportunity to strengthen the success of this transition by protecting men, 

women, and youth from sexual abuse while they engage in the difficult 

work of establishing productive, law-abiding lives.

Agreements with outside law 

enforcement agencies

(continued from adjoining page)

majority within that jurisdiction,

or other defendants/offenders 

who fall under State and local 

vulnerable persons statutes, 

the agency or facility maintains 

or attempts to enter into an MOU 

with the designated State or local services agency with the 

jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the 

sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within community corrections facilities. When the agency 

or facility already has an existing 

agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for 

all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, 

it does not need to enter into a 

new agreement. The agency or 

facility maintains a copy of the 

written agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter 

into an agreement.

Agreements with the 

prosecuting authority

The agency or facility maintains 

or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with

the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law.

The agency or facility maintains a 

copy of the written agreement or 

documentation showing attempts 

to enter into an agreement.
A large and growing number of 

detained immigrants are at risk 

of sexual abuse. Their heightened 

vulnerability and unusual 

circumstances require special 

interventions. 
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 175

9

On the Margins: 

Immigrants in Detention

T he Krome immigration detention facility in Miami, Florida, 

opened in 1980. As early as 1983, reports of sexual abuse began to 

emerge.1

 These reports persisted for years and ranged from rape 

to sexual molestation to trading sex for favors.2

 In May 1990, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation began investigating sexual and physical 

abuse at Krome.3

 Despite the glare of publicity and an ongoing investigation, the abuse apparently continued. In early 1991, a woman detainee said 

she was raped by a staff member in the health clinic. Advocates were told 

an investigation had been conducted and the U.S. Department of Justice 

would produce findings. An official report was never made public, and it 

appears no disciplinary or legal actions were taken. 

More than 8 years later, in August 1998, officers at Krome wrote a 

memo complaining about the treatment of women and children, reporting 

that criminal and male detainees shared the same restroom with minors, 

women and children ate their meals on the floor, and there were only 

six beds for 39 women to sleep or sit on.4

 In their complaint, they noted 

that when officers had reported concerns in the past, they were labeled as 

troublemakers. Again, no action was taken. 

Widespread reports of sexual abuse at Krome resurfaced in May 

2000; some of the same staff implicated in the sex scandal in 1990 were 

subjects of the new allegations as well.5

 In her testimony before the Commission, Cheryl Little, of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, reported 

that sexual abuse at Krome appeared to be pervasive and involved allegations against at least 15 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 

officers and one public health service officer. A Department of Justice investigation that year revealed that roughly 10 percent of female detainees 

at Krome had come forward with reports of sexual misconduct by INS 

officers that included sexual harassment, fondling during searches, and 

sexual assault.6

 Two women were impregnated by officers during their 

time at Krome.7

 As recently as 2008, the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center reported sexual abuse at the Krome facility.

The prevalence of sexual abuse in immigration detention facilities is unknown, but accounts of abuse by staff and by detainees have 
176 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

been coming to light for more than 20 years. As a group, immigration 

detainees are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse and its effects while 

detained due to social, cultural, and language isolation; poor understanding of U.S. culture and the subculture of U.S. prisons; and the 

often traumatic experiences 

they have endured in their 

culture of origin.8

 Preventing, 

detecting, and responding to 

sexual abuse of immigrants 

in custody requires special 

measures not included in the 

Commission’s standards for 

correctional facilities. These 

measures are contained in a 

set of supplemental standards 

that apply to any facility that houses individuals detained solely because 

their right to remain in the United States is in question. 

This chapter discusses the special circumstances and vulnerabilities of adult and child immigration detainees—a subject that has yet to 

receive the attention and research it merits—and how the Commission’s 

supplemental standards can decrease their risk of sexual abuse and ensure 

they receive help if victimized. 

The Commission’s work in this area will advance efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to protect detainees from sexual 

abuse. ICE first published standards regarding the treatment of detainees 

in detention in 2000. When ICE updated and reconfigured those standards 

as performance-based detention standards in 2008, it expanded the standards to include sexual abuse prevention. Although the ICE standards are 

not enforceable in court, they cover important topics, such as screening 

and classification of detainees and procedures for reporting sexual abuse. 

The Commission’s standards build upon and in some areas exceed the ICE 

standards by including more specific requirements. Combined, the two 

sets of standards can make detention safer for hundreds of thousands of 

immigrants—individuals we have a duty to protect as long as they remain 

in our custody. 

Knowing Who They Are

I

n the 15 years from 1994 to 2009, the number of immigrants held in 

detention pending a judicial decision about their legal right to remain 

in the United States increased nearly 400 percent.9

 For the 2009 fiscal 

year, ICE budgeted enough money to detain 33,400 people on any given 

night and more than 400,000 people over the course of the year.10 

The prevalence of sexual abuse in immigration detention 

facilities is unknown, but accounts of abuse by staff and by 

detainees have been coming to light for more than 

20 years. As a group, immigration detainees are especially 

vulnerable to sexual abuse and its effects while detained 

due to social, cultural, and language isolation; poor 

understanding of U.S. culture and the subculture of 

U.S. prisons; and the often traumatic experiences 

they have endured in their culture of origin.
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 177

Who comprises this increasingly large group of de facto prisoners? As Asa Hutchinson, Former Under Secretary for Border and 

Transportation Security at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

noted, most immigrants in detention do not have criminal backgrounds.11

Approximately one out of every 10 immigration detainees is seeking 

asylum—petitioning for safe haven in the United States, often after fleeing 

severe and life-threatening violence in his or her home country.12 Other

categories of detainees include adults and children who entered the country 

without the proper documentation, families confined together, and thousands of “unaccompanied” children without families in the United States. 

Unaccompanied minors from birth to age 18 are generally transferred from the Department of Homeland Security custody to the Office 

of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and may remain in custody for several 

months.13 In 2008, an estimated 10,350 unaccompanied children were 

transferred into ORR custody.14 ORR places unaccompanied children and 

teenagers in a variety of settings, including foster care, shelters, group 

homes, and secure juvenile detention facilities. A few detainees have committed crimes that place them at risk of deportation. 

What all immigration detainees have in common is an indeterminate 

wait while their immigration case proceeds through the court system. For 

adults, the waiting can take place in “service processing centers” operated

by ICE, contract detention facilities, local jails, State and Federal prisons—

where they may commingle with the general prisoner population—and 

short-term detention facilities run by Customs and Border Protection (“Border

Patrol”). ICE also has two family facilities specifically to house parents and 

children together. 

Isolated and Defenseless

Many factors—personal and circumstantial, alone or in

combination—make immigration detainees especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. One of the most pervasive factors is

social isolation. As Anne Wideman, a clinical psychologist 

from Arizona, told the Commission, “Many immigrants have shared with me 

that they don’t fit into their particular group in detention. Either they’re too 

home country or they’re too Americanized to fit into their particular group. 

This increases their isolation and their lack of protection [from] violence.”15 

The isolation and confusion immigration detainees experience inside a locked facility is often exacerbated because they are far from family, friends, lawyers, and, in some cases, anyone who even speaks their 

language. Shiu-Ming Cheer, a legal advocate with the South Asian Network 

in Los Angeles, told the Commission, “Vietnamese-speaking detainees have 

been held in rural Texas jails for years without any information given to them 

in their native language. This increases the likelihood of sexual abuse.”16
178 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Some detainees left their home countries because of life-threatening

civil and political unrest or to escape physical or sexual abuse from family 

members. Many of them have witnessed beatings, rapes, or killings and 

experienced severe physical and sexual assault themselves before immigrating to the United States. Asylum seekers and refugees who fled violence or starvation in their home countries often have posttraumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD) and other 

trauma responses.17 Hallmarks 

include difficulty problem-solving and a sense of hopelessness 

and lack of control, all of which 

make individuals more susceptible to sexual victimization 

and also less likely to report 

it.18 “They become easily overwhelmed by what is happening 

to them and have difficulty deciding on and following through with a 

course of action to change the situation,” Wideman testified.19

A 2003 study by Physicians for Human Rights, based on interviews 

with 70 detained asylum seekers, found that detention has a particularly 

debilitating impact on them, especially on torture survivors, noting, “Detention can induce fear, isolation and hopelessness, and exacerbate the 

severe psychological distress frequently exhibited by asylum seekers who 

are already traumatized.”20 A quarter of the asylum seekers interviewed 

reported having been sexually assaulted prior to immigrating. Not surprisingly, the study found extremely high levels of depression (86 percent), 

anxiety (77 percent), PTSD (50 percent), and worsened psychological 

health (70 percent) among asylum-seeking detainees. 

Children in detention also are particularly vulnerable. The Border 

Patrol apprehended an estimated 90,000 children along the southern U.S. 

border in 2007, and most were quickly repatriated.21 Some may be detained 

in Border Patrol facilities, however, while awaiting repatriation. In these 

holding centers, children are often in close proximity with adults and, 

therefore, in danger of sexual abuse. Some detained children have suffered 

through terrifying experiences that may have stripped away their defenses 

and even led them to expect abuse. “Some of these children are victims of 

human trafficking, brought to the U.S. for sexual exploitation or forced labor. Other children are smuggled into the U.S. on thousand-mile journeys, 

at each stop of the way at incredibly high risk for abuse and sexual exploitation,” Sergio Medina, Field Coordinator with Lutheran Immigration and 

Refugee Service, told the Commission.22 Once in detention, the aftereffects 

of traumas they have experienced, coupled with fear of their circumstances

and of the adults in charge, leave them extremely vulnerable to sexual 

abuse by adult caretakers and also by predatory youth. 

Immigration officers “hold the key”—or at least it 

can appear that way. Little told the Commission that 

deportation officers have propositioned women 

whose cases they control, telling them that if they 

want to be released they need to comply with the 

officers’ sexual demands.
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 179

Immigration detainees may be especially vulnerable to sexual 

abuse by staff because they are confined by the same agency with the 

power to deport them. In this context, officers who are inclined to abuse 

their authority have an astounding degree of leverage, especially when detainees are not well-informed of their rights and lack access to legal counsel. In the words of Cheryl Little, immigration officers “hold the key”—or 

at least it can appear that way.23 Little told the Commission that deportation officers have propositioned women whose cases they control, telling 

them that if they want to be released they need to comply with the officers’ 

sexual demands. 

Reason to Remain Silent 

As in other correctional settings, immigration detainees fear retaliation by perpetrators, that their reports will not be believed, 

and that reports will be handled in a way that is damaging. 

However, for immigrants, the fear of deportation is an additional and critical barrier. Immigration detainees’ greatest fear is often of 

causing any trouble that might damage their case.24 

After women detainees at the Krome immigration detention facility in Miami reported sexual abuse by staff, several of them wrote to then 

Attorney General Janet Reno, telling her, “We are afraid. . . each time one 

of us is interviewed by investigating officers. . . . [S]ome of the women 

who have given statements have either been transferred or deported to 

their countries.”25 At one point, two of the women whom officers viewed 

as “‘ringleaders’” behind the 

allegations were transferred to 

the maximum security Federal 

Detention Center in downtown 

Miami and held in isolation for 

12 and 13 days, respectively.26

During this time, staff did not 

allow them to call their attorneys or their families, and they had no access 

to recreation; they were even denied shampoo and combs. When they appeared before the grand jury, their hair had not been combed for 10 days. 

The determination of the victims at Krome to seek justice and 

protection is unusual. Fearing the possibility of retaliatory deportation, 

immigration detainees tend to be less likely than other prisoners to challenge the conditions of their confinement.27 Families are threatened with 

separation, creating enormous pressure on parents that they will lose their 

children if a family member causes disruption.28 For asylum seekers, the 

prospect of deportation often carries especially severe consequences. And 

if detainees come from countries where prisoners are routinely treated 

“We are afraid. . . each time one of us is interviewed by 

investigating officers. . . . [S]ome of the women who 

have given statements have either been transferred or 

deported to their countries.”
180 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

poorly or even tortured, they may be unlikely to believe that detention officers will protect them from sexual abuse even if they do report it.29

The fear of stigma if they report sexual victimization also may be 

more severe for some immigrant victims than for others in confinement. 

In many cultures, families and 

communities view victims of 

sexual assault very unsympathetically after the abuse becomes known.30 Sexual abuse 

victims may be perceived as 

disgracing the family and even 

be at risk for retaliation by their 

own family members. This added danger, coupled with unfamiliarity with the processes of reporting or 

even with the right to report, makes it even less likely that immigration 

detainees will disclose sexual abuse experiences.

Reporting sexual abuse can be especially difficult for detained children. Most of them do not have guardians, attorneys, or advocates whom 

they trust and can confide in. One unaccompanied minor, a 17-year-old 

boy detained in the San Francisco Bay area, was the victim of ongoing 

sexual abuse by a staff member. According to Tom Plummer, Staff Attorney for Legal Services for Children in San Francisco, the alleged conduct 

included the staff person visiting the boy’s bedroom during evening bed 

checks, sitting on the bed with him, touching him on the face and neck, 

kissing him, and expressing intimate affection and physical attraction.31

The boy reported the abuse to staff on at least four occasions. When no 

one took action to stop the behavior, he felt forced to disclose his sexual 

victimization during a house meeting in front of his peers. 

Another teenage boy, interviewed by Physicians for Human Rights, 

recalled that: “[A] detainee tried to touch me in my personal place, and it 

made me very uncomfortable. . . . The others were making fun of me. The 

last time, I pushed him and told him to go. I defended myself and I was 

put in segregation. The guards didn’t give me an opportunity to explain. 

They just told me it was my fault. . . . I told one of the officers that another 

detainee bothered me and touched me in the night. I was ashamed to tell 

the officer, but I tried. The officer didn’t pay attention. He said he can’t do 

anything. . . [now] I am afraid to complain because I fear I will be put in 

segregation.”32 Forty percent of asylum-seeking detainees interviewed by 

Physicians for Human Rights reported that they had been threatened with 

disciplinary segregation while detained; 26 percent were actually placed in 

segregation at some time during their detention.33 

An atmosphere of intimidation in a facility can also suppress reporting.34 Fifty-four percent of detainees interviewed by Physicians for 

Human Rights reported that they had experienced verbal abuse while in 

“[A] detainee tried to touch me in my personal place, 

and it made me very uncomfortable. . . . The others were 

making fun of me. The last time, I pushed him and told him 

to go. I defended myself and I was put in segregation. 

The guards didn’t give me an opportunity to explain. 

They just told me it was my fault. . . .”
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 181

detention, including being called criminals and liars and being yelled and 

sworn at, often in circumstances they did not understand.”35 This is not 

an environment in which victims of sexual abuse are likely to speak out. 

There are other institutional barriers that block or discourage victims and witnesses from reporting abuse. The ICE detention standards 

require the posting of information about how to report sexual abuse.36 A 

“sexual assault awareness” poster is to be displayed in English and Spanish with a “sexual assault awareness information” pamphlet distributed in 

most detention facilities.37 The poster encourages victims of a sexual abuse 

to report the assault and promises confidentiality for the reported information. Posters may not be enough to inform all detainees of their rights and 

the process, however, especially those who are not fluent in the language. 

And grievance procedures can seem impossibly complex, especially for 

detainees who speak languages other than English or Spanish. 

A 2006 audit by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General revealed that detainees often do not receive 

information on reporting and grievance procedures in a language they can 

understand.38 Detainees who don’t speak English or Spanish must request 

assistance from others to translate materials they are given or to write letters or fill out forms reporting the abuse—a serious barrier given the sensitive nature of the subject matter.39 Additionally, if victims of sexual abuse 

see other complaints go unanswered, from poor medical care to denial 

of religious services, they may have little confidence that their claims of 

sexual abuse will be treated any differently.40 

Supplement to

Screening for risk of

victimization and abusiveness

The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain institutional and criminal records 

of immigration detainees in its 

custody prior to screening for 

risk of victimization and abusiveness. Screening of immigration detainees is conducted by 

employees who are culturally 

competent.

Supplement to

Use of screening information

Any facility that houses both 

inmates and immigration detainees houses all immigration 

detainees separately from other 

inmates in the facility and provides heightened protection for 

immigration detainees who are 

identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by other 

detainees through the screening process (SC-1). To the extent 

possible, immigration detainees 

have full access to programs, education, and work opportunities.

Screen and Separate 

T

he Commission’s standards for adult prisons and jails require 

that specific criteria be used to screen all incarcerated persons 

for risk of victimization and abusiveness. (See Chapter 3 for a 

detailed discussion of screening.) In the immigration context, additional precautions are required. Although most immigrants in detention 

do not have criminal histories, the Commission’s supplemental standards 

require facilities to make every reasonable effort to obtain and review the 

prior institutional and criminal records of all immigration detainees before 

screening them for risk of victimization and abusiveness.

Additionally, when immigration detainees are confined in prisons, 

jails, and lockups, the supplemental standards require separate housing 

for immigrants. Bryan Lonegan, who provides legal assistance to immigrants detained in northern New Jersey jails, told the Commission, “when 

those [immigrants] were detained last week, they were all held in the same 

jail with the people who were jumping the turnstiles, people who were 

there for shoplifting or drug offenses. . . . The point is, that within the jails 
182 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

that I work in northern New Jersey, there is no way to distinguish potential 

violators from the people who would be violated.”41

Screening must also look for signs of heightened vulnerability. Currently, the initial assessment required by the ICE detention standards does 

not include screening for all of the characteristics that may indicate vulnerability to abuse, such as self-reported history of past abuse, gender, sexual 

orientation, or physical appearance.42 Recognizing that some immigration 

detainees are more at risk of sexual abuse than others, the supplemental 

standards require culturally competent employees to assess all detainees 

for risk of victimization and abusiveness and to provide heightened protection for individuals identified as vulnerable. Today, not all facilities take 

even basic precautions, such as separating detainees by gender or age. 

The Commission also is concerned that the default mode of protection for vulnerable detainees has become housing them in conditions approaching isolation. Depending on conditions in protective custody cells 

and units, isolation can enhance the feeling of aloneness already common 

among immigration detainees and lead to depression and other problems.43

For individuals from cultures that emphasize close interpersonal connections, isolation may be particularly destructive. Language barriers further 

intensify the isolation experience of protective custody. Detainees also 

may experience segregation as punishment and remain silent instead of 

reporting sexual abuse. 

Supplement to

Inmate education

Sexual abuse education (TR-3)

for immigration detainees is 

provided at a time and in a 

manner that is separate from 

information provided about 

their immigration cases, in detainees’ own languages and 

in terms that are culturally appropriate, and is conducted by 

a qualified individual with experience communicating about 

these issues with a diverse 

population.

Detainee handbook

Every detainee is provided with 

an ICE Detainee Handbook upon 

admission to the facility, and a 

replacement is provided whenever a detainee’s handbook is 

lost or damaged. The Detainee 

Handbook contains notice of the 

agency’s zero-tolerance policy

toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency’s policies 

related to sexual abuse, including information about how to 

report an incident of sexual 

abuse and the detainees’ rights 

and responsibilities related to 

sexual abuse. The Detainee 

Handbook will inform immigration detainees how to contact 

organizations in the community 

that provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse. 

The Detainee Handbook will also 

inform detainees how to contact 

the Office for Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties, the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) for the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and diplomatic or consular personnel.

Educate to Protect

I

mmigration detainees will be less vulnerable to sexual abuse if they 

know their rights and the protections and support available to them. 

The Commission’s supplemental standard on inmate education mandates that sexual abuse education for immigration detainees be provided in the detainees’ own language, in terms that are culturally appropriate, 

and that it be conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating about these issues to a diverse population. 

ICE has made progress toward meeting this requirement through 

its own standard mandating facilities to provide information about sexual 

abuse through an orientation handbook, an orientation video, and a poster 

encouraging detainees who become victims of sexual abuse to report the 

assault to “any staff person you trust.”44 However, a 2006 audit of five detention facilities by the Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General found that all five facilities distributed handbooks to detainees that did 

not explain the process for reporting allegations related to abuse. Some detainees were not aware that they could report allegations related to abuse 

or civil rights violations directly to the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Office of the Inspector General or that there were reporting procedures for 

officer’s sexual misconduct.45
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 183

The Commission’s standards not only require every detainee to 

receive a handbook upon admission to the facility—as ICE’s own standards already mandate—but also outline information that the handbook 

must cover: the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and all 

the related policies, how to report an incident of sexual abuse, detainees’ 

rights and responsibilities in regard to sexual abuse, and how to contact 

organizations in the community that provide sexual abuse counseling and 

legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse. When facilities receive

reports of sexual abuse, the supplemental standard regarding data collection requires them to record the victim’s immigration status and to update 

that information at the conclusion of the investigation.

Supplement to

Data collection

The facility collects additional 

data whenever an immigration 

detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an incident of sexual 

abuse in custody. The additional 

incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim and/

or perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status 

at the initiation of the investigation, and his or her status at the 

conclusion of the investigation. 

Supplement to

Inmate reporting

The agency provides immigration detainees with access to 

telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s 

Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and the DHS OIG. In 

addition, the agency must provide immigration detainees with 

a list of phone numbers for diplomatic or consular personnel 

from their countries of citizenship and access to telephones 

to contact such personnel.

Lifelines to the Outside World

Confinement, by definition, involves separating individuals 

from the community, at least to some degree. Immigration detainees, more than other confined populations, are likely to 

be almost entirely cut off from the world outside the facility 

in which they are residing. Individuals are often held in remote facilities, far from family or friends, and may be linguistically and culturally 

isolated within the detention setting. Often advocacy groups in the surrounding community lack the language skills and cultural competency 

to assist them. 

Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services administers ICE’s Legal 

Orientation Program to detention facilities in and around El Paso, Texas. 

According to Iliana Holguin, the organization’s Executive Director, “Many 

times the [Legal Orientation Program] is the only opportunity that detainees have to ask a nongovernmental official for information related to their 

particular case, for an explanation of the court system which they will 

soon be forced to navigate, and to express their concerns regarding the 

conditions of their detention or report any abuses that may have occurred 

while being detained.”46 Although detainees have periodic contact with 

immigration judges, those judges have no jurisdiction over the conditions 

of their detention.

Preventing and responding to sexual abuse among immigration 

detainees requires ensuring that detainees can easily contact outside entities authorized to receive and respond to reports of sexual abuse. The 

Commission’s standards in this area echo what ICE’s own standard already requires: facilities must provide immigration detainees with access 

to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties and to the Department 

of Homeland Security’s Office 

Immigration detainees, more than other confined 

populations, are likely to be almost entirely cut off from 

the world outside the facility in which they are residing. 
184 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

of the Inspector General. They also must have access to telephones to contact diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of citizenship, 

along with a list of those phone numbers.47 

Although many facilities have a telephone system, a U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigation in 2007 found widespread 

problems. Of the 17 facilities GAO visited that used this system, 16 had 

problems that restricted detainees’ abilities to reach their consulates, nongovernmental organizations, pro bono legal assistance providers, and the 

Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General complaint hotline. The contractor detainee telephone system was extremely 

cumbersome and complicated to use. “For example, at Pamunkey Regional 

Jail [in Hanover, Virginia] the automated system required eight different 

actions by the user to place a call. One of these actions added further 

confusion by instructing a detainee to select ‘collect call’ in order to make 

a pro bono telephone system call.”48 GAO also found that the Inspector 

General’s number was blocked or otherwise restricted at 12 of the facilities. 

Immigration detainees who are victims of abuse also need a lifeline 

to organizations with experience providing support and counseling for 

immigrant victims of crime. Attorneys and paralegals are not generally 

trained in how to counsel individuals who have been raped or have been 

victims of sexual assault.49 For these reasons, the Commission’s supplemental standards require facilities to attempt to reach formal agreements, 

such as a memorandum of understanding, with one or more local or, if not 

available, national organizations equipped to provide both legal advocacy 

and confidential emotional support services to immigration detainees who 

are victims of sexual abuse. The standards also require facilities to make 

contact information for these organizations easily accessible and to ensure 

that detainees can communicate with outside advocates on a confidential 

basis, to the extent allowed by law.

Supplement to

Inmate access to outside 

confidential support services

All immigration detainees have 

access to outside victim advocates who have experience working with immigration detainees 

or immigrant victims of crime 

for emotional support services 

related to sexual abuse. The 

facility provides such access by 

giving immigration detainees the 

current mailing addresses and 

telephone numbers, including 

toll-free hotline numbers, of local, 

State, and/or national organizations that provide these services and enabling reasonable 

communication between immigration detainees and these organizations. The facility ensures 

that communications with such 

advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent 

allowable by Federal, State, and 

local law. The facility informs immigration detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent 

to which such communications 

will be private, confidential, and/

or privileged.

Supplement to

Agreements with outside 

public entities and community service providers

Any facility that houses immigration detainees maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda 

of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with one or more 

local or, if not available, national 

organizations that provide legal 

advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime (RE-3, 

MM-3). The agency maintains 

copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to 

enter into agreements.

Culturally Appropriate and Effective 

E

ven though the Commission’s supplemental standards emphasize 

the need to link victims of sexual abuse with culturally competent outside advocates, facilities still must ensure that their own 

staff can respond appropriately to sexual abuse. The first line of 

response to sexual abuse in detention facilities may be staff and frontline 

providers, yet most are not trained to respond to sexual victimization. 

In her testimony before the Commission, Anne Wideman observed 

that medical staff in detention facilities often are not available to respond 

to sexual abuse victims and that staff are not well trained in detecting or 

following up on sexual abuse.50 According to Cheryl Little, doctors evaluating sexual abuse victims at the Krome detention facility in Miami did 
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 185

not even conduct a gynecological exam after reported incidents of sexual 

victimization.51 Bryan Lonegan believes there are other forces at work as 

well: “The pressure on the medical staff is to limit the cost of medical care 

inside the facility. And with that, people look the other way.”52 Lonegan 

has known of practitioners who provided a substandard level of care. “I 

had a client who had anal fissures because he had AIDS, and for that he 

was given Motrin.” 

A report by two refugee advocacy organizations examining family 

detention facilities found inadequate medical and mental health services, 

including lack of access to doctors and inappropriate treatment of serious symptoms. The report concluded that “staff should receive continued 

specialized training in the unique physical and psychological needs of 

immigrant families.”53 Some immigrants come from cultures in which 

emotional distress is expressed somatically.54 In its report, Physicians for 

Human Rights recommended that facility staff should receive training in 

how physical symptoms and complaints may serve as indicators of sexual 

abuse.55

In July 2008, Congress repealed the statutory ban against visits or 

migration to the United States by HIV-positive persons.56 As this report 

went to press, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is considering modifying its regulations to remove HIV from the list of communicable diseases. Currently, immigrants known to be HIV-positive request 

a waiver to seek legal status in the United States—a requirement that applies to all immigrants with communicable diseases.57 Because of this additional administrative hurdle and the possibility that requests for waivers 

can be denied, the Commission’s supplemental standards require facilities 

to counsel all detainees about the immigration consequences of a positive 

HIV test at the time they are offered testing. Medical practitioners should 

keep abreast of the most current state of the law regarding HIV status and 

its consequences for the immigration process.

Addressing deficiencies in correctional health care is a complex and 

vexing issue, requiring training for staff and other interventions mandated 

in the Commission’s core standards. (See Chapter 6 for more information.) 

The Commission designed its supplemental standard on staff training to 

ensure that all staff can at least identify signs of sexual abuse among immigration detainees and provide an initial response that is culturally appropriate and effective. The mixture of languages, cultural traditions, and 

personal experiences represented among immigration detainees nationally 

makes adequate training a significant challenge. Detainees come from cultures with differing notions of appropriate sexual behavior, and their own 

experiences of sexual abuse vary widely, along with how they understand 

the repercussions of reporting abuse to government authorities. 

The Commission’s supplemental standard on training aims to be 

responsive to these realities by requiring that all employees, including 

Supplement to 

Employee training and 

specialized training of 

investigators and medical 

and mental health care

Any facility that holds immigration detainees provides special

additional training to employees,

including medical and mental 

health practitioners and investigators. This additional training 

includes the following topics: cultural sensitivity toward diverse

understandings of acceptable 

and unacceptable sexual behavior, appropriate terms and 

concepts to use when discussing sex and sexual abuse with a

culturally diverse population, 

sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that may 

have been experienced by immigration detainees, and knowledge of all existing resources 

for immigration detainees both 

inside and outside the facility 

that provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy for victims.

Supplement to

Ongoing medical and mental 

health care for sexual abuse 

victims and abusers

All immigration detainees are 

counseled about the immigration consequences of a positive 

HIV test at the time they are

offered HIV testing.
186 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

medical and mental health practitioners and investigators, be trained in 

cultural sensitivity toward diverse understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, appropriate terms and concepts to use when 

discussing sex and sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that immigration detainees 

may have experienced, and knowledge of all existing support services for 

detainees, both within and outside the facility. 

Supplement to

Protection of detainee 

victims and witnesses

ICE never removes from the 

country or transfers to another 

facility immigration detainees 

who report sexual abuse before 

the investigation of that abuse 

is completed, except at the 

detainee victim’s request. ICE 

considers releasing detainees 

who are victims of or witnesses 

to abuse and monitoring them 

in the community to protect 

them from retaliation or further 

abuse during the course of the 

investigation.

Justice Interrupted: Transfers and Removals

I

n testifying before the Commission, Bryan Lonegan described what 

happened after a detainee in El Paso lodged a complaint about sexual 

abuse: “He made the complaint, and the next thing you know he was 

sent over to New Mexico. And then he was bounced back to Texas 

again and then back down into New Mexico. And during that time he was 

trying to maintain correspondence with somebody who would address his 

complaint. And every time he was transferred, he lost his legal papers, he 

lost his documents. He was never able to receive [the] documents back.”58

Immigration detainees are housed in hundreds of facilities around 

the country and are often transferred among facilities as they await a decision in their court case.59 Reasons for transfers usually involve space 

availability, cost, and security. The experience of frequent transfers is obviously hard on detainees and 

compromises their ability to 

build and present a strong case 

in immigration court. When a 

detainee is the victim of sexual 

abuse, transfers interrupt—and 

sometimes completely derail—

the complaint process, as the 

story of the detainee from El 

Paso illustrates. Additionally, 

immigrants who are victims of 

certain sex crimes may be eligible for a special visa that allows them to remain in the country, so it is critically important that an 

investigative finding be made while the detainee still has an opportunity 

to apply for such a visa.60 

In some cases, ICE decides to transfer a known victim or witness of 

sexual abuse to protect the person from subsequent abuse or retaliation for 

reporting. Although protective measures are essential and mandated, the 

Commission’s supplemental standard on protection forbids transferring or 

“He made the complaint, and the next thing you know 

he was sent over to New Mexico. And then he was 

bounced back to Texas again and then back down into New 

Mexico. And during that time he was trying to maintain 

correspondence with somebody who would address 

his complaint. And every time he was transferred, he 

lost his legal papers, he lost his documents. He was 

never able to receive [the] documents back.”
C H A P T E R 9 : O N T H E M A R G I N S : I M M I G R A N T S I N D E T E N T I O N 187

deporting a detainee who reports sexual abuse until an investigation has 

been completed, except at the detainee’s own request. 

When staff cannot protect victims and witnesses in the facility 

where the abuse occurred, ICE must consider releasing and monitoring 

them in the community during the course of the investigation. Immigration detainees are in civil custody, and most have not committed crimes 

in the United States. Furthermore, research has shown that immigrants 

can be supervised in the community without undue risk of flight. A test of 

intensive community supervision in New York City from February 1997 to 

March 2000 showed that 91 percent of participants attended all required 

court hearings.61 The test also found community supervision was more 

cost-effective than detention. 

Screening of immigration 

detainees in family facilities 

Family facilities develop screening criteria to identify those families and family members who 

may be at risk of being sexually 

victimized that will not lead to 

the separation of families. Housing, program, educational, and 

work assignments are made in 

a manner that protects families 

and in all cases prioritizes keeping families together.

Reporting of sexual abuse in 

family facilities

The facility provides parents with 

the ability to report sexual abuse 

in a manner that is confidential 

from their children. The facility 

also provides children with the 

ability to report abuse by a parent confidentially to staff.

Investigations in family 

facilities

Parents are questioned confidentially by investigators about 

any incident of sexual abuse, 

away from their children. A 

parent or parents are present 

when a child is questioned by 

investigators about any incident 

of sexual abuse, unless (1) the 

child has alleged abuse by the 

parent or (2) staff suspects 

abuse by the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from 

an interview based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent 

is always made by a qualified 

mental health practitioner.

Specifically for Families 

F amilies who are in ICE custody are currently detained in several 

facilities in the United States. Stays are not always brief: women 

with children, including babies and toddlers, may be detained 

for days, weeks, or even months.62 Although families can be held 

in Customs and Border Protection facilities—typically for short periods of 

time—and in regular detention facilities operated by or under contract with 

ICE, most parents and children who are detained together are housed in one 

of two family detention facilities, operated exclusively for this purpose. 

In testimony before a congressional subcommittee on immigration, 

Texas Representative Sheila Jackson noted that family facilities often are 

modeled on the criminal justice system. Immigrants in these facilities are 

“deprived of the right to live as a family unit, denied adequate medical 

and mental health care, and face overly harsh disciplinary tactics.”63 The 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services report concluded that, in addition to the need for specialized training about immigrant families, “[a]ll

staff training should be based upon a child and family welfare model 

and not a criminal or juvenile justice model.”64 The report also found 

health care to be inadequate, citing the inability of adults and children to 

get access to doctors and inappropriate treatment of serious symptoms. 

Compounding these conditions, Michelle Brané, Director of the Detention 

and Asylum Program for Women’s Refugee Commission, contends that 

families are sometimes threatened with separation, creating enormous 

pressure on parents that they will lose their children if a family member 

causes disruption.65 

According to the Commission’s standards, housing and other placement decisions based on a child or adult’s risk of sexual abuse must preserve the integrity of the family unit and strive to keep members together. 
188 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Screening criteria used in facilities for adults and those used in facilities 

for children are generally inappropriate in a family context. The purpose 

of family facilities is to keep families together, so protection cannot be 

accomplished by separating individuals on the basis of age, gender, or 

sexuality. There is almost no research to suggest what screening criteria 

might be appropriate, so the burden is on ICE to develop good protocols 

that protect individuals from abuse while maintaining family unity. 

Disincentives for reporting abuse may be even greater when parents and children are confined together with little or no privacy. Under the 

Commission’s standards, facilities must somehow ensure that both adults 

and children can report abuse in a confidential manner. This is especially 

important in the situations where children are at risk of abuse within the 

family unit. 

Family facilities must be sensitive to parents’ desire to protect their 

children from sexual abuse and even from hearing about abuse unnecessarily because that may disturb a child. Facilities also must be responsive to the discomfort a parent might feel discussing sexual abuse in front 

of their children. The Commission’s standards require investigators and 

health care practitioners to question parents confidentially, away from 

their children, about any incident of sexual abuse. On the other hand, 

when children are known or suspected to be victims of sexual abuse, the 

standards require parents to be present when investigators are questioning 

their children and allow parents to be present during medical and mental 

health exams, unless the parent is the alleged abuser. A qualified mental 

health practitioner must make the decision to exclude a parent from an 

interview or medial exam based on suspicion of abuse. 

Florida immigrant advocate Cheryl Little concluded her testimony 

to the Commission by stating, “Detainees [in Florida] have paid a heavy 

price for sexual misconduct by their jailers and the message to victims is 

clear: Complain and you are transferred to a remote facility far removed 

from your lawyer and loved ones or, worse, you risk deportation. . . . The 

message to abusive guards is likewise clear: No matter the seriousness of 

the abuse, you are not likely to be punished or held accountable for your 

acts.”66 The decades of unchecked sexual abuses at the Krome facility are 

one example, albeit extreme, that protections for immigration detainees 

and accountability for perpetrators are not what they should be. Almost 

equally concerning, we know less about this area of confinement than any 

other, yet it is one of the fastest growing and an area in which preventing, 

detecting, and responding to abuse is especially challenging.

Access to medical and 

mental health care in family 

facilities

All family members are offered 

mental health counseling (as 

required in MM-2 and MM-3) 

when one family member is a 

victim of sexual abuse in the 

facility. Following an incident of 

sexual abuse, parents and adult 

family members are examined 

confidentially by medical and 

mental health practitioners and 

away from children. Following 

an incident of sexual abuse, a 

parent or parents are allowed 

to be present during all medical and mental health examinations of a minor child, unless 

(1) that child has alleged sexual 

abuse by the parent or (2) staff 

suspects abuse by the parent. 

The decision to exclude a parent 

from an examination based on 

staff suspicion of abuse by that 

parent is always made by a qualified mental health practitioner. 

In the event that a child is sexually abused, a qualified mental 

health practitioner interviews the 

child to determine whether either 

parent was present or aware of 

the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened 

in connection with the abuse.
APPENDICES

A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 191

PART I: UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE

Chapter 1. A Problem that Must Be Solved 

Appendix A

Endnotes

1. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston: Christopher Publishing House (hereafter Clemmer, The prison 

community).

2. The Eighth Amendment, proportionality, and the changing meaning of “punishments.” (2009). Harvard Law Review, 

122(3), 960–981.

3. McShane, M. (2008). Prisons in America. El Paso, TX: LFB 

Scholarly Publishing LLC. 

4. Craig, R. L. (2006). Women in corrections: Elizabeth Gurney Fry. Journal of Correctional Education. 57(2), 141–144.

5. Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. (2002). The treatment of sexual 

assault victims. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and 

policy (pp. 67–87). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 

Inc. (hereafter Dumond, “Treatment”).

6. Alan Davis conducted his groundbreaking study of sexual 

abuse in jail systems during this period. Davis, A. J. (1968). 

Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriff’s vans. Transaction, 6(2), 8–16 (hereafter Davis, “Sexual 

assaults”).

7. Testimony of Parsell, T. J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 33). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing.

8. Ibid., at 34.

9. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et 

seq. (hereafter PREA).

10. Ibid.

11. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Data collections for the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (hereafter 

BJS, Data collections).

12. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (hereafter Farmer).

13. Bayard, M. (1983). Inside justice. London: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, p. 225.

14. Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850, 851–852 (9th Cir. 1951).

15. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555–556 (1974).

16. Farmer, at 833.

17. Ibid., at 834 (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).

18. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 370 

(1992); Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 

858 (9th Cir. 1992); Moore v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1553, 1557 n. 

4 (11th Cir. 1991); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional 

Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 336–337 (3d Cir. 1987); Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 1981); Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 396 (10th Cir. 1977); Thomas v. Baca, 514 

F.Supp.2d 1201, 1218 (C.D.Cal. 2007). 

19. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1991); 

Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1983).

20. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 354 (1981). 

21. Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988).

22. Testimony of Shirley, M. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 

67). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Public Hearing.

23. Ibid., at 69.

24. Ibid., at 71.

25. Ibid., at 73.

26. Browne, A., & Lichter, E. (2001). Imprisonment in the 

United States. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and 

gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (Vol. 1). San Diego: Academic Press (hereafter 

Browne, “Imprisonment”); Young, V., & Reviere, R. (2005). 

Women behind bars: Gender & race in U.S. prisons. Boulder, 

CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Young, Women 

behind bars); Rafter, N. (1990). Partial justice: Women, prisons, and social control (2nd ed., rev.). New Brunswick, NJ: 

Transaction Publishers (hereafter Rafter, Partial justice).

27. Freedman, E. (1981). Their sisters’ keepers: Women’s prison 

reform in America, 1830–1930. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, p. 16. 

28. Young, Women behind bars; Rafter, Partial justice. 

29. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e 

et seq. See Griffin v. Michigan DOC, 654 F.Supp. 690 (E.D. 

Mich. 1982); Harden v. Dayton Human Rehabilitation Center, 

520 F.Supp. 769 (S.D. Ohio 1981); Smith, B. (2003). Watching 
192 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 15(2), 

225–288.

30. See Jurado, R. (1999). The essence of her womanhood: 

Defining the privacy rights of women prisoners and the 

employment rights of women guards. American University

Journal of Gender Social Policy & Law, 7(1), 21–53. 

31. U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Quick facts: Employment 

status for women and men in 2007. Women’s Bureau Web site. 

Available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-ESWM07.

htm

32. Smith, B. (2008). Prosecuting sexual violence in correctional settings: Examining prosecutors’ perceptions. American University, Washington College of Law Research Paper 

No. 2008-50 (hereafter Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence); 

National Institute of Corrections. (2006). State criminal laws 

prohibiting sexual misconduct with offenders in 1990. Available at http://nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/Library/021770.pdf

33. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence.

34. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of 

Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). State laws 

prohibiting sexual misconduct with individuals in custody checklist. American University, Washington College of 

Law Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/

nic/legal_responses_to_prison_rape/fifty_state_checklist.

pdf?rd=1

35. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence.

36. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of 

Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). Fifty-state 

survey of criminal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of individuals in custody. American University, Washington College 

of Law Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/

nic/responses.cfm

37. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence; Testimony of Worthy, 

K. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting 

Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 

217). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing. 

38. Clemmer, The prison community. 

39. Davis, “Sexual assaults.”

40. Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York: Plenum Press.

41. Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., 

Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported by 

men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 67–76.

42. Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002). 

Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern 

prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 217–227 (hereafter

Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women”).

43. Ibid., at 224–225.

44. Blackburn, A., Mullings, J., & Marquart, J. (2008). Sexual 

assault in prison and beyond: Toward an understanding of 

lifetime sexual assault among incarcerated women. The Prison 

Journal, 88(3), 351–377. 

45. Jones, T. R., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). The prevalence of sex The -

ual violence in prison: The state of the knowledge base and 

implications for evidence-based correctional policy making. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

Criminology, 52(3), 280–295 (hereafter Jones, “Prevalence of 

sexual violence”).

46. Gaes, G., & Goldberg, A. (2004). Prison rape: A critical 

review of the literature. National Institute of Justice Working 

Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

47. Jones, “Prevalence of sexual violence.”

48. Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public 

Health, 27(3), 281–291.

49. Donaldson, S. (1994). Rape trauma syndrome in male prisoners. Los Angeles: Just Detention International (hereafter 

Donaldson, Rape trauma).

50. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys 

of drug and alcohol use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(2), 210–

240 (hereafter Aquilino, “Interview mode effects”).

51. Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., Kutner, M., & White, S. 

(2006). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003 National 

Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

52. Aquilino, “Interview mode effects” (stating that in studies 

involving sensitive information, two key factors influencing 

willingness to participate are the confidentiality and anonymity of the responses provided).

53. BJS, Data collections.

54. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization 

in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, State and 

Federal prisons, 2007); Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion 

reported by women.”

55. PREA, at § 15601.

56. Ibid., at § 15602(4).

57. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization in local jails reported by 

inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Local jails, 2007).

58. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007.

59. Beck, Local jails, 2007.

60. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006). 

61. Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, 

Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006).

62. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

63. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

64. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

(2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 193

65. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2006). Sexual violence 

reported by correctional authorities, 2005. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics.

66. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007, August 28). Data presented at the Prison Rape Elimination Act Workshop: National 

Survey of Youth in Custody. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

67. Ibid.

68. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

69. BJS, Data collections; Beck, Correctional authorities 2006; 

Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

70. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007.

71. Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women.” 

72. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

73. Useem, B. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass 

incarceration. New York: Cambridge University Press.

74. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Probation and parole 

in the United States—2007 statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/

abstract/ppus07st.htm

75. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Essay: Specialized caseloads. Community Corrections Quarterly. Available at 

http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/period13.pdf

76. Browne, “Imprisonment.”

77. Clark, J., Austin, J., & Henry, D. A. (1997). “Three strikes 

and you’re out”: A review of State legislation. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice; Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three strikes 

laws (historical guides to controversial issues in America).

Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

78. Total Criminal Defense, Inc. (2008). Understanding “three 

strikes and you’re out” laws. Total Criminal Defense Web site. 

Available at http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/overview/

three-strikes-law.aspx

79. Talvi, S. (2007). Women behind bars: The crisis of women 

in the U.S. prison system. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.

80. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles 

in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Assistance; Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). 

Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

81. Hartney, C. (2006). Fact sheet: Youth under age 18 in the 

adult criminal justice system. National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency Web site. Available at http://www.nccdcrc.org/

nccd/pubs/2006may_factsheet_youthadult.pdf; Equal Justice Initiative. (2007). Cruel and unusual: Sentencing 13- and 

14-year-old children to die in prison. Montgomery, AL: Author.

82. Mauer, M. (1999). Race to incarcerate. New York: The New 

Press.

83. Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prison 

and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (stating that “At midyear 2006, 750 persons 

per 100,000 U.S. residents were in prison or jail, the equivalent to 1 in every 133 residents.”).

84. Resick, P. A. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. 

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 223–255; Burgess, A. 

W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1974). Rape trauma syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(9), 981–986 (hereafter Burgess, 

“Rape trauma”); Council on Scientific Affairs, American 

Medical Association. (1992). Violence against women: Relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA, 267(23), 3184–3189 

(hereafter AMA, “Violence against women”); Donaldson, 

Rape trauma.

85. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and 

statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter APA, Manual of mental disorders); 

Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick, D., & Jager, 

N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 359–370.

86. APA, Manual of mental disorders.

87. Hensley, L. G. (2002). Treatment of survivors of rape: Issue 

and interventions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24, 

330–347 (hereafter Hensley, “Treatment of survivors”). 

88. AMA, “Violence against women”; Koss, M. P., & Harvey, 

M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (hereafter 

Koss, The rape victim); Donaldson, Rape trauma.

89. AMA, “Violence against women.”

90. Dumond, “Treatment”; Donaldson, Rape trauma.

91. APA, Manual of mental disorders.

92. Dumond, R. W. (2003). Confronting America’s most 

ignored crime problem: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 

2003. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the 

Law, 31(3), 354–360; Burgess, “Rape trauma.”

93. Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make 

the Process Work? (p. 29). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

94. Koss, The rape victim; Golding, J. M. (1999). Sexual-assault 

history and long-term physical health problems: Evidence 

from clinical and population epidemiology. Current Directions 

in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191–194; Hensley, “Treatment of 

survivors”; Scarce, M. (2001). Male on male rape. New York: 

Basic Books.

95. AMA, “Violence against women.”

96. Mariner, J. (2001). Rape scenarios. In No escape: Male rape 

in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

97. Dannenberg, A. L., McNeil, J. G., Brundage, J. F., & 

Brookmeyer, R. (1996). Survival and HIV infection: Mortality 

follow-up of 4,147 HIV seropositive military service applicants. 

JAMA, 276(21), 1743–1746.

98. Testimony of DeBlasio, K. (2005, June 14). The Cost of 

Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape

(p. 84). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of 

DeBlasio); Ross, J. I. (2006, April 18). Jailhouse blue. American 
194 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Civil Liberties Union of Texas Web site. Available at http://

www.aclutx.org/projects/article.php?aid=276&cid=16

99. NPREC Testimony of DeBlasio, at 85. 

100. Ibid., at 87.

101. Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1996). 

Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and characteristics from 

a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetric Gynecology. 175(22), 320–325; Jenny, C., Hooton, T. M., 

Bowers, A., Copass, M. K., Krieger, J. N., Hillier, S. L., et al. 

(1990). Sexually transmitted disease in victims of rape. New 

England Journal of Medicine, 322(11), 713–716.

102. Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998).

103. Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2003). Reentry trends in the 

United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after 

prison. Corrections Today, 67(2), 66 (stating that 93 percent of 

prisoners will eventually be released).

104. Lovell, D., Gagliardi, G. J., & Peterson, P. D. (2002). 

Recidivism and use of services among persons with mental 

illness after release from prison. Psychiatric Services, 53(10), 

1290–1296 (stating that few people receive clinically meaningful levels of service during the first year after release).

105. Ullman, S. E., Townsend, S. M., Starzynski, L. L., & Long, L. 

M. (2006). Correlates of comorbid PTSD and polysubstance use 

in sexual assault victims. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 725–743.

106. PREA, at §15601(14)(A); Petersilia, J. (2001). When prisoners return to communities: Political, economic, and social 

consequences. Federal Probation, 65(1), 3–8.

107. Testimony of Cahill, T. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 

80). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Public Hearing.

108. Ibid., at 82. 

109. PREA, at §15601(14)(A).

110. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems 

of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

111. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976) (holding that 

“punishment must not involve the unnecessary and wanton 

infliction of pain” or “be grossly out of proportion to the severity of crime” to avoid implicating the Eighth Amendment). 

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause offers similar 

protection to pretrial detainees. See Mariner, J. (2001). Legal 

context. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: 

Human Rights Watch (noting that the Eighth Amendment 

bars cruel and unusual punishment and so is logically limited 

only to convicted individuals. However, in practice, “the standards applied to pretrial detainees under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause have followed those applied to 

convicted prisoners under the Eighth.”).

112. Moss, A., & Wall, T. A. (2005). Addressing the challenge 

of inmate rape. Corrections Today, 67(5), 74–78.

113. Ibid.

114. American Jail Association Board of Directors. (2003). Staff 

sexual misconduct. Available at http://www.aja.org/aja/about/

resolutions.shtml#STAFF_SEXUAL_MISCONDUCT; American 

Probation and Parole Association. (2003). Staff sexual misconduct.

Available at http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/Dynamicpage.

aspx?site=APPA_2&webcode=IB_Resolution&wps_

key=825560aa-b5da-46b7-95bf-57debadaaa5c; Association of 

State Correctional Administrators. (2006). Resolution #3—Establishment of policies regarding staff sexual harassment, activity 

or abuse of offenders. Association of State Correctional Administrators Resolutions. Available at http://asca.net/documents/

Harassment.pdf; National Sheriffs’ Association. (2006). Development of policies on standards of conduct for jail and local 

correctional facility staff. Available at http://www.sheriffs.

org/userfiles/file/2006_2NSAResolutions.pdf

115. Smith, B. V. (2008). The Prison Rape Elimination Act: 

Implementation and unresolved issues. American University, 

Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2008-49 

(hereafter Smith, Implementation).

116. PREA, at §§ 15602–15607; see also Smith, Implementation.

117. Public Law 108-79 §§ 3(1), (5).

Chapter 2. Leadership Matters

1. Seidel, J. (2009, January 4). Sexual assaults on female inmates 

went unheeded. Detroit Free Press, p. 1 (hereafter Seidel, 

“Sexual assaults”). 

2. Neal v. Department of Corrections, No. 285232, *9 (Mich. 

App. 1/27/2009) (hereafter Neal). 

3. Seidel, J. (2009, January 7). Jury awarded $15.4 million to 

inmates. Detroit Free Press, p. 2.

4. Neal at *1. 

5. Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 391 F.3d 737, 

741 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting the Michigan Women’s Commission report). 

6. Ibid., at 743. 

7. Settlement Agreement, Civil Action No. 97-CVB-71514-BDT, 

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern 

Division.

8. Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”

9. Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 391 F.3d 

737, 745–746 (6th Cir. 2004); Caruso, P. (2009, February 17). 

Telephone interview (hereafter Caruso, Telephone interview); 

Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”

10. Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”

11. Caruso, Telephone interview.

12. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S. 

(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to 

improving security in women’s facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 195

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice (hereafter Owen, Gendered violence).

13. Testimony of Wall, A. T. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to 

Make the Process Work? (p. 74). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Wall). 

14. Zweig, J. M., & Blackmore, J. (2008). Research for practice: 

Strategies to prevent prison rape by changing the correctional 

culture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter 

Zweig, Strategies to prevent).

15. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 75.

16. Zweig, J., Naser, R. L., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006). 

Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of 

approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Zweig, Addressing sexual 

violence). According to the authors, the purpose of this study 

was to “provide a national snapshot of department of correction initiatives to address prison sexual violence, as well as to 

identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence 

of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in 

nature” (p. i).

17. Zweig, Strategies to prevent.

18. Testimony of Horn, M. (2006, March 23). Elimination of 

Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 84–85). Miami: 

The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Horn). 

19. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 75. 

20. Thompson, R. A., Nored, L. S., & Dial, K. C. (2008). The 

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy 

compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy 

Review, 19(4), 414–437.

21. Cason v. Seckinger, Civil Action File No. 84-313-1-MAC 

(M.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 1994); Women Prisoners v. District of 

Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994); Elliott-Wilkins, T. 

(2007). Texas Youth Commission: Summary report for administrative review. Dallas Morning News Web site. Available at

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/02-07/

0218tyc_pages1.pdf

22. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 79. 

23. Kahle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544, 547–548 (8th Cir. 2007). 

All information about this case is taken from court records.

24. Ibid., at 547.

25. Ibid., at 548.

26. Clem, C., Krauth, B., & Wenger, P. (2000). Recruitment, hiring, and retention: Current practices in U.S. jails. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Clem, Recruitment).

27. Dowd, D. (2007). No vacancies? Osceola County finds keys 

to attract and retain officer staff. LJN Exchange, 19–24, at 19 

(hereafter Dowd, “No vacancies”).

28. National Academy of Public Administration. (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: 

Author (hereafter NAPA, Eliminating prison rape).

29. Stinchcomb, J. B., McCampbell, S. W., & Leip, L. (2009). 

The future is now: Recruiting, retaining, and developing the 

21st century jail workforce. Naples, FL: Center for Innovative 

Public Policies, Inc.

30. Clem, Recruitment; Scrivner, E. (2006). Innovations in 

police recruitment and hiring: Hiring in the spirit of service. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

31. McCampbell, S. W., & Fischer, L. S. (2002). Staff sexual 

misconduct with inmates: Policy development guide for sheriffs and jail administrators. Naples, FL: Center for Innovative 

Public Policies, Inc.

32. Testimony of Kupers, T. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Kupers). 

33. Eigenberg, H. M. (2000). Correctional officers and their perceptions of homosexuality, rape and prostitution in male prisons. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 415–433 (hereafter Eigenberg, 

“Correctional officers”). 

34. Harrington, P. E., Spillar, K., Lonsway, K. A., Webber, R., 

Baldwin, K. A., Besser, A., et al. (2001). Recruiting and retaining women: A self-assessment guide for law enforcement. Los 

Angeles: National Center for Women and Policing; Owen, 

Gendered violence.

35. NPREC Testimony of Kupers, at 117.

36. Clem, Recruitment.

37. Ibid.; Dowd, “No vacancies.”

38. Corrections Independent Review Panel. (2004). Reforming corrections: Report of the Corrections Independent Review 

Panel. Sacramento, CA: California Performance Review (hereafter CIRP, Reforming corrections).

39. Davenport, D. K. (2001). Performance audit, Arizona 

Department of Corrections, Human Resources Management. 

Phoenix: State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General; Clem, 

Recruitment; CIRP, Reforming corrections.

40. Jacobs, J. B., & Olitsky, E. (2004). Leadership and correctional reform. Pace Law Review, 24(2), 477–496.

41. Mariner, J. (2001). Anomaly or epidemic: The incidence 

of prisoner-on-prisoner rape. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. 

prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

42. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

43. McCampbell, S. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.

44. Ibid.

45. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (2004). 

Ohio correctional institution sexual assault abatement: A ten 

point plan. Columbus: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction; Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2009). 

Safe Prison Program. Correctional Institutions Division 

Web site. Available at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/cid/cid_

safe_prison_pgm.htm 

46. Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R., & Dumond, 

D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne 

Rienner Publishers, Inc.; Eigenberg, “Correctional officers”; 

Zweig, Strategies to prevent.

47. Hensley, C. (2000). Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, 

CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

48. Owen, Gendered violence.
196 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

49. Zweig, Strategies to prevent. 

50. See NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, 

Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons 

and Jails, Standards TR-1, TR-2, OR-1, and OR-3. 

51. See National Institute of Corrections. (2005). Speaking up: 

Discussing prison sexual assault: A tool kit designed to assist 

facility staff in educating women offenders to local sexual 

assault policies and practices [CD ROM]. Washington, D.C.: 

Author; Owen, Gendered violence.

52. Smith, B. V. (2002). An end to silence: Prisoners’ handbook 

on identifying and addressing sexual misconduct (2nd ed.). 

Washington, D.C.: American University, Washington College 

of Law; Smith, B. V. (1998). An end to silence: Women prisoners’ handbook on identifying and addressing sexual misconduct. Washington, D.C.: National Women’s Law Center. 

53. Testimony of Hennessey, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk: 

Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 276). San 

Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Hennessey). 

54. Clem, C., Gordon, C., Sheanin, D., & Smith, T. (2006). 

Direct supervision jails: 2006 sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, 

Jails Division.

55. Wener, R. (2006). Effectiveness of the direct supervision 

system of correctional design and management: A review of 

the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(3), 392–410. 

56. Nelson, W. R. (1993). New generation jails. In Podular, direct 

supervision jails: Information packet (pp. 25–41). Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division (hereafter Nelson, “New generation”). 

57. Testimony of Malm, C. (2006, March 23). Elimination 

of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 95). Miami: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

58. Nelson, “New generation.”

59. Ibid.

60. NPREC Testimony of Hennessey, at 275. 

61. Owen, B., & Wells, J. (2006). Staff perspectives: Sexual violence in adult prisons & jails. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections; Testimony 

of Beck, A. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional 

Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts (p. 31). 

Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s 

Prisons Public Hearing. 

62. Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008). All information about this case is taken from court records.

63. Ibid., at 919.

64. Testimony of Rodriguez, R. (2006, December 13–14). 

The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and 

Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 10–11). Los Angeles: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

65. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology 

Center. (2005, Summer). Technology primer: Radio frequency 

identification. TechBeat, 6–8.

66. Financing for RFID prison system: GE public finance will 

offer special rates to states deploying cutting-edge prisoner 

tracking technology. (2002, December 31). RFID Journal.

67. Seidel, “Sexual assaults,” at 6.

68. Ibid., at 7.

69. Smith, B. V. (2003). Watching you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 15(2), 225–288. 

70. Levine, K. L. (2006). No penis, no problem. Fordham 

Urban Law Journal, 33, 357–405 (discussing how men are 

just as constrained as women by gender stereotypes and societal expectations and, as a result, are often unable to recognize themselves as victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by 

women); Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2005). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2004. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

71. NPREC Testimony of Horn, at 81. 

72. Testimony of Stalder, R. (2006, March 23). Elimination of 

Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 80) Miami: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

73. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 (9th Cir. 1993). All 

information about this case is taken from court records.

74. Colman v. Vasquez, 142 F.Supp.2d 226 (D. Conn. 2001).

All information about this case is taken from court records.

75. Ibid., at 232.

76. See Cash v. County of Erie, 2007 WL 2027844 (W.D.N.Y. 

July 11, 2007); Herckenlaible v. Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail 

Authority, 491 F.Supp.2d 544 (2007). But also see Balbridge v. 

Jeffreys, 2009 WL 275669 (E.D. Mich. 2009). 

77. Wilson v. City of Kalamazoo, 127 F.Supp.2d 855 (W.D. 

Mich. 2000). All information about this case is taken from 

court records.

78. Ibid., at 861.

79. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).

80. Ingram, J. D. (2000). Prison guards and inmates of opposite gender: Equal employment opportunity versus right of 

privacy. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 7, 3–27 (discussing how courts have attempted equal employment laws 

with constitutional privacy rights).

81. Riley v. Olk-Long, 282 F.3d 592, 594 (11th Cir. 2002). All 

information about this case is taken from court records.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid., at 597. 

84. Raemisch, R. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview. 

85. Ibid.

86. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

87. Testimony of Meyers, W. (2006, December 13–14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 13). Los Angeles: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

88. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

89. Testimony of Gunn, J. (2006, December 14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 132). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

90. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 80. 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 197

Chapter 3. Vulnerability and Victimization 

1. Testimony of Bruntmyer, L. (2005, June 14). The Cost of 

Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape

(p. 76). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of 

Bruntmyer). See also Mariner, J. (2001). Case history of Rodney Hulin. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: 

Human Rights Watch (hereafter Mariner, “Case history”). 

2. Berryhill, M. (1997, August 7). What really happened to 

Rodney Hulin? Houston Press.

3. NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer, at 75.

4. Ibid., at 76.

5. Mariner, “Case history.” 

6. NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer.

7. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833–834 (1994) (citing 

Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st 

Cir. 1988)).

8. Testimony of Stalder, R. (2006, March 23). Elimination of 

Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 77–78). Miami: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Stalder). 

9. Man, C. D., & Cronan, J. P. (2001). Forecasting sexual abuse 

in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference. Journal of Criminal Law & 

Criminology, 92(1), 127–186 (hereafter Man, “Forecasting”); 

Mariner, J. (2001). Predators and victims. In No escape: Male 

rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Mariner, “Predators”). Warren, J. (2009). Risk markers 

for sexual victimization and violence in prison. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice (hereafter Warren, Risk markers).

10. Smith, N. E., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison Journal, 69(2), 

29–38, at 33.

11. Dumond, R. W. (2000). Inmate sexual assault: The plague 

that persists. The Prison Journal, 80(4) 407–414; Warren, Risk 

markers; Mariner, “Predators.”

12. Sisco, M. M., & Becker, J. V. (2007). Beyond predicting the 

risk of sexual victimization in prison—considering inmate 

options and reporting avenues for addressing an inherent 

problem. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 573–584 (hereafter Sisco, “Beyond predicting”); Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, 

R., Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual 

sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and 

policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. 

13. Testimony of Martin, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 12–13). San 

Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing. All details about Martin’s experiences are 

based on his testimony to the Commission.

14. Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of 

women in U.S. prisons (p. 76). New York: Human Rights 

Watch (hereafter Thomas, All too familiar). 

15. Hill v. New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner, 

776 A.2d 828 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). 

16. Testimony of Parsell, T. J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 34, 36). 

San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

17. Testimony of Dumond, R. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Dumond). 

18. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and 

severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among 

incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 301–322; Zlotnick, C. (1997). Posttraumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD), PTSD comorbidity, and childhood abuse 

among incarcerated women. Journal of Nervous and Mental 

Disease, 185(12), 761–763; Bloom, B., Chesney, L. M., & Owen, 

B. (1994). Women in California prisons: Hidden victims of the 

war on drugs. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal 

Justice. 

19. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Special report: Mental 

health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (hereafter James, Mental health problems). 

20. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S. 

(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to 

improving security in women’s facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice (hereafter Owen, Gendered violence). 

21. Richie, B. (1995). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered, black women. New York: Routledge.

22. Peddle v. Sawyer, 64 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.C. Conn. 1999). All 

information about this case is taken from court records.

23. Ibid., at 14.

24. McDermott, B. E., Hardison, K. A., & MacKenzie, C. 

(2005). Individuals with developmental disabilities in correctional settings. In C. L. Scott & J. B. Gerbasi (Eds.), Handbook 

of correctional mental health. Washington, D.C.: American 

Psychiatric Publishing; Petersilia, J. R. (2001). Crime victims 

with developmental disabilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 655–694 (hereafter Petersilia, “Crime victims”).

25. Petersilia, “Crime victims”; Davis, L. A. (2005). People 

with intellectual disabilities and sexual violence. Silver Spring, 

MD: The Arc of the United States.

26. Demer, L. (2009, January 13). Assaulted inmates settle 

suit with state. Anchorage Daily News, p. 1.

27. Kupers, T. (1999). Prison madness: The mental health crisis 

behind bars and what we must do about it. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass (hereafter Kupers, Prison madness); Abramsky, 

S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Difficulties mentally ill prisoners face 

coping in prison. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders 

with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch. 

28. Sigurdson, C. (2000). The mad, the bad, and the abandoned: The mentally ill in prisons and jails. Corrections 

Today, 88(6), 70–78. 

29. National Institute of Mental Health. (2008). Mental health 

medications. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and 
198 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Human Services, National Institutes of Health; Kupers, Prison 

madness. 

30. NPREC Testimony of Dumond, at 157. 

31. James, Mental health problems.

32. Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual 

exploitation in prison. New York: Da Capo Press; Jenness, V., 

Maxson, C. L., Matsuda, K. N., & Sumner, J. M. (2007). Violence 

in California correctional facilities: An empirical examination 

of sexual assault. Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections; Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. 

(2006). A comparison of sexual coercion experiences reported 

by men and women in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 

21(12), 1591–1615; Mariner, “Predators.”

33. Testimony of Long, S. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 233). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Long). 

34. Berrill, K. T. (1992). Anti-gay violence and victimization in 

the United States: An overview. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill 

(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and 

gay men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Peek, C. (2004). Breaking 

out of the prison hierarchy: Transgender prisoners, rape, and 

the Eighth Amendment, Santa Clara Law Review, 44, 1211–1248 

(hereafter Peek, “Breaking out”).

35. Man, “Forecasting.” 

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., at 178.

38. Testimony of Spade, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

39. White v. United States, No. 06-CF-942 (D.C. Oct. 16 2008). 

40. NPREC Testimony of Long. 

41. Peek, “Breaking out”; David, E. S. (1975). The law 

and transsexualism: A faltering response to a conceptual 

dilemma. Connecticut Law Review, 7, 288. 

42. Testimony of Chung, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 23–24). San 

Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing. 

43. Struckman-Johnson, C. J., & Struckman-Johnson, D. L. 

(2002). Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2): 217–227.

44. Thomas, All too familiar.

45. Testimony of Goord, G. (2006, March 23). Elimination 

of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 265). Miami: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

46. Hardyman, P. L., Austin, J., Alexander, J., Johnson, K. 

D., & Tulloch, O. C. (2002). Internal prison classification systems: Case studies in their development and implementation

(p. 1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Corrections (hereafter Hardyman, Internal prison 

classification).

47. Austin, J. (1994). Managing facilities: Objective offender 

classification is key to proper housing decisions. Corrections 

Today, 56(4), 94–96, at 96. 

48. Austin, J., & Hardyman, P. L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections 

(hereafter Austin, Objective prison classification); Hardyman, 

P. L., Austin, J., & Peyton, J. (2004). Prisoner intake systems: 

Assessing needs and classifying prisoners. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections 

(hereafter Hardyman, Prisoner intake); Brennan, T., & Wells, 

D. (1992). Importance of inmate classification in small jails. 

American Jails, 6(2), 49–52.

49. Hardyman, Prisoner intake; Austin, Objective prison 

classification.

50. Austin, J., Hardyman, P. L., & Brown, S. D. (2001). Critical 

issues and developments in prison classification. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Prisons Division; Thompson, R. A. (2008). The Prison 

Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 

19(4), 414–437 (hereafter Thompson, “PREA”).

51. Austin, Objective prison classification; Sisco, “Beyond 

predicting.”

52. Thompson, “PREA.” 

53. Sisco, “Beyond predicting”; Owen, Gendered violence. 

54. Austin, Objective prison classification. 

55. Testimony of Thigpen, M. L. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 280). 

Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing. 

56. Hardyman, Internal prison classification (citing Alexander, 

J., Austin, J., Brown, S., Chan, L., He, S., & Stokes, P. (1997). 

Internal prison classification systems: A field test of three 

approaches. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency). 

57. Hardyman, Internal prison classification. 

58. NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, 

and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails, 

Standard MM-1, Discussion. 

59. Tarzwell, S. (2006). The gender lines are marked with 

razor wire: Addressing State prison policies and practices 

for the management of transgender prisoners. Columbia 

Human Rights Law Review, 38(1), 167–219; Written Testimony of Daley, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse 

and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Daley); Testimony of Marksamer, 

J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable 

Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Marksamer). 

60. Haney, C. (2001). The psychological impact of incarceration: 

Implications for post-prison adjustment. Paper presented at From 

Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on 

Children, Families, and Communities, Washington, D.C. 

61. Hardyman, Internal prison classification (citing Alexander, 

J., Austin, J., Brown, S., Chan, L., He, S., & Stokes, P. (1997). 

Internal prison classification systems: A field test of three 

approaches. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency).

62. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 353 n.2 (3rd Cir. 1992). 

All information about this case is taken from court records.
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 199

63. Ibid., at 363, 364–365. 

64. Calderón-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 

2002). All information about this case is taken from court 

records. 

65. Ibid., at 65 (citing Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252, 

1294 (S.D.W.Va 1981)). 

66. Giraldo v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 168 Cal.App.4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). All information about this case is taken from court records.

67. Ibid., at 239.

68. Ibid., at 250–251.

69. Testimony of Spruce, K. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 28). San Francisco: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

70. Ibid., at 29. 

71. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in 

America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice 

(citing Correctional Association of New York. (2003). Lockdown New York: Disciplinary confinement in New York State 

prisons. New York: Author). 

72. Struckman-Johnson, C. J., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, 

L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported 

by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 

67–76 (noting that in one survey, residents of a rural Midwestern State prison identified increased supervision as the best way 

to prevent sexual abuse). 

73. McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. D. (eds.). (1996). Encyclopedia of American prisons. New York: Routledge; O’Keefe, M. 

L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 124–143 (hereafter O’Keefe, “Administrative”). 

74. O’Keefe, “Administrative.”

75. Written Testimony of Nathan, V. M. (2005, July 19). The 

Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety

(p. 7). Newark, NJ: 

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, et seq.

76. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 

49(1), 124–156; Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Mentally 

ill prisoners and segregation. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons 

and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights 

Watch (hereafter Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”); Miller, 

H. A., & Young, G. R. (2006). Prison segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal 

Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94; Bonner, R. L. (2006). 

Stressful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability 

in prison suicide ideators. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(2), 250–254. 

77. Pizarro, J., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: 

Their rise, current practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison 

Journal, 84(2), 248–264; Beven, G. E. (2005). Offenders with 

mental illnesses in maximum- and super-maximum-security 

settings. In C. L. Scott & J. B. Gerbasi (Eds.), Handbook of correctional mental health. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric 

Publishing; Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners.”

78. Fagan, T. J., Wennerstrom, D., & Miller, J. (1996). Sexual assault of male inmates: Prevention, identification, and 

intervention. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 3(1), 49–65; 

NPREC Testimony of Marksamer. 

79. Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–883 (7th Cir. 1988) 

(finding that it was correctional administrators’ responsibility to provide substantially equivalent programming).

80. Ibid.; Lawrence, S., Mears, D. P., Dubin, G., & Travis, J. 

(2002). The practice and promise of prison programming. 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Lawrence, The 

practice) (citing Gerber, J., & Fritsch, E. (1994). The effects 

of academic and vocational program participation on inmate 

misconduct and reincarceration. In Prison education research 

project: Final report (pp. 23–32). Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston 

State University). 

81. NPREC Testimony of Long; NPREC Testimony of Daley; 

NPREC Testimony of Stalder, at 77. 

82. Testimony of Hennessey, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk: 

Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing. 

83. Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 69 F.3d 76, 

77–78 (6th Cir. 1995). All information about this case is taken 

from court records.

84. Ibid., at 78.

85. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

86. Warren, Risk markers.

87. Hensley, C. (2002). Introduction: Life and sex in prison. 

In Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 1–11). Boulder, CO: 

Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Hensley, “Introduction”); Haney, C. (2006). The wages of prison overcrowding: 

Harmful psychological consequences and dysfunctional correctional reactions. Washington University Journal of Law and 

Policy, 22, 265–293 (hereafter Haney, “The wages”).

88. Hensley, “Introduction.”

89. Ibid.

90. Sultan, B. J. (2006). The insanity of incarceration and the 

maddening reentry process: A call for change and justice for 

males with mental illness in United States prisons. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 13(2), 357–382; Hensley, “Introduction”; Warren, Risk markers.

91. Testimony of Beck, A. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts

(p. 31). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing; Barrett, C. I. (2005). Does the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act adequately address the problems 

posed by prison overcrowding? If not, what will? New England 

Law Review, 29, 391–424; Haney, “The wages.”

92. Testimony of Harkins, G. (2005, July 19). The Systemic 

and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal 

Accounts (p. 69). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and 

Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing. 

93. Haney, “The wages.”

94. Pyle, K. L. (1997). Prison employment: A long-term solution to the overcrowding crisis. Boston University Law Review, 

77 (1), 151–180; Lawrence, The practice.
200 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Chapter 4. Inside and Out: Strengthening Oversight

1. Swanson, D. (2007, February 18). Sex abuse reported at 

youth jail: Complaints about staffers ignored, covered up, 

investigation reveals. The Dallas Morning News; Blakeslee, N. 

(2007, February 23). Hidden in plain sight: How did alleged 

abuse at a youth facility in West Texas evade detection for 

so long? The Texas Observer (hereafter Blakeslee, “Hidden”).

2. Witness Interview Summaries: Robert Freeman. (2007). 

Texas Youth Commission: Summary report for administrative 

review. Dallas Morning News Web site. Available at http://www.

dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/02-07/0218tyc_

pages1.pdf

3. Blakeslee, “Hidden.”

4. Ibid., para. 11.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Elias, G. (2007). How to collect and analyze data: A manual 

for sheriffs and jail administrators (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

8. Williams, W. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Frigo, 

J. (2009, March 20). Telephone interview; Archuletta, L. 

(2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Price, C., & JordanWilliams, C. (2009, March 13). Telephone interview; Zullinger, N., Zorzina, K., Flaherty, B., & Buckley, K. (2009, April 

22). Telephone interview; Fawson, D., & Dauarell, S. (2009, 

April 2). Telephone interview. 

9. Written Testimony of Dretke, D. (2007, December 6). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

10. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Data collections for the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

11. National Academy of Public Administration. (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author.

12. Written Testimony of Beck, T. (2007, December 6). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Written 

Testimony of Beck).

13. Written Testimony of Deitch, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, 

and Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (Hereafter NPREC 

Written Testimony of Deitch).

14. NPREC Written Testimony of Beck, at 4. 

15. NPREC Written Testimony of Deitch, at 4.

16. Keve, P. W. (1996). Measuring excellence: The history of 

standards & accreditation. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.

17. Joint Select Committee on Operation and Management of

the Texas Youth Commission. (2007). Preliminary Report

of Initial Findings and Recommendations. Texas Senate Web

site. Available at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/

commit/c885/TYC-Report.pdf

18. Blakeslee, “Hidden,” para. 2.

19. Sandberg, L. (2007, March 9). Ranger keeps promise to 

kids: Investigator who broke case tells lawmakers of TYC failures. Houston Chronicle, para. 3.

20. Swanson, D. (2007, March 6). TYC sex allegations exceed 

750. The Dallas Morning News.

21. Grand Jury Indictment, The State of Texas vs. Ray Edward 

Brookins. February Term 2007, 143rd Judicial District Court; 

Grand Jury Indictment, The State of Texas vs. John Paul 

Hernandez, February Term 2007, 143rd Judicial District Court.

22. Testimony of Harrell, W. (2007, December 6). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (pp. 169–170). New Orleans: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

23. Testimony of Oxley, J. (2006, March 23). Elimination of 

Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 62). Miami: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

24. Testimony of Cate, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and 

Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 126). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

25. Written Testimony of Cate, M. (2007, December 6). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 1). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

26. Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association. (2008). 

104B urges oversight of correctional and detention facilities.

American Bar Association Web site. Available at http://www.

abanet.org/crimjust/policy/cjpol.html#am08104b

27. Ibid., para. 2.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Cate, M. L. (2007). 2007 annual report. Sacramento: State 

of California Office of the Inspector General. 

31. California Penal Code § 6125-6141.

32. Schlanger, M. (2006). Civil rights injunctions over time: A 

case study of jail and prison court orders. New York University 

Law Review, 81(2), 550–630.

33. Prepared Statement of Woodford, J. (2008, April 22). Prison 

Abuse Remedies Act of 2007 (p. 81). Washington, D.C.: House 

Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security Hearing on H.R. 4109 (hereafter Prepared Statement 

of Woodford).

34. Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2000).

35. Cason v. Seckinger, Civil Action File No. 84-313-1-MAC, 

Permanent Injunction (1994, March 7).

36. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Serv., 489 

U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989).
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 201

37. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634, 666 (D.D.C. 1994).

38. California’s crowded prisons [Editorial]. (2009, February 

14). The New York Times, para. 1.

39. Rothfeld, M. (2009, February 10). Jurists issue tentative 

ruling in lawsuit brought by inmates, who say overcrowding 

in state prisons violates their right to adequate healthcare. 

The Los Angeles Times. 

40. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (referencing the 

Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a) 

(hereafter PLRA)). 

41. Camp, C., & Camp, G. (1997). Corrections yearbook 1997.

Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.

42. Golden, D. (2006). The Prison Litigation Reform Act—a 

proposal for closing the loophole for rapists. Washington, D.C.: 

American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

43. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736 (2001). 

44. PRLA, § 1997(e)(a); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006).

45. Prepared Statement of Woodford, at 82–83.

46. Ibid., at 83–84.

47. Ibid., at 83. 

48. Herivel, T., & Wright, P. (2002). Prison nation: The warehousing of America’s poor. New York: Routledge. 

49. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2005, June 14). The Cost 

of Victimization: Why our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. 

Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Committee Public Hearing. All information about his experience is 

taken from his testimony. 

50. Ibid., at 3.

51. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2007, November 8). Testimony of Garrett Cunningham about the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act (pp. 1–2). Washington, D.C.: House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

52. Ibid., at 2. 

53. Ibid., at 1–2.

54. Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2007). 

See also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003); Camp v. 

Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000); Davis v. Berks County,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9892, 2007 WL 516128 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

55. PLRA, § 1997(e)(e).

56. Hancock v. Payne, 2006 WL 21751, *3 (S.D.Miss 2006); 

Schlanger, M., & Shay, G. (2009). Preserving the rule of law in 

America’s jails and prisons: The case for amending the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(1), 

139–154. 

57. Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 1999). 

58. PRLA, § 1997(a).

59. Carter, M. (2006, December 5). Inquiry into jail begins.

Seattle Times (hereafter Carter, “Inquiry”). 

60. Sullivan, J. (2006, July 25). Former King County Jail guard 

accused of having sex with juvenile inmates. Seattle Times, 

para. 7.

61. Carter, “Inquiry,” para. 7. 

62. Carter, “Inquiry”; Castro, H. (2006, December 6). Feds 

look into King County Jail problems. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

63. Comisac, R. J. (2007, November 13). Letter to the Honorable 

Ron Sims about the King County Correctional Facility, p. 8.

64. Ibid.

65. King County, Department of Justice reach agreement on 

proposed jail improvements [press release]. (2009, January 5). 

King County, Washington. 

66. Ibid.

67. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in 

America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice. 

68. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 (1996); Mariner, J. (2001). Legal context. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: 

Human Rights Watch.

PART II: RESPONDING TO VICTIMS AND PERPETRATORS

Chapter 5. Reporting, Investigation, and Punishment 

1. Testimony of Ragsdale, D. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to 

Make the Process Work? (p. 8). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Ragsdale). 

2. Ibid., at 10, 13. 

3. Beck, A., Harrison, P., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional 

authorities, 2006); Beck, A., & Harrison, P. (2007). Sexual victimization in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 

2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

4. Testimony of Pasion, C. (2006, June 1). Elimination of Prison 

Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 10). Boston: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

5. Testimony of Spruce, K. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 47). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing.

6. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2005, June 14). The Cost 

of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape

(p. 63). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Public Hearing.

7. National Academy of Public Administration (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: 

Author (hereafter NAPA, Eliminating prison rape).
202 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

8. Thompson, R. A., Nored, L. S., & Dial, K. C. (2008). The 

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy 

compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy 

Review, 19(4), 414–437. 

9. Testimony of Cate, M. (2002, December 6). Special Topics in 

Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 127). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination 

Commission Public Hearing.

10. Testimony of Horn, M. (2006, March 23). Elimination of 

Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 48–49). Miami: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Horn).

11. Hobbs, R. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.

12. Price, C. (2009, January 29). Telephone interview.

13. Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed 

to Make the Process Work? (pp. 21–22, 26). Detroit: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Brown).

14. Testimony of Anonymous Survivor in Loretta, VA. (2008). Los 

Angeles: Just Detention International Web site, para. 9. Available at http://www.justdetention.org/en/survivortestimony/

stories/loretta_va.aspx

15. Testimony of Gutierrez, I. (2007, March 27). Lockups, Native 

American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal 

and Youth Institutions (pp. 113–114). Austin, TX: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

16. Baron v. Hickey, 242 F.Supp.2d 66 (D. Mass. 2003). All 

information about this case is taken from court records.

17. Ibid., 70.

18. Testimony of Dennehy, K. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 107). 

Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing.

19. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary 

and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 

124–156 (hereafter Haney, “Mental health issues”); Abramsky, 

S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Mentally ill prisoners and segregation. 

In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. 

New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”); Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (2006). Prison 

segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health 

problem? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94 

(hereafter Miller, “Prison segregation”); Bonner, R. L. (2006). 

Successful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability 

in prison suicide ideators. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 

36(2), 250–254 (hereafter Bonner, “Successful segregation”). 

20. NPREC Testimony of Brown, at 27. 

21. Brisbin, L. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.

22. Grant, A. (2009, January 28). Telephone interview.

23. Dennehy, K. (2009, May 5). Telephone interview.

24. Dennis, G. (2009, April 23). Telephone interview.

25. Hendricks, K. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.

26. Testimony of Rees, J. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make 

the Process Work? (p. 143). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Rees).

27. Cal. Gov. Code § 3304(d)(2005); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.532(6)(a); 

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2531(7)(2008); Md. Code Ann., Pub. 

Safety § 3-106 (a)(2009); R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(a)(2008).

28. Testimony of Miller, G. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make 

the Process Work? (pp. 304–305). Detroit: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

29. Testimony of DeBottis, G. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed 

to Make the Process Work? (p. 320). Detroit: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter 

NPREC Testimony of DeBottis).

30. Austin, J., Fabelo, T., Gunter, A., & McGinnis, K. (2006). 

Sexual violence in the Texas prison system. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Austin, Sexual 

violence). 

31. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

32. Zweig, J., Naser, R. L., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006). 

Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of 

approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Zweig, Addressing sexual 

violence).

33. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

34. Owen, B., McCampbell, S. W., & Wells, J. (2007). Staff 

perspectives: Sexual violence in adult prisons & jails: Investigating sexual assaults in correctional facilities. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections 

(hereafter Owen, Staff perspectives).

35. Ibid., at 6.

36. NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 14. 

37. Owen, Staff perspectives.

38. Ibid.

39. Testimony of Aldrich, A. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed 

to Make the Process Work? (pp. 170–171). Detroit: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Aldrich). 

40. Ibid., at 166. 

41. Testimony of Schnedar, C. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to 

Make the Process Work? (p. 210). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

42. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

43. Ibid.

44. Testimony of Wall, A. T. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to 

Make the Process Work? (p. 133). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Wall). 

45. Owen, Staff perspectives.

46. 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-8(a)-(b).

47. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 497 (1967) (hereafter 

Garrity).
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 203

48. Americans for Effective Law Enforcement. (n.d.). Interview warnings (for disciplinary and criminal investigations). 

Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Web site. Available 

at http://www.aele.org/law/warnings.html

49. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 124.

50. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S. 

(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to 

improving security in women’s facilities (p. 42). Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

51. Austin, Sexual violence, at 56.

52. National Institute of Corrections. (2007). Report to the Congress of the United States on the activities of the Department of 

Justice in relation to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Public 

Law 108-79). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice 

(hereafter NIC, Report to the Congress).

53. Gerlicher, C. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.

54. Owen, Staff perspectives, at 16.

55. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

56. Ibid.

57. Williams, W. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; 

Hobbs, R. (2009, March 26). Telephone interview; Archuletta, 

L. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Lance, T., Lajoie, 

M., & Gallagher, M. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; 

Crist, D. (2009, April 28). Telephone interview; Croft, G. 

(2009, April 22). Telephone interview; Hendricks, K. (2009, 

April 2). Telephone interview; Durelle, S. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

58. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

59. Owen, Staff perspectives, at 6.

60. Ibid.

61. Office on Violence Against Women. (2004). A national 

protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations: 

Adults/adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice (hereafter OVAW, A national protocol).

62. Testimony of Holland, L. (2006, August 3). Reporting, 

Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to 

Make the Process Work? (p. 273). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

63. Crandall, S., & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a 

sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

64. National Institute of Justice. (2007). Effective responses to 

sexual assault. U.S. Department of Justice Web site. Available at

http://www.ojp.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/

response.htm

65. OVAW, A national protocol.

66. Frigo, J. (2009, January 29). Telephone interview. 

67. Garrity.

68. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence; OVAW, A national protocol.

69. Written Testimony of Still, W. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight

(p. 3). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

70. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

71. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006. 

72. Austin, Sexual violence. 

73. Testimony of Romero, G. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 60–62). 

San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

74. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence; Owen, Staff perspectives.

75. Longsway, K. A., Archambault, J., & Lisak, D. (2009). False 

reports: Moving beyond the issue to successfully investigate 

and prosecute non-stranger sexual assault. Alexandria, VA: 

American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for 

Prosecution of Violence Against Women. The Voice, 3(1), 1–12.

76. NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 16; See also Daughen, 

J. (2005, June 28). He gets 4 months for jailhouse sex. The 

Philadelphia Inquirer. 

77. Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of 

women in U.S. State prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch; 

NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 13–14. 

78. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Deterring staff sexual abuse of Federal inmates. 

Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter OIG, Deterring staff).

79. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006. 

80. Smith, B. V., & Yarussi, J. (2008). Prosecuting sexual 

violence in correctional settings: Examining prosecutors’ perceptions. American University, Washington College of Law 

Research Paper No. 2008-50.

81. NPREC Testimony of Horn, at 16.

82. NPREC Testimony of Rees, at 120–121.

83. Testimony of Caruso, P. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make 

the Process Work? (pp. 87, 90). Detroit: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

84. Ibid., at 87.

85. Ibid., at 88.

86. Neely, J. (2009, March 27). Telephone interview.

87. NIC, Report to the Congress.

88. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

89. Ibid.

90. NPREC Testimony of DeBottis, at 314.

91. Ibid., at 317.

92. DeBottis, G. (2009, April 6). Telephone interview.

93. NPREC Testimony of Aldrich, at 167.

94. Testimony of Hennessy, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk: 

Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 278–

279). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

95. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006. 

96. Ibid. 

97. Haney, “Mental health issues”; Abramsky, “Mentally ill 

prisoners”; Miller, “Prison segregation”; Bonner, “Successful 

segregation.”

98. OIG, Deterring staff. 
204 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Chapter 6. Treating Trauma

1. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2000). 

All information about this case is taken from court records.

2. Ibid., at 439.

3. Ibid. 

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., at 444.

6. Ibid.

7. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). See also Hoptowit 

v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977).

8. Testimony of Pierce-Weeks, J. (2007, December 5). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 126). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Pierce-Weeks). 

9. Foa, E., & Riggs, D. (1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder 

and rape. In J. M. Oldham, M. B. Riba, & A. Tasman (Eds.), 

Review of psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric 

Press (hereafter Foa, “Posttraumatic stress”).

10. Resick, P. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 223–255.

11. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and 

statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author; Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., 

Kilpatrick, D. G., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape 

psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute 

rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 

359–370.

12. Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Treatment of 

sexual assault victims. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice & policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Dumond, “Treatment”). 

13. Stop Prisoner Rape. (2006). Hope for healing: Information for survivors of sexual assault in detention. Los Angeles: 

Author. 

14. Testimony of Hernandez, H. (2005, August 19). At Risk: 

Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 21). San 

Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing. 

15. Duke, L. A., Allena, D. N., Rozeeb, P. D., & Bommaritto, 

M. (2008). The sensitivity and specificity of flashbacks and 

nightmares to trauma. Anxiety Disorders, 22(2), 319–327; Halligan, S. L. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder following 

assault: The role of cognitive processing, trauma memory, 

and appraisals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

71(3), 419–431; Brewin, C. R. (2001). A cognitive neuroscience account of posttraumatic disorder and its treatment. 

Behavior Research and Therapy, 39(4), 373–393. 

16. Dumond, “Treatment.” 

17. Testimony of Martin, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual 

Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 16). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing. 

18. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. (1992). Violence against women: Relevance for medical 

practitioners. JAMA, 267(23), 3184–3189.

19. Ibid.; Waldrop, A., Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, 

D. G., Naugle, A. E., & Saunders, B. E. (2007). Risk factors for 

suicidal behavior among a national sample of adolescents: 

Implications for prevention. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(5), 

869–879.

20. Gutierrez, P., Thakkar, R., & Kuczen, C. (2000). Exploration of the relationship between physical and/or sexual 

abuse, attitudes about life and death, and suicidal ideation in 

young women. Death Studies, 24(6), 675–688. 

21. Brier, J., & Gil, E. (1998). Self-mutilation in clinical and 

general population samples: Prevalence, correlates, and functions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 609–620 

(hereafter Brier, “Self-mutilation”). 

22. Cyr, M., McDuff, P., Wright, J., Thériault, C., & Cinq-Mars, 

C. (2005). Clinical correlates and repetition of self-harming 

behaviors among female adolescent victims of sexual abuse. 

Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 49–68.

23. Brier, “Self-mutilation.”

24. Dumond, “Treatment”; Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2006). A comparison of sexual coercion 

experiences reported by men and women in prison. Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1591–1615.

25. Dumond, R. W. (1992). Male sexual assault victims in 

incarcerated settings. International Journal of the Sociology of 

Law, 20(2), 135–157.

26. Donaldson, S. (1993). Prisoner rape education tapes: Overview for jail/prison administrators and staff. Brandon, VT: 

Safer Society Press.

27. Newman, A. B., Enright, P. L., Manolio, T. A., Haponik, E. 

F., & Wahl, P. W. (1997). Sleep disturbance, psychosocial correlates, and cardiovascular disease in 5,201 older adults: The 

cardiovascular health study. Journal of American Geriatric 

Sociology, 45(1), 1–7. See also Clum, G., Nishith, P., & Resick, 

P. (2001). Trauma-related sleep disturbance and self-reported 

physical health symptoms in treatment-seeking female rape 

victims. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(9), 618–

622; Koss, M. P., & Harvey, M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

(hereafter Koss, The rape victim); Golding, J. M. (1999). Sexual-assault history and long-term physical health problems: 

Evidence from clinical and population epidemiology. Current 

Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191–194 (hereafter 

Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term”); Hensley, L. 

G. (2002). Treatment of survivors of rape: Issue and interventions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24(4), 330–347; 

Scarce, M. (2001). Male on male rape. New York: Basic Books.

28. Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term.” 

29. Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1996). 

Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and characteristics from 

a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetric 

Gynecology, 175(2), 320–325; Jenny, C., Hooton, T. M., Bowers, 

A., Copass, M. K., Krieger, J. N., Hillier, S. L., et al. (1990). 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 205

Sexually transmitted disease in victims of rape. New England 

Journal of Medicine, 322(11), 713–716.

30. Golding, J. M. (1994). Sexual assault history and limitations in physical functioning in two general population samples. Research in Nursing and Health, 19(1), 33–44.

31. Mariner, J. (2001). Body and soul: The physical and psychological injury of prison rape. In No escape: Male rape in 

U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch. 

32. Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term.”

33. Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2009). Contextualization of physical 

and sexual assault in male prisons: Incidents and their aftermath. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 15(1), 58–77.

34. Word for word/prison rape; From thief to cellblock sex 

slave: A convict’s testimony. (1997, October 19). The New York 

Times. 

35. Dickey, F. (2002, November 3). Rape, how funny is it? The 

Los Angeles Times. 

36. Maruschak, L. M. (2008). HIV in prisons, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

37. Hammett, T. M. (2009). Sexually transmitted diseases and 

incarceration. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 22(1), 

77–81.

38. Testimony of Potter, R. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing.

39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). HIV 

transmission among male inmates in a State prison system—

Georgia, 1992–2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 

55(15), 421–428. 

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid., para. 13.

42. Daniels v. Delaware, 120 F.Supp.2d 411, 417 (D.C. Del. 2000). 

All information about this case is taken from court records.

43. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

44. Maruschak, L. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

45. James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental health problems 

of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics. 

46. Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates 

and probationers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 

47. Wilper, A. P., Woolhandler, S., Boyd, J. W., Lasser, K. E.,

McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., et al. (2009). The health and 

health care of U.S. prisoners: Results of a nationwide survey. 

American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 666–672.

48. Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Inadequate mental health

treatment in prisons. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch. 

49. Piatek, E. (2009, April 30). Email correspondence.

50. Clemmitt, M. (2007). Prison health care. CQ Researcher, 

17(1).

51. NPREC Testimony of Pierce-Weeks, at 126. 

52. Koss, M. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions 

and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48(10), 

1062–1069.

53. Koss, The rape victim. 

54. Ibid.; Foa, E. B., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2001). Treating the 

trauma of rape: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for PTSD. New 

York: Guilford Press; Foa, “Posttraumatic stress.”

55. Williams, W., & Yarborough, R. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Crist, D. (2009, April 28). Telephone interview; Blount, C. (2007, June 7). Presentation to the American 

Correctional Health Services Association’s Multidisciplinary 

Professional Development Conference, Reno, Nevada.

56. Community Oriented Correctional Health Services. (2009). 

Sites. Community Oriented Correctional Health Services Web 

site. Available at http://www.cochs.org/implementations

57. Gallagher, M. (2009, March 18). Email correspondence. 

58. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: A report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in 

America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice. 

59. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2002). 

Health status of soon-to-be-released inmates: A report to Congress. Chicago: Author. 

60. Kimerling, R., & Calhoun, K. S. (1994). Somatic symptoms, social support, and treatment seeking among sexual 

assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 

62(2), 333–340; Draucker, C. B. (1999). The psychotherapeutic 

needs of women who have been sexually assaulted. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 35(1), 18–29.

61. Testimony of Beeler, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in 

Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental 

Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight

(p. 210). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Beeler). 

62. Ibid., at 209–210.

63. Testimony of Puisis, M. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and 

Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 188). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

64. NPREC Testimony of Beeler, at 205.

65. See Testimony of Hejnar, E. (2007, March 26). Lockups, 

Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas 

Penal and Youth Institutions (p. 21). Austin, TX: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Testimony of Doe, J. (2007, March 27). Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal and 

Youth Institutions (pp. 92, 97). Austin, TX: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Testimony of 

Soto, M. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: 

Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations

(p. 68). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

66. Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. (2007). Correctional health care 

since the passage of PREA. Corrections Today, 69(5), 76–69.

67. Testimony of Still, W. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and 
206 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 230). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

68. National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Fees paid by jail 

inmates: Findings from the Nation’s largest jails. Longmont, 

CO: U.S. Department of Justice. 

69. Peterson, M. (1996, December 2). Charging inmates for 

care raises issues of health risk. The New York Times. 

70. Written Testimony of Stana, R. (2000, April 6). Federal 

prisons: Containing health care costs for an increasing inmate 

population. Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on Criminal 

Justice Oversight Hearing. 

71. Written Testimony of Matheson, S. (2007, December 5). 

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: 

Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections 

Settings, and Oversight. New Orleans: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

72. Ibid.

PART III: SPECIAL POPULATIONS 

Chapter 7. When Children Are Involved

1. Schlozman, B. J. (2005, September 9). Letter to Mitch Daniels, 

Governor, Indiana, Regarding Investigation of the Plainfield 

Juvenile Correctional Facility, Indiana (hereafter Bradley, Letter 

to Mitch Daniels).

2. Ibid., at 6–7. 

3. Ibid., at 7. 

4. Ibid., at 6. 

5. Settlement Agreement, United States v. State of Indiana, 

the Logansport Intake/Diagnostic Facility and the South Bend 

Juvenile Correctional Facility. (2006).

6. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2008). Easy access to 

the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention Web site. Available at 

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp 

7. Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice 

reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 137–189 

(hereafter Scott, “The evolution of adolescence”); In re Gault, 

387 U.S. 1, 14–16 (1967). 

8. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570 (2005) (banning death 

penalty for youth who committed crime before the age of 18).

9. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1999). A developmental perspective on serious juvenile crime: When should juveniles be 

treated as adults? Federal Probation, 63, 52–57. 

10. Scott, “The evolution of adolescence.” 

11. Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). New evidence on the 

monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Somerville, MA: 

YouthBuild USA. 

12. Woolard, J. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (2000). Researching juveniles’ capacities as defendants. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz 

(Eds.), Youth on trial: Developmental perspective on juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (hereafter Woolard, 

“Researching juveniles”; Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The 

process of victimization: The victim’s perspective. Child Abuse 

and Neglect, 14(1), 29–40.

13. Morrissette, P. J. (1999). Post-traumatic stress disorder in 

childhood sexual abuse: A synthesis and analysis of theoretical 

models. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 16(2), 77–97; 

Davenport, C., Browne, K., & Palmer, R. (1994). Opinions of the 

traumatizing effects of child sexual abuse: Evidence for consensus. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(9), 725–738; Finkelhor, D. 

(1990). Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An 

update. Professional Psychology, 21(5), 129–140.

14. See K.M. v. Alabama Department Youth Services, 360 

F.Supp.2d 1253, 1258–1259 (M.D. Ala. 2005). 

15. N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225, 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing 

Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 265 (1984)).

16. Restated and Amended Consolidated Complaint, Byrd v. 

Alabama Department of Youth Services (N.D. Ala. Aug.14, 2003)

(No 01433-LSC). All information about this case is taken from 

court records.

17. Ibid., at 22.

18. Ibid. 

19. Walton, V. (2007, May 5). Chalkville: $12.5 million paid to 

end sex scandal at DYS. Birmingham News, para. 2 (hereafter 

Walton, “Chalkville”). 

20. Campbell v. Wood, CV-01-CO-1433-S (N.D. Ala. 2005), consolidated with Seitz v. Alabama Department of Youth Services, 

CV-01-CO-2156-S (N.D. Ala. 2005). 

21. Ibid. 

22. Ibid. 

23. Ala. Code § 14-11-31 (2004). 

24. Walton, “Chalkville.”

25. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual 

violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006). 

26. Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, 

Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006).

27. Beck, A. J., & Hughes, T. A. (2005). Sexual violence reported 

by correctional authorities, 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 207

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of 

Justice Statistics.

28. Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (1998). The risks juveniles 

face: Housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive 

and self-defeating. Corrections Today, 60(5)22–26.

29. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization 

in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. 

M. (2008). Sexual victimization in local jails reported by inmates, 

2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

30. Data presented at The Prison Rape Elimination Act Workshop: National Survey of Youth in Custody, Washington, D.C.

(2007, August 28).

31. McFarland, S. T., & Ellis, C. A. (2008). Report on rape in 

Federal and State prisons in the U.S. based on public hearings 

and review of documentary evidence by the Review Panel on 

Prison Rape: Findings and best practices. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Review Panel on Prison Rape. 

32. Ibid.

33. King, M., & Szymanski, L. (2006). National overviews: State 

juvenile justice profiles. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile 

Justice; Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying 

juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer 

provisions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

34. Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels. 

35. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006. 

36. Black, D. A., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2001). 

Risk factors for child sexual abuse. Aggression and Violent 

Behavior, 6(2–3), 203–229; Putnam, F. W. (2003). Ten-year 

research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the 

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), 

269–278 (hereafter Putnam, “Ten-year research”) (stating 

that history of prior child sexual abuse has also been correlated with higher rates of rape after age 18).

37. Testimony of Dixon, L. (2006, June 1). Elimination of Prison 

Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 60). Boston: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

38. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. 

Whaley, 531 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988). All 

information about this case is taken from court records.

39. Kendall, J. R. (2007). Juvenile status offenses: Treatment 

and early intervention. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Division for Public Education.

40. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (2004). Causes 

and correlates: Findings and implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 

3–19 (citing Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science,

244(4901), 160–166); Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & 

Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31(2), 173–202); Widom, C. S. (2003) 

Understanding child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency, 

the research. In J. Wiig & C. S. Widom (Eds.), Understanding 

child maltreatment & juvenile delinquency: From research to 

effective program, practice, and systemic solutions. Washington, 

D.C.: Child Welfare League of America Press. 

41. ABA policy and report on crossover and dual jurisdiction 

youth. (2008, February). Washington, D.C.: ABA Commission on Youth at Risk. Available at http://www.abanet.org/

youthatrisk/crossoveryouthpolicy.html; Ryan, J. P., Herz, D., 

Hernandez, P. M., & Marshall, J. M. (2007). Maltreatment 

and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile 

justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(8), 

1035–1050. 

42. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,

42 U.S.C. §§ 5601, et seq. (hereafter JJDPA); 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)

(11) (stating that exceptions to the rule include a child’s violation of a valid court order).

43. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., & Kang, W. (2008). Census 

of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

44. Ibid.

45. Boyd, Jr., R. F. (2003, June 19). Letter to Ronnie Musgrove, 

Governor of Mississippi, Re CRIPA Investigation of Oakley 

and Columbia Training Schools in Raymond and Columbia, 

Mississippi.

46. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

47. Porter, G. (2000). Detention in delinquency cases, 1988–

1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention; Sherman, F. T. (2005). Pathways to juvenile detention reform: Detention reform and girls. Baltimore, MD: Annie 

E. Casey Foundation. 

48. Testimony of Marksamer, J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: 

Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public 

Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Marksamer). 

49. Niesse, M. (2006, May 11). State to pay $625,000 in youth 

prison suit. Honolulu Star-Bulletin; Complaint, R.G. v. Koller

(D. Haw. Sept. 1, 2005)(No. 05-00566 JMS/LEK).

50. Marksamer, J. (2008). And by the way, do you know he 

thinks he’s a girl? The failures of law, policy, and legal representation for transgender youth in juvenile delinquency 

courts. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5(1), 72–92; 

NPREC Testimony of Marksamer. 

51. Testimony of Pasion, C. (2005, June 1). Elimination of 

Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 4). Boston: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

52. Ibid., at 10.

53. See Putnam, “Ten-year research” (finding that youth with 

physical disabilities have an increased risk of sexual abuse in 

the larger U.S. population).

54. Miller, C. M. (2005, October 20). Herald watchdog: Juvenile justice: State put disabled boy in sex offender’s care. 

Miami Herald.

55. Donton v. State, 1 So.3d 1092, 1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).

56. See Mental Health America. (2005). Position statement 51: 

Children with emotional disorders in the juvenile justice system. 

Alexandria, VA: Author (recognizing that percentage may be 

as high as 60 to 75 percent). See also Teplin, L., Abram, K. M., 

McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. M. (2002). 
208 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of 

General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133–1143 (finding that 70 percent of 

females and 60 percent of males in detention in Chicago had a 

psychiatric diagnosis other than conduct disorder).

57. Ibid.; Leone, P. E., Christle, C. A., Nelson, C. M., Skiba, R., 

Frey, A., & Jolivette, K. (2003). School failure, race and disability: 

Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. College Park, MD: 

National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice. 

58. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (finding that facility’s 

failure to separate aggressive youth from potential victims 

could demonstrate callous or reckless indifference, making 

them liable for the victim’s injury).

59. Hoge, R. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and 

Behavior, 29(4), 380–396.

60. Hartjen, C. A. (2008). Youth, crime & justice: A global 

inquiry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Park, 

J. (2008). Balancing rehabilitation and punishment: A legislative solution for unconstitutional judicial waiver policies. 

George Washington Law Review, 76, 786–816.

61. Campaign for Youth Justice. (2007). Jailing juveniles: The 

dangers of incarcerating youth in adult jails in America. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter CYJ, Jailing juveniles).

62. Testimony of Labelle, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Pubic Hearing.

63. Swanson, D. J. (2007, February 18). Sex abuse reported 

at youth jail: Complaints about staffers ignored, covered up, 

investigation reveals. The Dallas Morning News; Blakeslee, N. 

(2007, February 23). Hidden in plain sight: How did alleged 

abuse at a youth facility in West Texas evade detection for so 

long? The Texas Observer.

64. Acosta, R. A. (2005, June 8). Letter to Brad Henry, Governor, Oklahoma, Re Investigation of the L.E. Rader Center, Sand 

Springs, Oklahoma (hereafter Acosta, Letter to Brad Henry).

65. Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing 

children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology 

Review, 22(2), 271–295. 

66. Rosado, L. (2000, September). Talking to Teens in the Justice System: Strategies for Interviewing Adolescent Defendants, 

Witnesses, and Victims. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center; Krebs, C. 

(2007). Video: Interviewing the Child Client. Washington, D.C.: 

American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.

67. See, e.g., Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels; Schlozman, B. 

J. (2005, August 4). Letter to Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, 

Re Investigation of the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Kailua, Hawaii, p. 20.; Boyd, Jr., R. (2003, June 19). Letter to Ronnie 

Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi, CRIPA Investigation of Oakley and Columbia Training Schools in Raymond and Columbia, 

Mississippi. See also Miller, C. M. (2005, November 11). Lost 

lockup tapes called coverup, Miami Herald (reporting on the 

loss of tapes from the exact date and location of a rape).

68. J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793, 826 (S.D. Ohio 2006).

69. Rosado, L. (2000, September). Talking to teens in the justice system: Strategies for interviewing adolescent defendants, 

witnesses, and victims. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center; Krebs, C. 

(2007). Video: Interviewing the child client. Washington, D.C.: 

American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.

70. Putnam, “Ten-year research”; Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, 

B. E., & Smith, D. W. (2003). Research in brief: Youth victimization: Prevalence and implications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National 

Institute of Justice (hereafter Kilpatrick, Youth victimization).

71. See Menard, S. (2002). Short- and long-term consequences of 

adolescent victimization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention; Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels. 

72. Putnam, “Ten-year research”; Kilpatrick, Youth victimization.

73. Putnam, “Ten-year research.”

74. Lewis, M. (2006). Conditions of confinement: Abusive treatment. In Custody and control: Conditions of confinement in New 

York’s juvenile prisons for girls. New York: Human Rights Watch 

& American Civil Liberties Union (hereafter Lewis, “Condition 

of confinement”). 

75. N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004). 

76. Ibid., at 233 (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 

115 (1982)). 

77. Ibid. (quoting Flores v. Meese, 681 F.Supp. 644, 667 (1988)).

78. Ibid., at 237.

79. Veysey, B. M. (2003). Adolescent girls with mental health 

disorders involved with the juvenile justice system. Delmar, NY: 

National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (hereafter Veysey, Adolescent girls).

80. Lewis, “Conditions of confinement.” 

81. Veysey, Adolescent girls, at 3.

82. Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & LeGrand, S. (2000). The relationship between adolescent sex offender behaviors and victim 

characteristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal 

Violence, 15(4), 363–374; Way, I., & Urbaniak, D. (2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for criminal sexual 

conduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1197–1212. 

83. Woolard, “Researching juveniles”; Schmidt, M. G., Reppucci N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (2003). Effectiveness of participation as a defendant: The attorney-juvenile client relationship. 

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(2), 175–198.

84. Ronis, S. T., & Borduin, C. M. (2007). Individual, Fam In -

ily, peer and academic characteristics of male juvenile sexual 

offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2),153–163; 

Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2000). Adolescent sexual offender 

recidivism: success of specialized treatment and implications 

for risk prediction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7), 965–982.

85. CYJ, Jailing juveniles. 

86. See Acosta, Letter to Brad Henry (discussing circumstances that facilitated consensual sexual between youth in 

the L.E. Rader Center).

87. JJDPA, at §5633(a)(12–13).

88. Wolfson, J. (2005). Childhood on trial: The failure of trying 

and sentencing youth in adult criminal court. Washington, D.C.: 

The Coalition on Juvenile Justice (stating juveniles are transferred to adult court through statutes that set juvenile court 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 209

jurisdiction below the age of 18, that allow prosecutors unreviewable discretion to transfer youth to adult court, that permit judges to transfer youth after judicial hearings, and that 

create blended sentencing schemes that allow juveniles to be 

sentenced to juvenile and adult facilities); Hahn, R., McGowan, 

A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., et al. 

(2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the 

transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the 

adult justice system: A report on recommendations of the Task 

Force on Community Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(RR-9), 1–11 (hereafter Hahn, “Effects 

on violence”); See Alaska Stat. § 47.12.100(a,b) (2004) (juvenile 

court may waive jurisdiction for any child after hearing if it 

finds probable cause to believe minor is delinquent and child is 

not amenable to rehabilitation by age 20); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, 

§§921, 1010 (2007) (child of any age who is found not amenable 

to rehabilitation of the juvenile court may be referred to superior court for prosecution); Idaho Code § 20-509 (2007) (juvenile court may waive jurisdiction over child of any age who is 

charged with certain enumerated violent offenses). 

89. Ryan, L., & Ziedenberg, J. (eds.). (2007). The consequences 

aren’t minor: The impact of trying youth as adults and strategies for reform. Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice.

90. Equal Justice Initiative. (2007). Cruel and unusual punishment: Sentencing 13- and 14-year-old children to die in prison. 

Montgomery, AL: Author. 

91. William, S. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). 

Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (hereafter William, Midyear 2006). 

92. See Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). 

Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

93. William, Midyear 2006; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. 

(2006). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 

2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. States Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

94. Ibid.

95. Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (Vol. 

27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (hereafter Bishop, 

“Juvenile offenders”).

96. Ibid.; CYJ, Jailing juveniles. 

97. Bishop, “Juvenile offenders.”

98. Parker, A., & Berger, D. (2005). The rest of their lives: Life 

without parole for child offenders in the United States. New 

York: Human Rights Watch; Mariner, J. (2001). Predators and 

Victims. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: 

Human Rights Watch. 

99. Testimony of LaBelle, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

100. Ibid.

101. Reddington, F. P., & Sapp, A. D. (1997). Juveniles in adult 

prisons: Problems and prospects. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 139–152; Bishop, “Juvenile offenders.”

102. See Redding, R. (2008). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective 

deterrent to delinquency? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (describing a compilation of studies on the effectiveness of juvenile transfer laws).

103. Hahn, “Effects on violence.”

104. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2008). Statistical briefing book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

105. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Juvenile 

justice bulletin: Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

106. Saker, A. (2005, October 14). Teens’ abuser gets locked 

up for life. The Oregonian. 

107. Roberts, M. (2005, March 6). State failed to heed abuse 

warnings. The Carter Center Web site. Available at http://

www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc2064.html

108. Ibid., at para 25. 

109. Ibid.

110. Ibid., at para. 28.

111. Ibid., at para. 39.

112. Ibid., at para. 40.

113. Ibid., at paras. 46, 48.

114. Ibid., at paras. 63, 65, 12.

Chapter 8. Community Corrections: The Next Frontier 

1. Written Testimony of Matheson, S. (2007, December 5).

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: 

Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

2. Ibid., at 3.

3. Hendricks, K. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

4. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Probation and parole 

in the United States—2007 statistical tables. Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/

abstract/ppus07st.htm

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Essay: Specialized caseloads. Community Corrections Quarterly. Available at 

http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/period13.pdf

8. Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics 

in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and 
210 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 352). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law. (2001–2006). Training: 

Addressing staff sexual misconduct with offenders. American 

University Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.

edu/nic/training.cfm

9. See generally National Institute of Corrections. (2005, July). 

PREA town hall meeting. Presentation to the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference, 

New York (hereafter NIC, “PREA town hall”); Testimony of 

Kotkin, J. (2007, December 5–6). Special Topics in Preventing 

and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health 

Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 381–

384). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

10. Written Testimony of Abner, C. (2007, December 5–6). 

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: 

Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 6). New Orleans: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

11. NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response 

and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Community Corrections, 

Glossary. 

12. McCampbell, S., Buell, M., Layman, E., & Smith, B. V. (2003). 

Addressing sexual misconduct in community corrections. Perspectives, 27(2), 26–37 (hereafter McCampbell, “Addressing 

sexual misconduct”); State run adult community corrections 

programs. (2006). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections & American University, Washington College of Law 

(hereafter State run adult); Krauth, B., & Linke, L. (1999). State 

organizational structures for delivering adult probation services. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 

of Corrections.

13. State run adult (citing states whose departments of corrections run community corrections—Alaska, Michigan, New 

Mexico, Oklahoma, and Vermont—and states in which community corrections is decentralized—Iowa, Massachusetts, 

and Tennessee).

14. State run adult (citing states in which community corrections is a different agency—Arkansas, South Carolina, and 

New Jersey—and states in which community corrections 

is operated locally in only some counties—Minnesota and 

Alabama). 

15. Testimony of Abner, C. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in 

Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental 

Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 

286). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Abner).

16. Smyth, J. C. (2009, April 28). Prison crowding taking toll in 

Ohio. Associated Press; Furillo, A. (2009, April 25). California 

prison officials propose releasing 8,000 inmates to cut costs. 

The Sacramento Bee; Bauer, S. (2009, April 22). Report: Cutting 

prison population would save $2B. Associated Press.

17. Lucken, K. (1997). Privatizing discretion: “Rehabilitating” 

treatment in community corrections. Crime & Delinquency, 

43(3), 243–259.

18. NIC, “PREA town hall”; Comments by Malloy, D. (2005, 

July). PREA town hall meeting. Presentation at the American 

Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference, New York. 

19. Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, 

and Oversight (p. 358). New Orleans: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Harrison, P. (2008, 

October 3). Email correspondence (concerning data collection from community corrections agencies).

20. See generally Testimony of Ragsdale, D. (2006, August 3). 

Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What 

Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 8). Detroit: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter 

NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale); Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, 

August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison 

Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 31). Detroit: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing 

(hereafter NPREC Testimony of Brown).

21. Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2003) (hereafter 

Smith). 

22. Ibid.

23. See Campos v. Nueces County, 162 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App. 

2005).

24. Smith, B. (2005, October 4). Legal issues in addressing 

prison rape in community corrections. Presentation to the 

New England Council on Crime and Delinquency: Prison 

Rape Elimination Act Training, Killington, Vermont. 

25. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (finding that “a defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he 

abuses the position given to him by the State”).

26. Smith.

27. Ibid., at 1213.

28. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of 

Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). Fifty-state 

survey of criminal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of individuals in custody. American University, Washington College 

of Law Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/

nic/responses.cfm

29. Ibid.

30. Corrections employee faces sexual misconduct charges. 

(2006, October 24). TheIndyChannel.com

31. Policies and procedures: Anti fraternization. (n.d.). NIC/

WCL Project on Addressing Prison Rape Web site. Available at 

http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/policies.cfm#anti

32. Vargas, T. (2007, August 15). Officer charged with sexual misconduct. The Washington Post; Goodman, C. (2007, 

August 17). 2nd officer charged in sex scandal: Both women 

accused of misconduct with same man on house arrest. The 

Washington Post (hereafter Goodman, “2nd officer”).

33. Goodman, “2nd officer.”

34. Written Testimony of Broderick, B. (2007, December 5). 

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: 

Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter 

NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick).

35. Gustafson, P. (2007, May 22). Corrections officer admits a 

sexual offense. Minneapolis Star Tribune.
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 211

36. NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick, at 2.

37. Testimony of Beauclair, T. (2007, December 5). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (pp. 306–307). New Orleans: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

38. Ibid., at 305–306.

39. McCampbell, “Addressing sexual misconduct.”

40. Ibid.

41. NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick, at 2.

42. Rivera, E. (2004, February 25). Ex-deputy guilty of having 

sex with inmates. The Washington Post; McDonald, K. (2006, 

August 7). Conduct may cost officer his job. The Journal Star; 

Wang, B. (2006, January 13). Court papers report ex-sergeant 

repeatedly assaulted inmates. Associated Press. 

43. Simonian, N. M., & Smith, B. V. (2007, Winter). Anti-fraternization policies in community corrections: A tool to address 

staff sexual misconduct in community corrections agencies. 

Perspectives, 43–48. 

44. Testimony of Abner, at 292.

45. Public Safety Performance Project. (2007). What works 

in community corrections: An interview with Joan Petersillia. 

Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts. 

46. Ibid.

47. Renzi, J. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

48. National Institute of Corrections. (2007). PREA statewide probation and parole direction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice.

49. Written Testimony of Kotkin, J. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

50. Ibid.

51. Division of Community Corrections, North Carolina 

Department of Corrections. (2008). Officer and staff requirements, policy II.F. Raleigh, N.C.: Author. 

52. Renzi, J. (2008, November 12). Telephone interview; 

Hahn, C. (2008, October 30). Telephone interview.

53. Written Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special 

Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical 

and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and 

Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

54. Office on Violence Against Women. (2004). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations: Adults/

adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

55. Ibid.

56. Comments by Walton, R. (2005, July). PREA town hall 

meeting. Presentation at the American Probation and Parole 

Association National Training Conference, New York.

57. Cotton, D. J., & Groth, A. N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention 

and intervention. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 2(1): 47–57.

58. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of 

Law. (2001–2008). Training: Investigating allegations of staff 

sexual misconduct with offenders. American University Web 

site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/training.

cfm (Although no official data were collected over nearly 10 

years during training by NIC, only one agency has had any 

authority to begin a criminal investigation: Maine Department of Corrections. All other investigations were conducted 

by agency staff only until a criminal component became 

apparent. At that point, the agency investigators continued 

with administrative investigations and allowed either local or 

State police to complete the criminal investigation).

59. See generally National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting 

Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? Detroit: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; 

See also NIC/WCL Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2006, 

October 27). Improving prosecutions of allegations of sexual 

abuse in correctional settings: A meeting with Federal prosecutors (attendance list on file with author).

60. See Written Testimony of Powers, E. (2007, December 5–6). 

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, 

and Oversight (p. 1). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

Chapter 9. On the Margins: Immigrants in Detention

1. Stop Prisoner Rape. (2004). No refuge here: A first look at 

sexual abuse in immigration detention. Los Angeles: Author 

(hereafter SPR, No refuge here). 

2. Testimony of Little, C. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 4). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Little). 

3. Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children.

(2000). Behind locked doors: Abuse of refugee women at the

Krome Detention Center. New York: Author (hereafter WCRWC,

Behind locked doors).

4. Ibid.

5. Sachs, S. (2000, October 5). Sexual abuse reported at an 

immigration center. The New York Times; WCRWC, Behind 

locked doors.

6. SPR, No refuge here (citing Solomon, A. (2002, March 20–26). 

The gatekeeper: Watch on the INS. Nightmare in Miami. The 

Village Voice (hereafter Solomon, “The gatekeeper”).

7. Solomon, “The gatekeeper.”

8. Testimony of Wideman, A. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 108). Los Angeles: National Prison
212 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter 

NPREC Testimony of Wideman); SPR, No refuge here; Testimony of Lonegan, B. (2006, December 13). The Elimination 

of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/

Labor Relations. (p. 117). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape 

Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC 

Testimony of Lonegan); Dow, M. (2004). American gulag: 

Inside U.S. immigration prisons. Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press; Welch, M. (2002). Detained: immigrations 

laws and the expanding INS jail complex. Philadelphia: Temple 

University Press (hereafter Welch, Detained).

9. Roberts, M. (2009, March 15). AP IMPACT: Immigrants face 

detention, few rights. Associated Press. 

10. Statement of Hayes Jr., J. T. (2009, March 3). Medical care 

and treatment of immigration detainees and deaths in DRO 

custody. (p. 4). Washington, D.C.: House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security. 

11. Testimony of Hutchinson, A. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 35). Los Angeles: National Prison 

Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

12. Ibid. 

13. Chien, E., & Micek, P. (2006, March 7). For children in 

immigration limbo, detention may be as good as it gets. New 

America Media; Testimony of Nugent, C. (2006, December 

13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities 

and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 231). Los Angeles: 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Homeland Security Act of 2002, H.R. 5710, § 462. 

14. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. (2008). Department of Unaccompanied 

Alien Children’s Services: Efforts to serve children. Washington, 

D.C.: Author. 

15. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 109.

16. Testimony of Cheer, S.-M. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 90–91). Los Angeles: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Cheer). 

17. Kinzie, J. D. (2006). Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(4), 577–591; NPREC 

Testimony of Wideman, at 110; Physicians for Human Rights 

& the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture. (2003). 

From persecution to prison: The health consequences of detention for asylum seekers. Boston: Author (hereafter PHR, From 

persecution). 

18. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and 

statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, 

D.C.: Author; Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick, 

D., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment 

study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(44), 359–370.

19. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 110.

20. PHR, From persecution, at 1.

21. Women’s Refugee Commission. (2009). Halfway home: 

Unaccompanied children in immigration custody. Washington, 

D.C.: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP. 

22. Testimony of Medina, S. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 222–223). Los Angeles: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

23. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 78. 

24. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108.

25. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 54. 

26. Ibid., at 54–55.

27. Just Detention International. (2009). Sexual abuse in U.S. 

immigration detention. Los Angeles: Author. 

28. Brané, M. (2009, March 19). Personal communication.

29. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108–109. 

30. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 93; Hyder, A. A., & Malik, 

F. A. (2007). Violence against children: A challenge for public 

health in Pakistan. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 25(2): 168–178; Johnson, D. M., Pike, J. L., & Chard, K. M. 

(2001). Factors predicting PTSD, depression, and dissociative 

severity in female treatment-seeking childhood sexual abuse 

survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1): 179–189; Erulkar, A. 

S. (2004). The experience of sexual coercion among young 

people in Kenya. International Family Planning Perspectives,

30(4):182–189; Oral Statement by the OMCT Violence Against 

Women Programme. (2005, March 14–April 22). United Nations 

Commission on Human Rights, 61st Session, Item 12. OMCT 

Web site. Available at http://www.omct.org/index.php?id=

&lang=eng&articleSet=Documents&articleId=5351 

31. Testimony of Plummer, T. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 71–72). Los Angeles: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. 

32. PHR, From persecution, at 121. 

33. Ibid.

34. Welch, Detained. 

35. PHR, From persecution.

36. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO 

detention standard: Sexual abuse and assault prevention and 

intervention (hereafter DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse”); U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO detention standard: Admission and release; Testimony of Tosado, R. 

(2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 146). 

Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission 

Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Tosado). 

37. DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse”; NPREC Testimony of 

Tosado, at 147; Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security. (2006). Treatment of immigration 

detainees housed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

facilities. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter OIG, Treatment 

of immigration detainees). 

38. OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees. 

39. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 111–112. 

40. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 95.

41. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 101. 

42. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO 

detention standard: Classification system. 
A P P E N D I X A : E N D N O T E S 213

43. Kerwin, D. (2001, Winter). Looking for asylum, suffering 

in detention. American Bar Association Human Rights Magazine. Available at http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter01/

kerwin.html

44. DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse.” 

45. OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees.

46. Testimony of Holguin, I. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/

Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 162–163). Los Angeles: National 

Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

47. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO 

detention standard: Telephone access. 

48. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Alien 

detention standards: Telephone access problems were pervasive 

at detention facilities; other deficiencies did not show a pattern 

of noncompliance. Washington, D.C.: Author, p. 12. 

49. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 94.

50. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108. 

51. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 52. 

52. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 124. 

53. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services & Women’s 

Commission for Refugee Women and Children. (2007). Locking up family values: The detention of immigrant families. New 

York: Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, 

p. 47 (hereafter LIRS, Locking up family values).

54. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 123. 

55. PHR, From persecution.

56. The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global 

Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria 

Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-293. 

57. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(a,g) (stating that aliens determined 

to have a communicable disease of public health significance 

are bared from entry into the United States but may request 

a waiver). 

58. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 119. 

59. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security. (2009). Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 

tracking and transfers of detainees. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

60. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2008). Adjudicator’s field manual. Washington, D.C.: Author. 

61. Sullivan, E., Mottino, F., Khashu, A., & O’Neil, M. (2000). 

Testing community supervision for the INS: An evaluation of 

the Appearance Assistance Program. New York: Vera Institute 

of Justice.

62. Brané, M. (2008, August 14). Women’s Commission letter 

to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.

63. Statement of Jackson, S. L. (2008, March 5). House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border 

Security and International Law Oversight Hearing on the 

Department of Homeland Security, p. 70 (citing LIRS, Locking 

up family values).

64. LIRS, Locking up family values, at 47.

65. Brané, M. (2009, March 19). Personal communication.

66. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 59. 

A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — A D U LT P R I S O N S A N D J A I L S 215

Appendix B

National Standards

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring 

of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails, including Supplemental Standards 

for Facilities with Immigration Detainees

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward 

all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring 

all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency 

employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, 

and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards. 

PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of 

inmates

If public correctional agencies contract for the confinement of their 

inmates, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, 

including other government agencies, committed to eliminating 

sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption of 

and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or 

contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the public agency 

will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part 

of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

PP-3: Inmate supervision

Security staff provides the inmate supervision necessary to protect inmates from sexual abuse. The upper management officials 

responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in 

the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether 

physical barriers may have enabled the abuse, the adequacy of 

staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need 

for monitoring technology to supplement security staff supervision 

(DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, the agency takes 

corrective action (DC-3). 

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits crossgender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case 

of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, 

the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing inmates of the 

opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and 

similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an 

individual’s genital status is unknown. 

PP-5: Accommodating inmates with special needs 

The agency ensures that inmates who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to 

staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through noninmate interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all 

written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to 

report sexual abuse, verbally to inmates who have limited reading 

skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in 

sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, 

or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency 

makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for 

information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; must run 

criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being 

considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh 

any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. 

The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about 

previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective 

and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least 

annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes 

the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must 

be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication 

“A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or 

similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed 

after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, 
216 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

all victims of inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration or 

staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration are provided access 

to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical 

examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge 

to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to 

accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community 

service providers 

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward 

inmate reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency 

also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements 

with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide 

inmates with confidential emotional support services related to 

sexual abuse and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their 

transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The 

agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing 

attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies 

If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal 

investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or inmates, 

the agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or 

other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with 

the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency confines inmates under the age of 18 or other 

inmates who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with 

the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction 

and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse 

of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the 

agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing policy 

covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including 

sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new 

agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority 

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or 

other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement 

or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

TR-1: Employee training 

The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and 

response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all employees 

to communicate effectively and professionally with all inmates. 

Additionally, the agency trains all employees on an inmate’s right 

to be free from sexual abuse, the right of inmates and employees to 

be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics of 

sexual abuse in confinement, and the common reactions of sexual 

abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible 

following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the 

agency provides periodic refresher information to all employees 

to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse 

policies and procedures. The agency maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that employees 

understand the training they have received. 

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who 

have contact with inmates have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and 

response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training 

provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services 

they provide and level of contact they have with inmates, but all 

volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates must 

be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual 

abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual 

abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand 

the training they have received.

TR-3: Inmate education 

During the intake process, staff informs inmates of the agency’s 

zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report 

incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief 

period of time following the intake process, the agency provides 

comprehensive education to inmates regarding their right to be 

free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse 

response policies and procedures. Current inmates are educated 

as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA 

standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information 

to all inmates to ensure that they know the agency’s most current 

sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides inmate 

education in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who 

are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as 

inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains 

written documentation of inmate participation in these education 

sessions. 

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees 

(TR-1), the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting 

sexual abuse investigations have received comprehensive and upto-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement 

settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garritytype warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement 

settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The 

agency maintains written documentation that investigators have 

completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual 

abuse investigations.

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental 

health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained 

in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence 

of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners 

must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to 

victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report allegations 

or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received 

this specialized training. 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — A D U LT P R I S O N S A N D J A I L S 217

Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)

SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness 

All inmates are screened during intake, during the initial classification process, and at all subsequent classification reviews to 

assess their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates. Employees must conduct this 

screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although additional factors 

may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research 

and the agency’s own data analysis, screening instruments must 

contain the criteria described below. All screening instruments 

must be made available to the public upon request. 

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

male inmates for risk of victimization: mental or physical disability, young age, slight build, first incarceration in prison 

or jail, nonviolent history, prior convictions for sex offenses 

against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, 

gender nonconformance (e.g., transgender or intersex identity), 

prior sexual victimization, and the inmate’s own perception of 

vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

male inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of 

sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

female inmates for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

female inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of 

sexual abuse.

SC-2: Use of screening information 

Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to 

inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments 

with the goal of keeping separate those inmates at high risk of 

being sexually victimized from those at high risk of being sexually 

abusive. The facility makes individualized determinations about 

how to ensure the safety of each inmate. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, or other gender-nonconforming inmates are not 

placed in particular facilities, units, or wings solely on the basis of 

their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity. Inmates 

at high risk for sexual victimization may be placed in segregated 

housing only as a last resort and then only until an alternative 

means of separation from likely abusers can be arranged. To the 

extent possible, risk of sexual victimization should not limit access 

to programs, education, and work opportunities. 

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

RE-1: Inmate reporting

The facility provides multiple internal ways for inmates to report 

easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other 

inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or 

violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for 

inmates to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office not 

affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and 

forward them to the facility head (RP-2), except when an inmate 

requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in 

writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately 

puts into writing any verbal reports. 

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, an inmate has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either 

(1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the 

report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the 

inmate, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official 

or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was 

made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers 

the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that 

has passed between the abuse and the report. An inmate seeking 

immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed 

to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after 

notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Inmate access to outside confidential support services 

In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the 

facility provides inmates with access to outside victim advocates 

for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving inmates the current mailing 

addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis 

organizations and enabling reasonable communication between 

inmates and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, confidential, and 

privileged, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. 

The facility informs inmates, prior to giving them access, of the 

extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, 

and/or privileged.

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of 

sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the 

facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported 

the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party report of the 

outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes publicly information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of an inmate.

Official Response Following an Inmate Report (OR)

OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information 

they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred 

in an institutional setting; retaliation against inmates or staff who 

reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or 

retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or 

officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual 

abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as 

specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and 

other security and management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health 

practitioners are required to report sexual abuse and must inform 

inmates of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the 

victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult 

under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the facility head 

must report the allegation to the designated State or local services 

agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws. 

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the facility receives an allegation that an inmate was sexually abused while confined at another facility, the head of the 

facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head 

of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the 

facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is 

investigated.
218 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that an inmate was sexually abused within a time 

period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the 

first security staff member to respond to the report is required to 

(1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve 

any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any 

actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, 

brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, 

defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder 

is a non-security staff member, he or she is required to instruct the 

victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence 

and then notify security staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response 

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are 

coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental 

health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support 

services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence 

to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable. 

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation 

The agency protects all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse 

or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by 

other inmates or staff. The agency employs multiple protection 

measures, including housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from 

contact with victims, and emotional support services for inmates 

or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or 

treatment of inmates or staff who have reported sexual abuse or 

cooperated with investigations, including any inmate disciplinary 

reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may 

suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member 

as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, 

when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the inmate or 

staff member.

Investigations (IN) 

IN-1: Duty to investigate 

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including 

third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and/or 

other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any 

disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the 

allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion, 

regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the 

facility. 

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations 

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, 

thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have 

received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4). 

When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the facility has 

a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with 

outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations include the following 

elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes 

established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report. 

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview 

alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and 

review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving 

the suspected perpetrator. 

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal 

prosecution. 

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence 

gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an 

individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as 

inmate or staff. 

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur. 

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports 

that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments. 

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that 

contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and 

documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits. 

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal 

are referred for prosecution. 

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Discipline (DI)

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The 

presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have 

engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. 

This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations 

for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to 

law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies. 

DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for inmates

Inmates are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that 

the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse. 

Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and circumstances 

of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and the 

sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other inmates with 

similar histories. The disciplinary process must consider whether 

an inmate’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his 

or her behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, 

should be imposed. Possible sanctions also include interventions 

designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation 

for the abuse, such as requiring the offending inmate to participate 

in therapy, counseling, or other programs. 

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

MM-1: Medical and mental health screenings—history of 

sexual abuse 

Qualified medical or mental health practitioners ask inmates 

about prior sexual victimization and abusiveness during medical 

and mental health reception and intake screenings. If an inmate 

discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness, whether it 

occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, during a 

medical or mental health reception or intake screening, the practitioner provides the appropriate referral for treatment, based on his 

or her professional judgment. Any information related to sexual 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — A D U LT P R I S O N S A N D J A I L S 219

victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional setting must be strictly limited to medical and mental health practitioners and other staff, as required by agency policy and Federal, 

State, or local law, to inform treatment plans and security and 

management decisions, including housing, bed, work, education, 

and program assignments. Medical and mental health practitioners must obtain informed consent from inmates before reporting 

information about prior sexual victimization that did not occur in 

an institutional setting, unless the inmate is under the age of 18.

MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health 

services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the 

nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. 

Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim 

and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time 

a report of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders take 

preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately 

notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners. 

MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual 

abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The 

evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include 

appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from 

custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to 

inmate victims must match the community level of care generally 

accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known 

abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified 

mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews 

The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents 

to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with 

input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental 

health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of 

sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related 

to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to 

better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. 

The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated 

by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents 

are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, 

upper management officials immediately notify the agency head 

and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The 

sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every 

sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined 

to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the 

facility head. 

DC-2: Data collection 

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of 

definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse 

data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, 

at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the 

most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are 

obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation 

files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains 

incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which 

it contracts for the confinement of its inmates. 

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, 

including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and 

improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, 

and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, 

the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action 

on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of 

its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the 

agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison 

of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from 

prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in 

addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the 

agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and 

made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it 

does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact 

specific material from the reports when publication would present 

a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, 

but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted. 

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes 

all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct 

control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the 

public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have 

one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse 

data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers 

from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 

10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, 

or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less 

than 10 years. 

Audits (AU)

AU-1: Audits of standards 

The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA 

standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years 

by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted 

agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and inmates, as deemed appropriate by 

the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency 

ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or 

contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published 

on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise 

made readily available to the public.

SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES WITH 

IMMIGRATION DETAINEES

ID-1: Supplement to RP-2: Agreements with outside public 

entities and community service providers

Any facility that houses immigration detainees maintains or 

attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) 

or other agreements with one or more local or, if not available, 

national organizations that provide legal advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime 

(RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.
220 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

ID-2: Supplement to TR-1, TR-4, and TR-5: Employee training 

and specialized training of investigators and medical and 

mental health care 

Any facility that holds immigration detainees provides special 

additional training to employees, including medical and mental 

health practitioners and investigators. This additional training 

includes the following topics: cultural sensitivity toward diverse 

understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, 

appropriate terms and concepts to use when discussing sex and 

sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, sensitivity and 

awareness regarding past trauma that may have been experienced 

by immigration detainees, and knowledge of all existing resources 

for immigration detainees both inside and outside the facility that 

provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy 

for victims. 

ID-3: Supplement to TR-3: Inmate education

Sexual abuse education (TR-3) for immigration detainees is provided at a time and in a manner that is separate from information 

provided about their immigration cases, in detainees’ own languages and in terms that are culturally appropriate, and is conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating 

about these issues with a diverse population. 

ID-4: Detainee handbook

Every detainee is provided with an ICE Detainee Handbook upon 

admission to the facility, and a replacement is provided whenever 

a detainee’s handbook is lost or damaged. The Detainee Handbook 

contains notice of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency’s policies related to sexual 

abuse, including information about how to report an incident of 

sexual abuse and the detainees’ rights and responsibilities related 

to sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will inform immigration 

detainees how to contact organizations in the community that 

provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for detainee 

victims of sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will also inform 

detainees how to contact the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), and diplomatic or consular personnel. 

ID-5: Supplement to SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization 

and abusiveness

The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain institutional 

and criminal records of immigration detainees in its custody prior 

to screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness. Screening of 

immigration detainees is conducted by employees who are culturally competent. 

ID-6: Supplement to SC-2: Use of screening information

Any facility that houses both inmates and immigration detainees 

houses all immigration detainees separately from other inmates 

in the facility and provides heightened protection for immigration 

detainees who are identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual 

abuse by other detainees through the screening process (SC-1). 

To the extent possible, immigration detainees have full access to 

programs, education, and work opportunities.

ID-7: Supplement to RE-1: Inmate reporting

The agency provides immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for Civil 

Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS OIG. In addition, the agency 

must provide immigration detainees with a list of phone numbers 

for diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of citizenship and access to telephones to contact such personnel.

ID-8: Supplement to RE-3: Inmate access to outside 

confidential support services

All immigration detainees have access to outside victim advocates 

who have experience working with immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving immigration 

detainees the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, 

including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national 

organizations that provide these services and enabling reasonable 

communication between immigration detainees and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent allowable 

by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs immigration 

detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such 

communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged.

ID-9: Protection of detainee victims and witnesses

ICE never removes from the country or transfers to another facility 

immigration detainees who report sexual abuse before the investigation of that abuse is completed, except at the detainee victim’s 

request. ICE considers releasing detainees who are victims of or 

witnesses to abuse and monitoring them in the community to protect them from retaliation or further abuse during the course of 

the investigation.

ID-10: Supplement to MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental 

health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers

All immigration detainees are counseled about the immigration 

consequences of a positive HIV test at the time they are offered 

HIV testing. 

ID-11: Supplement to DC-2: Data collection

The facility collects additional data whenever an immigration 

detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an incident of sexual abuse 

in custody. The additional incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration 

detainee, his or her status at the initiation of the investigation, and 

his or her status at the conclusion of the investigation.

Supplemental Standards for Family Facilities 

The following standards must be followed in ICE family facilities.

IDFF-1: Screening of immigration detainees in family facilities 

(This standard replaces rather than supplements SC-1 and SC-2)

Family facilities develop screening criteria to identify those families and family members who may be at risk of being sexually 

victimized that will not lead to the separation of families. Housing, program, educational, and work assignments are made in a 

manner that protects families and in all cases prioritizes keeping 

families together. 

IDFF-2: Reporting of sexual abuse in family facilities

The facility provides parents with the ability to report sexual abuse 

in a manner that is confidential from their children. The facility 

also provides children with the ability to report abuse by a parent 

confidentially to staff.

IDFF-3: Investigations in family facilities

Parents are questioned confidentially by investigators about any 

incident of sexual abuse, away from their children. A parent or 

parents are present when a child is questioned by investigators 

about any incident of sexual abuse, unless (1) the child has alleged 

abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by the parent. The 

decision to exclude a parent from an interview based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by a qualified mental 

health practitioner. 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — L O C K U P S 221

IDFF-4: Access to medical and mental health care in family 

facilities

All family members are offered mental health counseling (as 

required in MM-2 and MM-3) when one family member is a victim of sexual abuse in the facility. Following an incident of sexual 

abuse, parents and adult family members are examined confidentially by medical and mental health practitioners and away 

from children. Following an incident of sexual abuse, a parent or 

parents are allowed to be present during all medical and mental 

health examinations of a minor child, unless (1) that child has 

alleged sexual abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by 

the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from an examination 

based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by 

a qualified mental health practitioner. In the event that a child is 

sexually abused, a qualified mental health practitioner interviews 

the child to determine whether either parent was present or aware 

of the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened in 

connection with the abuse. 

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring 

of Sexual Abuse in Lockups

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward 

all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring 

all of its lockups comply with the PREA standards. The agency 

employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, 

and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards. 

PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of 

detainees

If law enforcement agencies contract for the confinement of their 

detainees, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, 

including other government agencies, committed to eliminating 

sexual abuse in their lockups, as evidenced by their adoption of 

and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or 

contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the law enforcement 

agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards 

as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

PP-3: Detainee supervision

Law enforcement staff provides the detainee supervision necessary to protect detainees from sexual abuse. The upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must 

examine areas in the lockup where sexual abuse has occurred 

to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled the abuse, 

the adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different 

shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement law 

enforcement staff supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are 

identified, the agency takes corrective action (DC-3). 

PP-4: Heightened protection for vulnerable detainees

Any intake screening or assessment includes consideration of a 

detainee’s potential vulnerability to sexual abuse. When vulnerabilities are identified, law enforcement staff provides heightened 

protection to vulnerable detainees, which may require continuous 

direct sight and sound supervision or single-cell housing. Absent 

intake screenings or assessments, any time a law enforcement staff 

member observes any physical or behavioral characteristics of a 

detainee that suggest he or she may be vulnerable to sexual abuse, 

the staff member provides sufficient protection to that detainee to 

prevent sexual abuse.

PP-5: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the agency prohibits crossgender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of 

emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, 

the agency restricts law enforcement staff from viewing detainees 

of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Any 

examination to determine the genital status of a detainee must be 

conducted in a private setting by a medical practitioner and only 

when the genital status is unknown to the agency. 

PP-6: Accommodating detainees with special needs 

The agency ensures that detainees who are LEP, deaf, or disabled 

are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non-detainee interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse 

policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to detainees 

who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-7: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged 

in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in 

sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of 

force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, 

the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional 

employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual 

abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants 

and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work 

or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, 

stalking, and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and 

employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews 

and reviews.

PP-8: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective 

and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least 

annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.
222 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Response Planning (RP)

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

When investigating allegations of sexual abuse in a lockup, the 

agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the 

potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must 

be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department 

of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A 

National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 

2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, all victims of detainee-on-detainee sexually abusive penetration or staffon-detainee sexually abusive penetration are provided with access 

and transportation to a community medical provider served by 

qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are 

provided free of charge to the victim. The agency makes available 

a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic 

medical exam process. 

RP-2: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies 

If an agency has elected to permit another law enforcement agency 

to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of allegations 

of sexual abuse in its lockups, the agency maintains or attempts to 

enter into a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other 

agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse in lockups with 

the outside law enforcement agency responsible for conducting 

investigations. If the agency confines detainees under the age of 18 

or other detainees who fall under State and local vulnerable persons 

statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU 

with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual 

abuse of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When 

the agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing 

policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, 

including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into 

a new agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement 

or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

RP-3: Agreements with the prosecuting authority 

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or 

other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement 

or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION 

Training and Education (TR)

TR-1: Employee and volunteer training 

The agency trains all lockup employees and any volunteers who 

have contact with detainees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities 

under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all lockup employees 

and volunteers who have contact with detainees to communicate 

effectively and professionally with all detainees. Current lockup 

employees and volunteers are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency 

provides periodic refresher information to all lockup employees and 

volunteers to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains written 

documentation showing lockup employee and volunteer signatures 

verifying that they understand the training they have received. 

TR-2: Detainee, attorney, contractor, and inmate worker 

notification of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy

Employees notify all detainees of the agency’s zero-tolerance 

policy regarding sexual abuse during intake. The agency ensures 

that attorneys, contractors, and inmate workers are informed of 

the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse upon 

entering the lockup.

TR-3: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees and 

volunteers (TR-1), the agency ensures that law enforcement staff 

who investigate sexual abuse in lockups have received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include 

techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of 

Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence 

required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency maintains written documentation that 

investigators have completed the required specialized training in 

conducting sexual abuse investigations.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

RE-1: Detainee reporting

The agency provides multiple ways for detainees to report easily, 

privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other detainees or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident 

of sexual abuse. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, 

anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into 

writing any verbal reports. 

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, a detainee has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either 

(1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the 

report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the 

detainee, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days has passed since the report was 

made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers 

the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that 

has passed between the abuse and the report. A detainee seeking 

immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed 

to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after 

notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Third-party reporting

The agency receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency 

notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the 

abuse and the detainee named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The agency publicly distributes or posts 

information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a detainee.

Official Response Following a Detainee Report (OR)

OR-1: Staff and agency head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information 

they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred 

in an institutional setting; retaliation against detainees or staff 

who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — L O C K U P S 223

or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or 

officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual 

abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as 

specified in agency policy, to make treatment and investigation 

decisions. If the victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the 

agency head must report the allegation to the designated State or 

local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws. 

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the agency receives an allegation that a detainee was sexually abused while confined at another facility or lockup, the head 

of the agency where the report was made notifies in writing the 

head of the facility or lockup where the alleged abuse occurred. 

The head of the facility or lockup where the alleged abuse occurred 

ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a detainee was sexually abused within a time 

period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, 

the first law enforcement staff member to respond to the report 

is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal 

and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not 

to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including 

washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, 

urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first 

staff responder is a non-law enforcement staff member, he or she 

is required to instruct the victim not to take any actions that could 

destroy physical evidence and then notify law enforcement staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response 

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health 

practitioners, investigators, and agency leadership. The agency’s 

coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary 

immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to 

substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable. 

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation 

The agency protects all detainees and staff who report sexual 

abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other detainees or staff. The agency employs multiple 

protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for 

detainee victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or detainee 

abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services 

for staff members who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse 

or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or treatment of staff who have reported sexual abuse or 

cooperated with investigations. When retaliation is determined to 

be taking place, the agency takes immediate steps to protect the 

detainee or staff member. 

Investigations (IN)

IN-1: Duty to investigate 

The agency investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and 

other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any 

disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the 

allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion, 

regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the 

lockup. 

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations 

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, 

thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have 

received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-3). 

When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the agency has a 

duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside 

investigators (RP-2). Investigations include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes 

established by the highest- ranking agency official, and the 

highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report. 

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview 

alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and 

review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse or misconduct involving the suspected perpetrator. 

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal 

prosecution. 

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence 

gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an 

individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as 

detainee or staff. 

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur. 

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports 

that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that 

contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and 

documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits. 

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal 

are referred for prosecution. 

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Discipline (DI)

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged 

in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for 

other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations 

of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to appropriate law 

enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Referrals for prosecution for detainee-on-detainee sexual 

abuse

When there is probable cause to believe that a detainee sexually 

abused another detainee, the agency refers the matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

MM-1: Access to emergency medical and mental health 

services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical services following an incident of sexual abuse, 

regardless of whether they name an abuser. Treatment services 

must be provided free of charge to the victim. The agency is 

responsible for ensuring their safe and timely transportation to 

community medical providers and for referring victims to appropriate community mental health services.
224 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews 

The agency treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents 

to be examined by a group of upper management officials, with 

input from line supervisors and investigators. The review team 

evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to 

change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond 

to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers 

whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics at the lockup. When incidents are determined to be motivated 

by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials 

immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review 

takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation, 

unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review 

team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for 

improvement and submits it to the agency head. 

DC-2: Data collection 

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of 

definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse 

data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, 

at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the 

most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are 

obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation 

files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains 

incident-based and aggregated data from every agency with which 

it contracts for the confinement of its detainees. 

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, 

including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and 

improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, 

and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, 

the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial or other 

group dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes 

corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each lockup 

as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a 

comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with 

those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is 

approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public through its Web 

site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency 

may redact specific material from the reports when publication 

would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of an agency, but it must indicate the nature of the material 

redacted. 

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes 

all aggregated sexual abuse data, from lockups under its direct 

control and those entities with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it 

does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all 

personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual 

abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection 

unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official 

information in less than 10 years. 

Audits (AU) 

AU-1: Audits of standards 

The public agency ensures that all of its lockups, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA 

standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years 

by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted 

agency allows the auditor to enter and tour lockups, review documents, and interview staff and detainees, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public 

agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the 

public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are 

published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are 

otherwise made readily available to the public.

 

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring 

of Sexual Abuse in Juvenile Facilities

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward 

all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring 

all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency 

employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, 

and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards. 

PP-2: Contracting with facilities for the confinement of 

residents

If public juvenile justice agencies contract for the confinement of 

their residents, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption 

of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts 

or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and 

comply with the PREA standards and specify that the agency will 

monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its 

general monitoring of the entity’s performance.
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — J U V E N I L E F A C I L I T I E S 225

PP-3: Resident supervision

Direct care staff provides the resident supervision necessary to protect residents from sexual abuse. The facility administrators and 

supervisors responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess 

whether there are any physical barriers that may have enabled the 

abuse, the adequacy of staffing levels during different shifts, and 

the need for monitoring technology to supplement direct care staff 

supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, facility 

administrators and supervisors take corrective action (DC-3). 

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits crossgender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case 

of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, 

the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing residents of the 

opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and 

similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an 

individual’s genital status is unknown.

PP-5: Accommodating residents with special needs 

The agency ensures that residents who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to 

staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through nonresident interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all 

written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to 

report sexual abuse, verbally to residents who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged 

in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in 

sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of 

force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, 

the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional 

employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual 

abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants 

and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine 

and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in 

the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, child abuse and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during 

interviews and reviews.

PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology 

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective 

and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least 

annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes 

the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must 

be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication 

“A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or 

similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed 

after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, 

all victims of resident-on-resident sexually abusive penetration or 

staff-on-resident sexually abusive penetration are provided access 

to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners who are trained in the unique psychological and 

emotional conditions of younger victims of sexual abuse. Forensic 

medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim 

through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and 

community service providers

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public 

entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward resident reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency 

also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements 

with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide residents with emotional support services related to sexual abuse and 

(2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains 

copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter 

into agreements.

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies 

If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal 

investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct 

criminal or administrative investigations of staff or residents, the 

agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other 

agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law 

enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. The 

agency also maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the 

designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and 

authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of 

children within confinement facilities. When the agency already 

has an existing agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse 

investigations and child abuse investigations conducted by a designated State or local services agency, it does not need to enter into 

new agreements. The agency maintains copies of its agreements or 

documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority 

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or 

other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement 

or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

TR-1: Employee training 

The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and 

response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and 

under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all 

employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all 

residents. Additionally, the agency trains all employees on a resident’s right to be free from sexual abuse, the right of residents and 

employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, 

the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, and the common 

reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are educated 

as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA 

standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information 

to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains 

written documentation showing employee signatures verifying 

that employees understand the training they have received. 
226 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who have 

contact with residents have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and 

response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training 

provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services 

they provide and level of contact they have with residents, but all 

volunteers and contractors who have contact with residents must 

be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual 

abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual 

abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand 

the training they have received. 

TR-3: Resident education 

During the intake process, staff informs residents of the agency’s 

zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report 

incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse in an age-appropriate 

fashion. Within a reasonably brief period of time following the 

intake process, the agency provides comprehensive, age-appropriate education to residents regarding their right to be free from 

sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, 

the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse response 

policies and procedures. Current residents are educated as soon as 

possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, 

and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all residents to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual 

abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides resident education in formats accessible to all residents, including those who 

are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as 

inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains 

written documentation of resident participation in these education 

sessions. 

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1), 

the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting sexual 

abuse investigations have received comprehensive and up-todate training in conducting such investigations in confinement 

settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing young sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and 

Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. 

The agency maintains written documentation that investigators 

have completed the required specialized training in conducting 

sexual abuse investigations.

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental 

health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained 

in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence 

of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners 

must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally 

to young victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report 

allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains 

documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have 

received this specialized training. 

Assessment and Placement of Residents (AP)

AP-1: Obtaining information about residents

During intake and periodically throughout a resident’s confinement, employees obtain and use information about each resident’s 

personal history and behavior to keep all residents safe and free 

from sexual abuse. At a minimum, employees attempt to ascertain 

information about prior sexual victimization or abusiveness; sexual orientation and gender identity; current charges and offense 

history; age; level of emotional and cognitive development; physical size/stature; mental illness or mental disabilities; intellectual/

developmental disabilities; physical disabilities; and any other 

specific information about individual residents that may indicate 

heightened needs for supervision, additional safety precautions, 

or separation from certain other residents. This information may 

be ascertained through conversations with residents at intake 

and medical and mental health screenings; during classification 

assessments; and by reviewing court records, case files, facility 

behavioral records, and other relevant documentation from the 

residents’ files. Medical and mental health practitioners are the 

only staff permitted to talk with residents to gather information 

about their sexual orientation or gender identity, prior sexual victimization, history of engaging in sexual abuse, mental health 

status, and mental or physical disabilities. If the facility does not 

have medical or mental health practitioners available, residents are 

given an opportunity to discuss any safety concerns or sensitive 

issues privately with another employee.

AP-2: Placement of residents in housing, bed, program, 

education, and work assignments 

Employees use all information obtained about the resident at intake 

and subsequently to make placement decisions for each resident 

on an individualized basis with the goal of keeping all residents 

safe and free from sexual abuse. When determining housing, bed, 

program, education and work assignments for residents, employees must take into account a resident’s age; the nature of his or her 

offense; any mental or physical disability or mental illness; any 

history of sexual victimization or engaging in sexual abuse; his or 

her level of emotional and cognitive development; his or her identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender; and any other 

information obtained about the resident (AP-1). Residents may be 

isolated from others only as a last resort when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them and other residents safe, and 

then only until an alternative means of keeping all residents safe 

can be arranged. 

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

RE-1: Resident reporting

The facility provides multiple internal ways for residents to report 

easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other 

residents or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or 

violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for 

residents to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office 

not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports 

and forward them to the facility head (RP-3). Staff accepts reports 

made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties 

and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports. 

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, a resident has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — J U V E N I L E F A C I L I T I E S 227

the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of 

abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the resident, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official 

or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was 

made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers 

the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that 

has passed between the abuse and the report. A resident seeking 

immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed 

to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after 

notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Resident access to outside support services and legal 

representation 

In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the 

facility provides residents with access to outside victim advocates 

for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving residents the current mailing 

addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis 

organizations and enabling reasonable communication between 

residents and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs residents, 

prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged. The facility 

also provides residents with unimpeded access to their attorney or 

other legal representation and their families.

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of 

sexual abuse and refers all third-party reports of abuse to the designated State or local services agency with the authority to conduct 

investigations into allegations of sexual abuse involving child victims (IN-1 and RP-4). At the conclusion of the investigation, the 

facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported 

the abuse and the resident named in the third-party report of the 

outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes information 

on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a resident to residents’ 

parents or legal guardians, attorneys, and the public.

Official Response Following a Resident Report (OR)

OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy and relevant State or local mandatory child 

abuse reporting laws any knowledge, suspicion, or information 

they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in 

an institutional setting; retaliation against residents or staff who 

reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or 

retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials and designated State or local services agencies, staff must 

not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency 

policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and 

management decisions. Medical and mental health practitioners 

are required to report sexual abuse to designated supervisors and 

officials as well as the designated State or local services agency 

and must inform residents of their duty to report at the initiation of 

services. Upon receiving any allegation of sexual abuse, the facility 

head must immediately report the allegation to the agency head, 

the juvenile court that handled the victim’s case or the victim’s 

judge of record, and the victim’s parents or legal guardians, unless 

the facility has official documentation showing the parents or legal 

guardians should not be notified. If the victim is involved in the 

child welfare system, the facility head reports to the victim’s caseworker instead of the victim’s parents or legal guardians. 

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the facility receives an allegation that a resident was sexually 

abused while confined at another facility, the head of the facility 

where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the facility where 

the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a resident was sexually abused within a time 

period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the 

first direct care staff member to respond to the report is required 

to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve 

any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any 

actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, 

brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, 

defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder 

is a non–direct care staff member, he or she is required to instruct 

the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify direct care staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response 

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are 

coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental 

health practitioners, investigators, victim advocates, and facility 

leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to 

obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable. 

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all residents and staff who report sexual abuse 

or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by 

other residents or staff. The agency employs multiple protection 

measures, including housing changes or transfers for resident victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or resident abusers from 

contact with victims, and emotional support services for residents 

or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or 

treatment of residents or staff who have reported sexual abuse or 

cooperated with investigations, including any resident disciplinary 

reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may 

suggest possible retaliation by residents or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate resident or staff member 

as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, 

when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the resident 

or staff member.

Investigations (IN) 

IN-1: Duty to investigate 

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and 

or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and 

any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of 

the allegation. If additional parties were notified of the allegation 

(OR-1), the facility notifies those parties in writing of investigation outcomes. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at 

the facility and regardless of whether the source of the allegation 

recants his or her allegation. 
228 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations 

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, 

thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have 

received special training in sexual abuse investigations involving 

young victims (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual 

abuse, the facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation 

and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-4). Investigations 

include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the time frames 

established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report. 

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview 

alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and 

review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving 

the suspected perpetrator; and potentially corroborating physical or other evidence. 

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal 

prosecution. 

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence 

gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an 

individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as 

resident or staff. 

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur. 

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports 

that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that 

contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and 

documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits. 

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal 

are referred for prosecution. 

IN-3: Evidence Standard for Administrative Investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The 

presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have 

engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. 

This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations 

for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to 

law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies. 

DI-2: Interventions for residents who engage in sexual abuse

Residents receive appropriate interventions if they engage in resident-on-resident sexual abuse. Decisions regarding which types of 

interventions to use in particular cases, including treatment, counseling, educational programs, or disciplinary sanctions, are made 

with the goal of promoting improved behavior by the resident and 

ensuring the safety of other residents and staff. When imposing 

disciplinary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to other interventions, the facility informs residents of their rights and responsibilities during the disciplinary process, including how to appeal 

sanctions, and only imposes sanctions commensurate with the 

type of violation committed and the resident’s disciplinary history. 

Intervention decisions must take into account the social, sexual, 

emotional, and cognitive development of the resident and the resident’s mental health status. 

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

MM-1: Medical and mental health intake screenings

During medical and mental health reception and intake screenings, qualified medical or mental health practitioners talk with 

residents to ascertain information regarding the resident’s sexual 

orientation, gender identity, prior sexual victimization or history of 

engaging in sexual abuse (whether it occurred in an institutional 

setting or in the community), mental health status, and mental 

or physical disabilities. Such conversations are conducted in the 

manner that the medical or mental health practitioner deems 

appropriate for each resident in light of the resident’s age and 

developmental status according to the practitioner’s professional 

judgment and use inclusive language that avoids implicit assumptions about a young person’s sexual orientation. The information 

obtained during these screenings is strictly limited to medical and 

mental health practitioners, with information provided to appropriate staff on a need to know basis to the extent needed to inform 

all housing, bed, program, education, and work assignments for 

the resident (AP-2). If a resident discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness during a medical or mental health reception or 

intake screening, the practitioner reports the abuse according to 

agency policy and relevant State or local mandatory child abuse 

reporting laws (OR-1) and provides the appropriate treatment or 

referral for treatment, based on his or her professional judgment. 

MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health 

services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature 

and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health 

practitioners according to their professional judgment. Treatment 

services must be provided free of charge to the victim and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical 

or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report of 

recent abuse is made, direct care staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify the 

appropriate medical and mental health practitioners. 

MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual 

abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The 

evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include 

appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from 

custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to 

resident victims must match the community level of care generally 

accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known 

abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified 

mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews 

The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents 

to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with 

input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S 229

health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of 

sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related 

to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to 

better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. 

The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated 

by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents 

are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, 

upper management officials immediately notify the agency head 

and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The 

sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every 

sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined 

to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the 

facility head. 

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported 

incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set 

of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual 

abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected 

includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions 

from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. 

See Appendix C for a list of recommended data elements. Data are 

obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation 

files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains 

incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which 

it contracts for the confinement of its residents. 

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, 

including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and 

improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, 

and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, 

the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics 

or other group dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, 

takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, 

prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each 

facility as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also 

includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective 

actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment 

of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s 

report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public 

through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other 

means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports 

when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the 

safety and security of a facility, but it must indicate the nature of 

the material redacted. 

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes 

all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct 

control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the 

public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have 

one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse 

data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers 

from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 

10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, 

or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less 

than 10 years. 

Audits (AU) 

AU-1: Audits of standards 

The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA 

standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years 

by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted 

agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and residents, as deemed appropriate by 

the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency 

ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or 

contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published 

on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise 

made readily available to the public. 

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring 

of Sexual Abuse in Community Corrections

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward 

all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all 

of its facilities and community supervision functions comply with 

the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA 

coordinator to oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA 

standards. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-2: Contracting to house or supervise defendants/offenders 

under community corrections authority 

If public community corrections agencies contract for housing or 

supervision of their defendants/offenders, they do so only with 

private agencies or other entities, including nonprofit or other 

government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse, 

as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA 

standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the 

entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards 

and specify that the public agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance. Only in emergency circumstances, in which all 
230 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

reasonable attempts to find a private agency or other entity in compliance with the PREA standards have failed, should a contract be 

entered into with an entity that fails to comply with these standards. The public agency must document these efforts.

 

 

Community Corrections Facilities

PP-3: Defendant/offender supervision

Facility staff provides the defendant/offender supervision necessary to protect defendants/offenders from sexual abuse. The facility administrators and supervisors responsible for reviewing critical 

incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse 

has occurred or may be likely to occur to assess whether physical 

barriers may allow the abuse to go undetected, the adequacy of 

staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need 

for monitoring technology to supplement facility staff supervision. 

When problems or needs are identified, facility administrators and 

supervisors take corrective action (DC-3). 

Community Corrections Facilities

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits cross-gender 

strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing defendants/offenders of 

the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions 

and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical 

practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to 

determine their genital status only in private settings and only when 

an individual’s genital status is unknown. 

 

 

 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-5: Accommodating defendants/offenders with special needs 

The agency or facility ensures that defendants/offenders who are 

limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report 

sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or 

through nondefendant/offender interpreters. Accommodations are 

made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, 

including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to defendants/offenders who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency or facility does not hire or promote anyone who has 

engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has 

engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, 

the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and 

local law, the agency or facility makes its best effort to contact all 

prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse and must run criminal background checks 

for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion 

and examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity 

at work or in the community, including convictions or adjudications for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. The agency 

or facility also asks all applicants and employees directly about 

previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

Response Planning (RP) 

 Community Corrections Facilities

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency or facility follows a uniform evidence protocol that 

maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for 

administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic 

Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, 

or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed 

after 2004. As part of the agency’s or facility’s evidence collection protocol, the agency or facility refers all victims of defendant/

offender-on-defendant/offender sexually abusive penetration or 

staff-on-defendant/offender sexually abusive penetration to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the 

victim. The agency or facility makes available or provides referrals 

to a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic 

medical exam process.

 Community Corrections Facilities

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community 

service providers 

The agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into written 

memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with 

an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward defendant/offender reports of sexual abuse to agency 

or facility heads (RE-1). The agency also maintains or attempts 

to enter into MOUs or other agreements with community service 

providers that are able to: (1) provide defendants/offenders with 

confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse 

and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from a 

community corrections facility into the community. The agency or 

facility maintains copies of written agreements or documentation 

showing attempts to enter into agreements.

 Community Corrections Facilities

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies 

If an agency or facility does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside 

agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of 

staff or defendants/offenders, the agency or facility maintains 

or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement 

agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency 

or facility confines defendants/offenders under the age of 18 or 

applicable age of majority within that jurisdiction, or other defendants/offenders who fall under State and local vulnerable persons 

statutes, the agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into 

an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with 

the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to 

the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within community corrections facilities. When the agency or facility already has an existing 

agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all 

criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, it 

does not need to enter into a new agreement. The agency or facility maintains a copy of the written agreement or documentation 

showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority 

The agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into a written 

MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency or facility maintains a copy of the written agreement or documentation showing 

attempts to enter into an agreement.
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S 231

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

 

 

 

 

 

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-1: Employee training 

The agency or facility trains all employees to be able to fulfill their 

responsibilities under agency or facility sexual abuse prevention, 

detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency 

or facility trains all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all defendants/offenders. Additionally, the agency 

or facility trains all employees on a defendant/offender’s right to 

be free from sexual abuse, the right of defendants/offenders and 

employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, 

the dynamics of sexual abuse, and the common reactions of sexual 

abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible 

following the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, 

and the agency or facility provides periodic refresher information 

to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s or facility’s 

most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency 

or facility maintains written documentation showing employee 

signatures verifying that employees understand the training they 

have received. 

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency or facility ensures that all volunteers and contractors 

who have contact through the agency or facility with defendants/

offenders have been trained on their responsibilities under the 

agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies 

and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, 

and local law. The level and type of training provided to volunteers 

and contractors is based on the services they provide and level 

of contact they have with defendants/offenders, but all volunteers 

and contractors who have contact with defendants/offenders must 

be notified of the agency’s or facility’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report 

sexual abuse. The agency or facility maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that 

they understand the training they have received.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-3: Defendant/offender education 

During the intake process into a facility or upon initial stages of 

supervision, staff informs defendants/offenders of the agency’s or 

facility’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to 

report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief period of time, the agency or facility provides comprehensive education to defendants/offenders regarding their right 

to be free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for 

reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency or facility sexual abuse 

response policies and procedures. Current defendants/offenders 

are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency or facility 

provides periodic refresher information to all defendants/offenders 

to ensure that they know the agency’s or facility’s most current 

sexual abuse policies and procedures. Periodic refresher training 

may or may not be necessary in community corrections facilities 

given the shorter time period defendants/offenders may reside in 

these facilities. The agency or facility provides defendant/offender 

education in formats accessible to all defendants/offenders, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as defendants/offenders who have limited reading 

skills. All information provided to defendants/offenders is communicated in a manner that is appropriate for the defendant/offender’s age and level of cognitive and emotional development. The 

agency or facility maintains written documentation of defendant/

offender participation in these education sessions. 

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1), 

the agency or facility ensures that investigators employed by the 

agency or facility and conducting sexual abuse investigations have 

received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting 

such investigations in community corrections settings. Specialized training must include population-appropriate techniques for 

interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and 

Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in community corrections settings, and the criteria and evidence required 

to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution 

referral. The agency or facility maintains written documentation 

that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency or facility ensures that all medical and mental health 

care practitioners employed or contracted with by the community corrections or pretrial, probation, or parole agency have been 

trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and how 

to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All medical and 

mental health care practitioners must be trained in how to respond 

effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse and how 

and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. 

The agency or facility maintains documentation that medical and 

mental health practitioners have received this specialized training. 

Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)

 Community Corrections Facilities

SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness 

All defendants/offenders are screened during intake to assess 

their risk of being sexually abused by other defendants/offenders 

or sexually abusive toward other defendants/offenders. Employees 

must review information received with the defendant/offender as 

well as discussions with the defendant/offender. Employees must 

conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although 

additional factors may be considered, particularly to account for 

emerging research and the agency’s or facility’s own data analysis, 

screening instruments must contain the criteria described below. 

For defendants/offenders under the age of 18 or applicable age of 

majority within that jurisdiction, screening must be conducted 

by medical or mental health practitioners. If the facility does not 

have medical or mental health practitioners available, these young 

defendants/offenders are given an opportunity to participate in 

screenings in private. All screening instruments must be made 

available to the public upon request. 

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

male defendants/offenders for risk of victimization: mental or 

physical disability, young age, slight build, nonviolent history, 
232 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender nonconformance (e.g., 

transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and 

the defendant/offender’s own perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

male defendants/offenders for risk of being sexually abusive: 

prior acts of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent 

offenses.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

female defendants/offenders for risk of sexual victimization: 

prior sexual victimization and the defendant/offender’s own 

perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen 

female defendants/offenders for risk of being sexually abusive: 

prior acts of sexual abuse.

 Community Corrections Facilities

SC-2: Use of screening information 

Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to 

inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments. 

In many community corrections facilities, it is difficult, if not 

impossible, to keep defendants/offenders totally separate or segregated from each other. However, the facility can determine, based 

on the screening information, whether a particular defendant/

offender should receive greater supervision, should have more frequent contact with staff, or is more appropriately housed in some 

alternative type of placement. The facility makes individualized 

determinations about how to ensure the safety of each defendant/

offender. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gendernonconforming defendants/offenders are not placed in particular 

housing assignments solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, 

genital status, or gender identity. 

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE 

Reporting (RE)

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

RE-1: Defendant/offender reporting

The agency or facility provides multiple internal ways for defendants/offenders to report easily, privately, and securely sexual 

abuse, retaliation by other defendants/offenders or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities 

that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The 

agency or facility also provides at least one way for defendants/

offenders to report the abuse to an outside pubic entity or office not 

affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and 

forward them to the agency or facility head (RP-2), except when a 

defendant/offender requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports 

made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties 

and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports. 

 Community Corrections Facilities

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency or facility policy, a defendant/offender has exhausted 

his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual 

abuse either (1) when the agency or facility makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the 

report was made by the defendant/offender, made by a third party, 

or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days 

have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. 

A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period 

regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse 

and the report. A defendant/offender seeking immediate protection 

from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his 

or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency 

or facility staff member of his or her need for protection.

 Community Corrections Facilities

RE-3: Defendant/offender access to outside confidential 

support services 

The facility provides defendants/offenders with access to outside 

victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual 

abuse. The facility provides such access by giving defendants/

offenders the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or 

national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enabling 

reasonable communication between defendants/offenders and 

these organizations. The facility ensures that communications 

with such advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to 

the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility 

informs defendants/offenders, prior to giving them access, of the 

extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, 

and/or privileged.

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The agency or facility receives and investigates all third-party 

reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency or facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the defendant/offender named 

in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The 

agency or facility distributes publicly information on how to report 

sexual abuse on behalf of a defendant/offender.

Official Response Following a Defendant/Offender Report (OR)

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-1: Staff and agency or facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency or facility policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that 

occurred in a facility setting or while under supervision; retaliation against defendants/offenders or staff who reported abuse; 

and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have 

contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart 

from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not 

reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone 

other than those who need to know, as specified in agency or facility policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and 

management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, 

State, or local law, staff medical and mental health practitioners 

are required to report sexual abuse and must inform defendants/

offenders of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the 

victim is under the age of 18 or applicable age of majority within 

that jurisdiction, or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or 

local vulnerable persons statute, staff must report the allegation 

to the designated State or local services agency under applicable 

mandatory reporting laws. 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S 233

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-2: Reporting to other agencies or facilities

When the agency or facility receives an allegation that a defendant/offender was sexually abused while in a community corrections facility or while under supervision, the head of the agency or 

facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head of 

the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head 

of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures 

the allegation is investigated.

 Community Corrections Facilities 

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a defendant/offender has alleged sexual abuse 

within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical 

evidence, the first facility staff member to respond to the report 

is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal 

and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not 

to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including 

washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, 

urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-4: Coordinated response 

All actions taken in response to an allegation of sexual abuse are 

coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental 

health practitioners, investigators, and agency or facility leadership. The agency’s or facility’s coordinated response ensures that 

victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, 

mental health, and support services and that investigators are able 

to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-5: Agency or facility protection against retaliation 

The agency or facility protects all defendants/offenders and staff 

who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other defendants/offenders or staff. The 

agency or facility employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for defendant/offender victims 

or abusers, removal of alleged staff or defendant/offender abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services 

for defendants/offenders or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency 

or facility monitors the conduct and/or treatment of defendants/

offenders or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated 

with investigations, including any defendant/offender disciplinary reports, housing changes, or program changes, for at least 90 

days following their report or cooperation to assess changes that 

may suggest possible retaliation by defendants/offenders or staff. 

The agency or facility discusses any changes with the appropriate 

defendant/offender or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the defendant/offender or staff member. 

Investigations (IN) 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-1: Duty to investigate 

The agency or facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, 

including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims 

and/or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes 

and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the 

source of the allegation. All investigations are carried through 

to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim 

remains at the facility or under supervision. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency or facility 

investigations 

Agency or facility investigations into allegations of sexual abuse 

are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators 

who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the 

agency or facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation 

and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations 

include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes established by the highest- ranking official, and the 

highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report. 

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview 

alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and 

review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving 

the suspected perpetrator. 

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal 

prosecution. 

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence 

gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an 

individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as 

defendant/offender or staff. 

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur. 

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports 

that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments. 

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that 

contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and 

documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits. 

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appear to be criminal 

are referred for prosecution. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence or a lesser standard if allowed under 

agency or facility policy or State law. 

Discipline (DI)

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency or facility sexual abuse 

policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members 

who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is 

termination. This presumption does not limit agency or facility 

discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency or facility sexual 

abuse policies are to be reported to law enforcement agencies and 

any relevant licensing bodies. 
234 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for defendants/offenders

Defendants/offenders are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that the defendant/offender engaged in defendant/

offender-on-defendant/offender sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for defendant/offender-on-defendant/offender 

sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and 

circumstances of the abuse committed, the defendant/offender’s 

disciplinary history, and the sanctions meted out for comparable 

offenses by other defendants/offenders with similar histories. The 

disciplinary process must consider whether a defendant/offender’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his or her 

behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, should 

be imposed. Possible sanctions can include discipline within the 

community corrections facility, new criminal charges, or referral 

to authorities who may change conditions of a defendant/offender’s release status in the community. Sanctions may also include 

interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation for the abuse, such as requiring the offending 

defendant/offender to participate in therapy, counseling, or other 

programs. Sanctions and/or interventions for young defendants/

offenders must also take into account the social, sexual, emotional, 

and cognitive development of the defendant/offender.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

 Community Corrections Facilities 

MM-1: Access to emergency medical and mental health 

services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the 

nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. 

Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim 

and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If the community corrections facility does not have medical or mental health 

practitioners or they are not on duty at the time a report of recent 

abuse is made, staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify appropriate staff or 

community medical and mental health practitioners. 

 Community Corrections Facilities 

MM-2: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual 

abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The 

evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include 

appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from a community corrections facility. The level of medical and mental health 

care provided to defendant/offender victims must match the community level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental 

health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental 

health evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as 

deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews 

The agency or facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical 

incidents to be examined by a team of upper management officials, 

with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of 

sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related 

to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to 

better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. 

The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated 

by racial or other group dynamics. When incidents are determined 

to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency or facility head 

and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The 

sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every 

sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined 

to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the 

agency or facility head. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-2: Data collection 

The agency or facility collects accurate, uniform data for every 

reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incidentbased sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data 

collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer 

all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on 

Sexual Violence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. 

The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from 

every community corrections facility with which it contracts. 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, 

including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and 

improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, 

and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, 

the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action 

on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of 

its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the 

agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison 

of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from 

prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in 

addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the 

agency head, submitted to the appropriate governing body, and 

made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it 

does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact 

specific material from the reports when publication would present 

a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, 

but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted. 
A P P E N D I X B : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S — C O M M U N I T Y C O R R E C T I O N S 235

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes 

all aggregated sexual abuse data, including from facilities under 

its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it 

does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all 

personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual 

abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection 

unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official 

information in less than 10 years. 

Audits (AU) 

 Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

AU-1: Audits of standards 

The public agency ensures that all community corrections facilities, including contract facilities and pretrial, probation, and parole 

agencies are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency 

allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, 

and interview staff and defendants/offenders, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public 

agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the 

public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are 

published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are 

otherwise made readily available to the public.

A P P E N D I X C : R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S 237

Appendix C 

Recommendations

Recommendations to the Attorney General

I. The Commission recommends that the Attorney General, 

in his capacity as agency head, establish a Prison Rape 

Elimination Act (PREA) Advisory Committee pursuant to 

the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the 

Attorney General with the promulgation of the PREA standards and thereafter assess their implementation and propose amendments as needed to increase their efficacy. 

To provide such assistance, the Advisory Committee will:

• Gather the views and concerns of PREA stakeholders, 

including State and Federal departments of corrections, 

professional organizations, prisoner advocates, former 

and current prisoners, and other organizations and individuals with expertise and experience regarding prison 

rape and policies and practices to eliminate it.

• Review statistical studies, academic and other analyses, 

prisoner litigation addressing prison rape, and prison 

rape criminal prosecutions.

• Consult with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Corrections, and the National Institute of Justice.

• Review and analyze the results of the audits undertaken 

to comply with the PREA standards.

The Advisory Committee should be created as soon as the 

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission provides 

the Attorney General with its proposed standards and 

report and its legislative mandate expires.

II. The Commission recommends that the Attorney General 

create a full-time Special Assistant for PREA within the 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant will have primary responsibility within the U.S. 

Department of Justice to ensure the effective implementation of PREA standards and the elimination of prison rape. 

The Special Assistant will:

• Monitor and help coordinate the PREA-related work of 

other offices and divisions within the Department and 

coordinate with other executive branch agencies as 

appropriate.

• Ensure the preparation of an annual review of progress 

implementing PREA, including steps taken by correctional agencies and statistical trends in prison rape. 

• Work with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys to help coordinate PREA-related activities and the 

sharing of information among districts with Federal 

prison facilities or immigration detention centers within 

their jurisdictional boundaries. 

• Serve as liaison with the PREA Advisory Committee and 

function as the Designated Federal Official for FACA.

Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Justice

I. The Commission recommends that the Department of 

Justice sponsor the development of a corollary to the 2004 

“National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic 

Examinations, Adults/Adolescents.” Given the prevalence 

of sexual abuse in correctional facilities and the need to 

improve evidence collection, the national protocol should 

be customized to the conditions of confinement.

II. The Commission recommends that the Department of 

Justice remove the barrier to Victims of Crime Act funding for treatment and rehabilitative services to incarcerated victims of sexual abuse.

III. The Commission recommends that the Department of 

Justice continue to ensure that knowledge of issues and 

practices surrounding the elimination of sexual abuse in 

confinement be disseminated and increased through the 

following initiatives:

A. The National Institute of Corrections should design and 

develop a national training program to prequalify auditors who will monitor facility compliance with the PREA 

standards. Qualification for service is required before 

auditors can be certified by the Department of Justice.
238 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

B. The National Institute of Corrections should continue to 

conduct training and educational programs and to offer 

technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local 

authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, 

and punishment of prison rape. Provision of services 

must be equitably distributed among county jails, lockups, and juvenile and community corrections facilities 

in addition to Federal and State prisons.

C. The National Institute of Corrections should provide 

technical assistance to facilities interested in planning 

technological advancements in support of their capacity for supervision.

D. The Bureau of Justice Statistics should continue to conduct an annual comprehensive statistical review and 

analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.

E. The Bureau of Justice Assistance should continue to 

provide grants to diverse correctional settings for the 

development of innovative practices and programs 

addressing sexual abuse.

F. The National Institute of Justice should continue to fund 

research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

Recommendations to Congress

I. The Commission recommends that Congress amend 

the administrative exhaustion provision and physical 

injury requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act 

to remove unreasonable barriers to courts for victims of 

sexual abuse.

II. The Commission recommends that Congress amend the 

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of 

2005 to include incarcerated victims of sexual abuse as a 

class served under VAWA notwithstanding the nature of 

their criminal convictions.

III. The Commission recommends that Congress ensure that 

funds are made available for the following initiatives to 

further the understanding of issues and practices surrounding the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement:

A. Funds should be made available to the National Institute 

of Corrections to design and develop a national training 

program for auditors who monitor facility compliance 

with the PREA standards. The institute will ensure that 

PREA auditors are prequalified for service before certification by the Department of Justice.

B. Funds should be made available to the National Institute of Corrections to allow it to continue to conduct 

training and educational programs and to offer technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and 

punishment of prison rape. Provision of services must 

be equitably distributed among county jails; lockups; 

and juvenile, community corrections, and tribal facilities in addition to Federal and State prisons.

C. Funds should be made available to the National Institute 

of Corrections to provide technical assistance to facilities interested in planning for technological advancements in support of their capacity for supervision.

D. Funds should be made available to the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics to continue conducting an annual comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence 

and effects of prison rape.

E. Funds should be made available to the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance to provide grants to diverse correctional settings for the development of innovative practices and 

programs. 

F. Funds should be made available to the National Institute 

of Justice to sponsor research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

G. Funds should be made available to appropriate entities to research the extent to which inmate consensual 

or nonconsensual sexual activity increases the rate of 

transmitting HIV/AIDS (and other sexually transmitted 

infections) to communities and how to prevent it.
A P P E N D I X D : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S D E V E L O P M E N T E X P E R T C O M M I T T E E M E M B E R S 239

Appendix D 

NPREC Standards Development 

Expert Committee Members

During the standards development process, the Commission 

convened expert committees comprised of diverse stakeholders with broad correctional expertise to provide information 

and guidance. The Commission thanks the members of the 

expert committees for their participation and contribution.

Organizational affiliations are provided for identification purposes only; committee members were not necessarily acting 

as representatives of their organizations. This list reflects each 

committee member’s organizational affiliation at the time of 

participation and may not represent the person’s current position. The Commission’s standards do not reflect the official 

views of any of the organizations referenced here.

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation and 

Parole Association

Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector, Rhode Island Department 

of Corrections

James Austin, President, JFA Institute

Roy F. Austin, Jr., Partner, McDermott Will & Emery

Chris Baker, Lieutenant, Corrections Supervisor/Jail 

Administrator, Van Buren County Sheriff’s Office, Michigan

David Balagia, Major, Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Texas

Joe Baumann, Corrections Officer, California Rehabilitation 

Center Chapter President, California Correctional Peace 

Officers Association

Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections

Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department 

of Correction

Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Andrea Black, Coordinator, Detention Watch Network

Charma Blount, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice

Tim Brennan, Principal, Northpointe Institute for Public 

Management, Inc.

Lorie Brisbin, Program Coordinator, Prisons Division, 

Idaho Department of Correction

Barbara Broderick, Director, Maricopa County Adult 

Probation Department, Arizona

Roger Canaff, Deputy Chief, Sex Offender Management Unit, 

Office of the Attorney General, New York

Susan Paige Chasson, President, International Association 

of Forensic Nurses

Gwendolyn Chunn, Immediate Past President, American 

Correctional Association

Suanne Cunningham, National Director, Corrections/

Criminal Justice Program, Heery International

Karen Dalton, Director, Correctional Services Division, 

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Kim Day, SAFE Technical Assistance Coordinator, 

International Association of Forensic Nurses

Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Special Prosecution Unit, 

Texas Youth Commission

Kathleen Dennehy, Superintendent, Security Operations, 

Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, Massachusetts

Gary Dennis, Senior Associate, The Moss Group, Inc.

Ruth Divelbiss, Captain, Ford County Sheriff’s Office, Kansas

Mark Donatelli, Partner, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, 

Dahlstrom, Schoenburg, and Bienvenu LLP

Sarah Draper, Director of Investigations, Office of 

Investigation and Compliance, Internal Investigation Unit, 

Georgia Department of Corrections

Dr. Richard Dudley, Private Practice of Clinical and 

Forensic Psychiatry

Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental 

Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human 

Services, PLLC

Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership 

for Juvenile Services

Maureen Dunn, Director, Unaccompanied Children’s 

Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration 

for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services

Teena Farmon, Retired Warden, Central California 

Women’s Facility
240 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Lisa Freeman, Staff Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Project, 

Legal Aid Society, New York City

Vanessa Garza, Associate Director for Trafficking Policy, 

Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Michael Gennaco, Chief Attorney, Office of Independent 

Review, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Karen Giannakoulias, Forensic Interviewer/Victim Advocate, 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, D.C.

Steve Gibson, Administrator, Youth Services Division, 

Montana Department of Corrections

Simon Gonsoulin, Former Director, Louisiana Office 

of Youth Development

Kathleen Graves, Director, Community Corrections Services, 

Kansas Department of Corrections

Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional 

Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction and 

Rehabilitation, Maryland

Dr. Robert Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and Quality 

Management Consultant

David Guntharp, Director, Arkansas Department of 

Community Correction

Karyn Hadfield, Training Specialist, Day One: The Sexual 

Assault and Trauma Resource Center

Dee Halley, PREA Program Manager, National Institute 

of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department 

of Justice

Greg Hamilton, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas

Patrick M. Hanlon, Partner, Goodwin Proctor LLP

Patricia Hardyman, Senior Associate, Association of State 

Correctional Administrators

Rachel Harmon, Associate Professor of Law, University 

of Virginia School of Law

Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, City and County of 

San Francisco, California

Andrew Jordan, Consultant, Migima, LLC; Retired Chief 

of Police, Bend Police Department, Oregon

Thomas Kane, Assistant Director, Information, Policy and 

Public Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. 

Department of Justice

Cliff Keenan, Assistant Director, District of Columbia 

Pretrial Services Agency

Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation and 

Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections

Deborah LaBelle, Attorney

Madie LaMarre, Consultant

Neal Langan, Senior Research Analyst, Office of Research 

and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department 

of Justice

Dori Lewis, Senior Supervising Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights 

Project, Legal Aid Society, New York City

Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant 

Advocacy Center, Inc.

Jennifer Long, Director, National Center for the Prosecution 

of Violence Against Women

Christy Lopez, Partner, Independent Assessment and 

Monitoring, LLP

Margaret Love, Attorney; Consulting Director, American Bar 

Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions

Bobbi Luna, Captain, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, 

Oregon

Martha Lyman, Director of Research, Hampden County 

Correctional Center, Massachusetts

Bob Maccarone, Director, New York State Division of 

Probation and Correctional Alternatives

Cindy Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator, 

Rocky Mountain Corrections

Michael Marette, Assistant Director of Corrections, American 

Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

Jenifer Markowitz, Forensic Nurse Consultant, DOVE 

Program, Summa Health System

Steve Martin, Attorney/Corrections Consultant 

Susan McCampbell, President, Center for Innovative Public 

Policies, Inc., McCampbell & Associates, Inc.

Ron McCuan, Captain, U.S. Public Health Service; Public 

Health Analyst, National Institute of Corrections, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Linda McFarlane, Mental Health Program Director, 

Just Detention International

Jeff McInnis, PREA Coordinator, District of Columbia 

Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

John Milian, Detention and Deportation Officer, 

Criminal Alien Program, Office of Detention and Removal, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department 

of Homeland Security

Phyllis Modley, Correctional Program Specialist, Community 

Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections, 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Jean Moltz, Correctional Health Care Consultant

James Montross, Director of Mental Health Monitoring, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Marcia Morgan, Consultant, Migima, LLC

John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice

Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc. 

Gail D. Mumford, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, 

Annie E. Casey Foundation
A P P E N D I X D : N P R E C S TA N D A R D S D E V E L O P M E N T E X P E R T C O M M I T T E E M E M B E R S 241

Melissa Nolan, Executive Assistant, Policy and Public 

Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department 

of Justice

Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services 

Team, Holland & Knight LLP

Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State 

University, Fresno

David Parrish, Colonel, Commander, Department of Detention 

Services, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Florida

T.J. Parsell, Human Rights Activist, Author of Fish: A Memoir 

of a Boy in a Man’s Prison

Dr. Farah M. Parvez, Director, Office of Correctional Public 

Health, New York City Department of Health and Mental 

Hygiene; National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, 

and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Susan Poole, Criminal Justice Consultant; Retired Warden, 

California Institution for Women

Roberto Hugh Potter, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention

Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole, Louisiana 

Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Judy Preston, Deputy Chief, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice

J. Michael Quinlan, Senior Vice President, Corrections 

Corporation of America

Jeffrey Renzi, Associate Director, Planning and Research, 

Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Denise Robinson, President and CEO, Alvis House; 

Past-President, International Community Corrections 

Association

Melissa Rothstein, East Coast Program Director, 

Just Detention International

David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile 

Services, Center for Research and Professional Development, 

National Juvenile Detention Association

Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Corrections 

and Rehabilitation Department

Teresa Scalzo, Senior Policy Advisor, Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense

Vincent Schiraldi, Director, District of Columbia Department 

of Youth Rehabilitation Services

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law, Washington University 

in St. Louis School of Law

Karen Schneider, Legal Consultant

Dana Shoenberg, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Children’s 

Law and Policy

Linda Smith, Research Consultant

Donald Specter, Director, Prison Law Office

Mai-Linh Spencer, Deputy State Public Defender, Office 

of the State Public Defender, California

Richard Stalder, Former Secretary, Louisiana Department 

of Public Safety and Corrections

Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director, Just Detention 

International

Lara Stemple, Former Director, Just Detention International; 

Director, Graduate Studies, University of California, 

Los Angeles, School of Law

Tom Stickrath, Director, Ohio Department of Youth Services

Victor Stone, Special Counsel, Office of Enforcement 

Operations, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Robert Sudlow, Chief Probation Officer, Ulster County 

Probation Department, New York

Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse 

for Science, Technology, and the Law, Stetson University 

College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd.

Robin Toone, Attorney, Foley Hoag LLP

Cynthia Totten, Program Director, Just Detention 

International

Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department 

of Corrections

Kelly Ward, Former Warden, David Wade Correctional 

Center, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and 

Corrections

Richard White, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, 

City of New York Department of Correction

Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist

Reginald Wilkinson, Executive Director, Ohio Business 

Alliance for Higher Education and the Economy; Former 

Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project, 

American Civil Liberties Union

Jason Ziedenberg, Consultant; Former Director, Justice 

Policy Institute

A P P E N D I X E : S TA N D A R D S I M P L E M E N TAT I O N N E E D S A S S E S S M E N T 243

Appendix E 

Standards Implementation 

Needs Assessment

During the public comment period, the Commission conducted 

a Standards Implementation Needs Assessment (SINA). The 

Commission created the SINA process to provide feedback on the 

draft standards through a series of “case studies” at particular 

facilities. More than 40 facilities from around the country 

applied to participate in the SINA process. The Commission 

selected 11 sites that reflected ranges in capacity, populations, 

and geographic settings and that included jails and prisons; 

facilities for men, women, and juveniles; and community 

corrections facilities. Each site visit took place over one and 

a half days and included a facility tour and five structured 

interviews: one with the Warden or Superintendent, and the 

others with small groups of staff to discuss general issues, 

training, medical/mental health, and investigations. These 

group interviews involved a variety of staff with experience 

relevant to the particular topic. When possible, we also spoke 

with inmates detained in the facilities. 

Pilot Site

Montgomery County Correctional Facility

Montgomery County Department of Correction 

and Rehabilitation

Boyds, MD

April 22–23, 2008

Jails

Suffolk County House of Correction

Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department

Boston, MA

May 22–23, 2008

Washington County Jail

Washington County Sheriff’s Office

Hillsboro, OR

June 5–6, 2008

Juvenile Facilities

Cuyahoga Hills Juvenile Correctional Facility

Ohio Department of Youth Services

Highland Hills, OH

July 9–10, 2008

Lynn W. Ross Juvenile Center

Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department

Tarrant County Juvenile Services

Fort Worth, TX

June 24–25, 2008

Prisons for Men

James Allred Unit

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Iowa Park, TX

June 22–23, 2008

Northern Correctional Facility

West Virginia Division of Corrections

Moundsville, WV

July 7–8, 2008

Prisons for Women

New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility

New Mexico Corrections Department

Grants, NM

June 26–27, 2008

Valley State Prison for Women

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Chowchilla, CA

June 3–4, 2008

Community Corrections Facilities

Southwestern Ohio Serenity (SOS) Hall

Hamilton, OH 

August 1, 2008

Talbert House

Cincinnati, OH

July 30–31, 2008

A P P E N D I X F : N P R E C H E A R I N G W I T N E S S E S 245

Appendix F 

NPREC Hearing Witnesses

This list reflects organizational affiliation at the time of participation and may not represent the person’s current position.

Public Meeting, March 31, 2005

University of Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana

Steven Babbitt, Survivor

Robert Beckman, Prosecuting Attorney, LaPorte County, 

Indiana

David Donahue, Commissioner, Indiana Department 

of Correction

Jeff Schwartz, President, LETRA, Inc.

Nancy Zanning, Administrator, Michigan Department 

of Corrections

The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must 

Confront Prison Rape, June 14, 2005

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC

Linda Bruntmyer, Mother of victim

Tom Cahill, Survivor

Garrett Cunningham, Survivor

Keith DeBlasio, Survivor

Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental 

Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human 

Services, PLLC

Glenn Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Roberto Hugh Potter, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral 

Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention; Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention 

Stanley Richards, Deputy Executive Director, Fortune Society

Marilyn Shirley, Survivor

Lara Stemple, Director, Stop Prisoner Rape

Melissa Turner, Clinical Social Worker, Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center

At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups 

Behind Bars, August 19, 2005

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 

San Francisco, California

Cecilia Chung, Survivor

Christopher Daley, Director, Transgender Law Center

Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, San Francisco County, California

Hope Hernandez, Survivor

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary, California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation

Dr. Terry Kupers, Professor, Graduate School of Psychology, 

The Wright Institute

Deborah LaBelle, Attorney

Bart Lanni, Deputy Sheriff, San Francisco County, California

Representative Barbara Lee, U.S. Representative, California

Robin Levi, Human Rights Director, Justice Now

Scott Long, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender 

Rights Program, Human Rights Watch

Jody Marksamer, Director, Youth Project, National Center for 

Lesbian Rights

Chance Martin, Survivor

Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State 

University, Fresno, California

T.J. Parsell, Survivor

Sen. Gloria Romero, Senator, California; Chair, Senate Select 

Committee on the California Correctional System

Dean Spade, Founder, Sylvia Rivera Law Project

Kendell Spruce, Survivor
246 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections 

Perspective, March 23, 2006

Federal Detention Center, Miami, Florida

Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department 

of Corrections

Kathleen Dennehy, Commissioner, Massachusetts 

Department of Correction

Douglas Dretke, Director, Correctional Institutions Division, 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Margo Frasier, Professor, Sam Houston State University; 

Former Sheriff, Travis County, Texas

Robert Garvey, Sheriff, Hampshire County, Massachusetts; 

Chairman, American Correctional Association Commission 

on Accreditation for Corrections

Glenn Goord, Chairman, Standards Committee, American 

Correctional Association 

Martin F. Horn, Commissioner, City of New York Department 

of Correction

Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Cynthia Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator, 

Rocky Mountain Corrections

Buddy Maupin, Director, Corrections Division, AFSCME 

Council 31

Joseph Oxley, President-Elect, American Jail Association

Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Richard Stalder, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public 

Safety and Corrections; President, Association of State 

Correctional Administrators

Morris L. Thigpen, Director, National Institute of Corrections 

Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction; Chairperson, Advisory Board, 

National Institute of Corrections

Elimination of Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles,

June 1, 2006

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts

Grace Chung Becker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

U.S. Department of Justice

Howard Beyer, President, Council of Juvenile Corrections 

Administrators

Dr. Robert Bidwell, Physician, Hawaii Office of Youth Services

Honorable Jay Blitzman, Judge, Lowell Juvenile Court, 

Lowell, Massachusetts

Carl Brizzi, Prosecuting Attorney, Marion County, Indiana

Gwendolyn Chunn, President, American Correctional 

Association

Leonard Dixon, President, National Juvenile Detention 

Association

Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership 

for Juvenile Services, Center for Research and Professional 

Development

Robert Flores, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice

Diane Gadow, Deputy Director, Arizona Department of 

Juvenile Corrections

Steven Gibson, Director, Montana Department of Corrections, 

Youth Services Division

Pamanicka Hardin, Youth Organizer, Prison Moratorium 

Project

Barry Krisberg, President, National Council on Crime 

and Delinquency

Albert Murray, Commissioner, Georgia Department of 

Juvenile Justice

Cyryna Pasion, Survivor

David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile 

Services, Center for Research and Professional Development

Carl Sanniti, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of 

Juvenile Services

Mark Solar, Executive Director, Center for Children’s Law 

and Policy

Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting 

Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the 

Process Work?, August 3, 2006

Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan

Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector of Internal Affairs, 

Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Lynn Bissonette, Superintendent, Massachusetts 

Correctional Institution at Framingham

Necole Brown, Survivor

Patricia Caruso, Director, Michigan Department 

of Corrections

Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Texas Special 

Prosecution Unit

John Dignam, Chief, Office of Internal Affairs, Federal Bureau 

of Prisons

Leanne Holland, Program Coordinator, Sparrow Forensic 

Nurse Examiner Program

Barbara Litten, District Attorney, Forest County, Pennsylvania

Gregory Miller, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Florida

John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department 

of Corrections
A P P E N D I X F : N P R E C H E A R I N G W I T N E S S E S 247

Dana Ragsdale, Survivor

John Rees, Commissioner, Kentucky Department 

of Corrections

Al Saucier, Lieutenant, Massachusetts Department 

of Corrections

Cynthia Schnedar, Counsel to the Inspector General, 

U.S. Department of Justice

William Sprenkle, Deputy Secretary of Administration, 

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse 

for Science Technology and the Law, Stetson University 

College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd.

Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department 

of Corrections

Timothy Wittman, Trooper, Alternate Criminal Investigation 

Assessment Officer Troop C, Pennsylvania State Police

Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Wayne County, 

Michigan

The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration 

Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations,

December 13–14, 2006

U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, California

Brian Aldes, Business Agent, Corrections and Law 

Enforcement Units, Teamsters Local 320, Minnesota

Joe Baumann, Director, California Rehabilitation Center Unit; 

California Correctional Peace Officers Association

Michael Beranbaum, Director of Representation, Department 

of Corrections Bargaining Unit, Teamsters Local 117, 

Washington

Shiu-Ming Cheer, Program Coordinator, Civil Rights Unit 

of the South Asian Network; Former Managing Attorney, 

Los Angeles Detention Project, Catholic Legal Immigration 

Network, Inc.

Christina DeConcini, Director of Policy, National Immigration 

Forum; Former Director of Public Education and Advocacy, 

Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Sharon Dolovich, Professor, University of California Los 

Angeles School of Law

Joseph A. Gunn, Former Commander, Los Angeles 

Police Department; Former Executive Director, California 

Corrections Independent Review Panel

Katherine Hall-Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Stop 

Prisoner Rape

John Harrison, Special Agent, California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Iliana Holgiun, Executive Director, Diocesan Migrant 

and Refugee Services, Inc.

Asa Hutchinson, Former Undersecretary, Border and 

Transportation Security for the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant 

Advocacy Center, Inc.

Bryan Lonegan, Staff Attorney, Immigration Law Unit, 

Legal Aid Society

Brian Lowry, President, Council of Prison Locals, American 

Federation of Government Employees, American Federation 

of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

Sergio Medina, Field Coordinator, Southern California Office 

of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Minors Program

Wayne Meyers, Staff Representative, American Federation 

of State County and Municipal Employees

Tixoc Muniz, President, Arizona Correctional Peace Officer’s 

Association

Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services 

Team, Holland and Knight LLP

Isaac Ortiz, President, American Federation of Government 

Employees, Local 1010

Tom Plummer, Skadden Fellow, Staff Attorney, Legal Services 

for Children, San Francisco

Donald Rodriguez, Area Commander, Los Angeles County 

Sheriff’s Department

Mayra Soto, Survivor

Rebekah Tosado, Director, Review and Compliance; Office for 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security 

Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist

Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, 

and Conditions in Texas Penal and Youth 

Institutions, March 26–27, 2007

University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas

Charon Asetoyer, Native American Women’s Health 

Education Resource Center

James Austin, President, The JFA Institute

Ralph Bales, Safe Prison Program Manager, Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice

K.W. Berry, Major, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Texas

James Brown, Associate Director, Commission on the 

Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies

Sampson Cowboy, Division Director, Navajo Division of 

Public Safety

Mark Decoteau, Deputy Chief of Training, Indian Police 

Academy, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Jamie Fields, Deputy Chief Risk Management, Detroit 

Police Department
248 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

Genger Galloway, Mother of survivor

George Gotschalk, Chief of Standards and Training, 

Department of Criminal Justice Services, Secretariat of Public 

Safety, Virginia; First Vice-President of the International 

Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards 

and Training

Kevin Gover, Professor, Arizona State University

Lisa Graybill, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union 

of Texas

Isela Gutierrez, Coordinator, Texas Coalition Advocating 

Justice for Juveniles

Katherine Hall-Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Stop 

Prisoner Rape

Erica Hejnar, Survivor 

Claudia Hill, Chief Detention Standards and Compliance 

Division, Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, 

U.S. Department of Justice

Jay Kimbrough, Special Master, Investigating the Texas 

Youth Commission

Elizabeth Layman, Consultant, The Center for Innovative 

Public Policies

Heather Lowry, Senior Inspector, U.S. Marshal Service, 

U.S. Department of Justice

Lisa Luna, Training Specialist, Texas Association Against 

Sexual Assault

Jerry Madden, Chairman, Texas House Committee 

on Corrections

Jon Perez, Indian Health Services, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services

Nathanial Quarterman, Director, Correctional Institutions 

Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Andrea Ritchie, INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence

Guillermo Rivera, Associate Director of Corrections, Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior

Ronald Ruecker, Interim Police Chief, Sherwood Police 

Department, International Association of Chiefs of Police

David Stacks, Deputy Director, Correctional Institutions 

Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project, 

American Civil Liberties Union

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to 

Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, 

Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight, 

December 5–6, 2007

U.S. Federal District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation 

and Parole Association

Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director, National Institute 

of Corrections

Jack Beck, Director, Prison Visiting Project, Correctional 

Association of New York

Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department of 

Correction; President, Association of State Correctional 

Administrators

Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex, 

North Carolina

Antonio Booker, Director, Adult Residential Services, 

Johnson County Department of Corrections

Barbara Broderick, Director, Adult Probation, Maricopa 

County Adult Probation, Arizona

James Carter, Council Member, New Orleans City Council; 

Chair, Criminal Justice Committee

Matthew Cate, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector 

General, California Rehabilitation Oversight Board

James F. DeGroot, Director of Mental Health, Georgia 

Department of Corrections

Michele Deitch, Professor (Adjunct), University of Texas 

at Austin, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs

Douglas Dretke, Executive Director, Correctional 

Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston University

Marty Dufrene, Major; Corrections Department Head, 

Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, Louisiana

Charles C. Foti, Jr., Louisiana Attorney General

Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional 

Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction 

and Rehabilitation

Dr. Robert B. Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and 

Quality Management Consultant

Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff, Louisiana

Will Harrell, Ombudsman, Office of the Independent 

Ombudsman, Texas Youth Commission

Norris Henderson, Soros Justice Fellow and Co-Director, 

Safe Streets/Strong Communities

Carrie Hill, Corrections Law and Criminal Justice Consultant

Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation 

and Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections
A P P E N D I X F : N P R E C H E A R I N G W I T N E S S E S 249

Dr. Lannette Linthicum, Medical Director, Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice

Sandra Matheson, Director of the State Office of Victim/

Witness Assistance, New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office

Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc.

Jennifer Pierce-Weeks, President-Elect, International 

Association of Forensic Nurses

Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole, 

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Correction

Dr. Michael Puisis, Consultant, Former Medical Director 

at the New Mexico Department of Corrections and the 

Cook County Jail

Ben Raimer, Vice President and CEO, Community Health 

Services, University of Texas

Denise Robinson, President, Alvis House; Past President, 

International Community Corrections Association

Dr. Lynn F. Sander, Representative, National Commission 

on Correctional Healthcare; Former Medical Director, 

Denver Sheriff’s Department Medical Program; Immediate 

Past-President, Society of Correctional Physicians

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law and Director, Civil 

Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Washington University 

in St. Louis School of Law

Wendy Still, Associate Director, Female Offender Programs 

and Services, California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation

Gina Womack, Co-Director, Families and Friends 

of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children

A P P E N D I X G : P R E A I N I T I AT I V E S 251

All 50 State correctional departments and a national sample 

of jails, community corrections agencies, and juvenile justice 

facilities were invited to provide information about policies, 

practices, and programs implemented before and since the 

passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. Many 

agencies responded positively to multiple categories. Examples were selected to ensure geographic and facility diversity. 

The Commission has not evaluated these PREA initiatives. 

Interested readers may contact the agencies and facilities to 

learn more.

ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY

AK DOC, 907-269-7405 Zero-tolerance policy

CT DOC, 860-692-7497 Commissioner visits all units and reviews sexual abuse data in 

management meeting

KS DOC, 785-296-4501 PREA coordinators at every facility ensure zero-tolerance strategies; 

Secretary delivers zero-tolerance message on video

OH Department of Rehabilitation

and Correction, 614-728-1152

10 Point Plan is intended to reduce sexual abuse in OH Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction facilities

AZ Maricopa County, 602-506-7244 PREA policies and protocols developed for adult probation 

department

CO Pitkin County Jail, Aspen,

970-429-2057

Zero-tolerance policy

WA King County Department of Adult and 

Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1268

Department zero-tolerance memo from leadership to staff and 

inmates delivered two times annually

IL Safer Foundation, 312-431-8940 Zero-tolerance policy

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

FL Department of Juvenile Justice, 850-921-6292 

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

MA Department of Youth Services, 617-727-7575 

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

Zero-tolerance policy for juvenile justice facilities

PREVENTION PLANNING

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583 Require DOC employees to be on site daily at private facilities to 

ensure PREA compliance

CA Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Partnered with University of California, Irvine, to improve safety of 

transgender individuals

LA DOC, 225-342-1178 PREA coordinator in each prison facility and one for community 

corrections

MD Department of Public Safety & 

Correctional Services, 410-339-5824

Department-level interdisciplinary PREA committee

Appendix G 

PREA Initiatives
252 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

NC DOC, 919-716-3720

TX Department of Criminal Justice,

936-437-8918

Contracts to house inmates in private facilities include language 

regarding PREA

OH Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction, 614-728-1152

Psychological inventory test must be taken by all potential corrections 

officers to assess behaviors and reactions to more than 66 scenarios. 

Probationary periods for employees extended to ensure employment 

suitability.

TN DOC, 615-741-1000 Developing a special needs program for male aggressors

UT DOC, 801-545-5899 Contract with county jails housing State inmates contains PREA 

requirements

WY DOC, 307-777-7208 Monitor contract facilities compliance with WY DOC PREA policies 

and protocols

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266 PREA notice on pre-employment background check waiver

NY Ulster County Community Corrections 

Program, 845-340-3330

Purchase agreement with nonprofit for eight beds for females, 

nonprofit staff trained in PREA and duty to report

SUPERVISION

AR DOC, 870-267-6300

NC DOC, 919-716-3720

Senior staff conduct assessments to identify blind spots at each facility

CO DOC, 719-226-4696 Cameras and considering pilot program with radio frequency 

identification (RFID)

KY DOC, 502-564-7290 Piloting RFID technology

MS DOC, 601-359-5607 500 cameras in 1,000-bed maximum security prison; only investigative 

staff monitor cameras

NY Department of Correctional Services,

518-457-4951

Expanded two camera projects in female facilities

UT DOC, 801-545-5899 Consider gender-specific strategies in all PREA work

WA DOC, 360-725-8650 Acquired 130 bona fide occupational qualification positions for three 

women’s prisons to ensure privacy and limits to cross-gender viewing 

and searches

AZ Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, 520-866-5180 Male and female staff on duty together to minimize cross-gender 

viewing and searches

CA San Francisco Sheriff’s Department,

415-554-7225

Prohibit cross-gender supervision in housing units

NV Washoe County, 775-328-6355 Time Keeper System electronically monitors a “check” of PREA mail 

box

SD Pennington County Sheriff’s Office,

605-355-3648

Recording cameras and belt microphones in vans monitor youth when 

transported; prohibit double cells for juveniles

VA Arlington County Sheriff’s Office,

703-228-4460

All female staff during the second shift for female inmate supervision

VA Southside Regional Jail, Emporia,

434-634-2254

Staff required to contact inmates two times per hour

MO DOC CC, 573-522-1207 Purchasing cameras for two community release centers (St. Louis and 

Kansas City)

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,

850-921-6292

Policy prohibiting volunteers to be alone with youth

WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,

608-240-5060

Additional cameras installed in youth facilities
A P P E N D I X G : P R E A I N I T I AT I V E S 253

EMPLOYEE TRAINING

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583 Curriculum revised periodically; use “pop-quiz” cards to refresh staff

HI Department of Public Safety, 808-567-1287 Conducted National Institute of Corrections (NIC) training on staff 

sexual misconduct

ID DOC, 208-658-2102 Investigator training includes victimization and posttraumatic stress 

disorder (PTSD)

IL DOC, 217-558-2200 Developed training for upper-level administrators, shift commanders, 

and supervisors

IA DOC, 515-725-5714 Training on basic victimization dynamics

KS DOC, 785-296-4501 Corrections-specific investigator training (videotaping interviews and 

consultant assessment)

MN DOC, 651-361-7224 Coordinated training of investigators, medical and mental health care 

practitioners

NE DOC, 402-479-5713 Revise statutory-based training curriculum annually

NH DOC, 603- 271-5600 Academy trains on the connection between sexual abuse and trauma

NM DOC, 505-827-8600 Developed facility-level investigator curriculum, Investigating Sexual 

Assault in Correctional Settings, certified by the New Mexico Law 

Enforcement Academy

NY Department of Correctional Services,

518-457-4951

Assistant Commissioner conducts training sessions at supervisor 

schools

TN DOC, 615-741-1000 Trained victim support team at every facility

UT DOC, 801-545-5899 Sexual assault response team (SART) members required to be certified

VT DOC, 802-241-3956 Skill-based training to prepare staff for verbal responses to sexualized 

behavior

AL Jails, 334-872-6228 DOC PREA coordinators provide training to jails

KY Louisville Metropolitan DOC, 502-379-3552 Pre-service training with NIC materials

PA Allegheny County Jail, 412-350-2000 Attended NIC investigator training and developed action plan

SD Jails, 605-367-5020 DOC PREA coordinator trained sheriffs’ associations and staff at 19 

State jails

WA King County Department of Adult and 

Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1269

NIC investigator training and technical assistance

CO DOC CC, 719-226-4696 

MA DOC CC, 978-405-6610

RI DOC CC, 401-462-0373

Training for community corrections and parole officers

MD Department of Public Safety & 

Correctional Services, Division of Parole and 

Probation, 410-585-3557

Developed surveys for community corrections agencies/staff to 

help alleviate underreporting and address other post-release issues 

stemming from prison rape

AL Department of Youth Services,

334-215-3802

NIC trained all staff in 2006; pre-service and annual training required

AK Department of Health and Social Services,

Division of Juvenile Justice, 907-761-7230

PREA youth training at NIC

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088 Assisted by Just Detention International to train officers and 

noncustodial staff

CO Division of Youth Corrections,

719-546-5108

Multilevel training for all employees
254 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

DE Department of Services for Children, 

Youth, and Their Families, Division of Youth 

Rehabilitative Services, 302-633-2554

Senior staff trained; train-the-trainer program in development

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,

850-921-6292

Training for staff available in many formats (online, in-service, during 

shift changes, etc.)

HI Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, 

808-539-4613

Training for detention staff, internal investigators, and probation 

officers; train-the-trainers program available

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365 Training for all staff

MA Department of Youth Services,

617-727-7575

Training for 2,000 staff in 2007; pre-service and annual training

MI Department of Human Services, Bureau of 

Juvenile Justice, 517-335-6230

DVD for juvenile staff; training for public and private youth facilities in 

2007; also 2-day statewide conference

NY Division of Juvenile Justice and 

Opportunities for Youth, 518-473-7793

Training for all facilities in 2007; facilities updated through NIC DVD 

Keeping Our Kids Safe

ND Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 

701-667-1400

Annual training for staff and community care managers

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261 Web site with training and policy information (www.oregon.gov.oya/

pso). Staff trained on PREA and mandatory child abuse reporting law. 

Pre-service training includes boundary training, ethics, PREA, housing 

assignments, reporting, prevention, and access to mental and medical 

services for sexual assault victims.

SD Department of Juvenile Justice,

605-394-6645

Pre-service and annual training for staff

TX Juvenile Probation Commission,

512-424-6687

2008 national conference on investigating sexual abuse in custodial 

settings

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294 Developed curriculum with Just Detention International; staff trained 

within first 2 weeks of employment with annual 3-hour update

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800 Annual staff training

TRAINING FOR OTHERS

NJ DOC, 609-292-4617 Mental and medical health contractors required to complete PREA 

training; victim advocates receive training on sexual abuse

CO Division of Youth Corrections,

719-546-5108 

SD Department of Juvenile Justice, 

605-394-6645

PREA training required for volunteers

MA Department of Youth Services,

617-727-7575

WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,

608-240-5060

PREA training required for contractors

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

ND Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 

701-667-1400 

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

PREA training required for contractors and volunteers
A P P E N D I X G : P R E A I N I T I AT I V E S 255

INMATE/RESIDENT EDUCATION

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Carswell, TX,

202-307-3198

English and Spanish posters that describe how to report sexual abuse 

and the criminal sanctions for such acts placed in housing units. 

Posters include pictures of the institution’s psychologists.

CO DOC, 719-226-4696 Director of prisons featured in inmate sexual safety training video

IL DOC, 217-558-2200 Medical staff conduct PREA orientation with inmates

ME DOC, 207-893-7011 Female inmates provided programs to address sexual safety

PA DOC, 717-975-4930 Specialized training for criminally insane and sexually dangerous 

inmates

TX Department of Criminal Justice,

936-437-8918

Inmate peer training program (Safe Prisons Program) available in 

English and Spanish

VA DOC, 804-674-3000 Inmates receive PREA training using NIC curriculum at reception; a 

PREA post-test administered to ensure inmate comprehension

WI DOC, 608-240-5000 Inmate gender-specific training program

FL Miami-Dade County, 786-263-6500 Inmate PREA education materials available in three languages

MD Montgomery County, 240-773-9747 English and Spanish PREA video and posters

WA King County Department of Adult and 

Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1268

Inmate PREA orientation video

MA DOC CC, 978-405-6610 PREA training for community corrections offenders

AL Department of Youth Services,

334-215-3802

PREA PowerPoint presentation at orientation; PREA pamphlets 

available in dorms

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088 English and Spanish PREA pamphlets and posters

CO Division of Youth Services, 719-546-5108 

SD Department of Juvenile Justice,

605-394-6645

PREA pamphlets

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,

850-921-6292

PREA pamphlets and video

KY Department of Juvenile Justice,

502-573-2738

MA Department of Youth Services,

617-727-7575

PREA posters

LA Office of Juvenile Justice, 225-287-7900 Developing curriculum for youth orientation

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365 PREA handbook, video, and puppet show

MT DOC, Juvenile Division, 406-444-1547 Resident orientation includes PREA presentation

NM Juvenile Justice Services, 505-827-7629 Developmentally appropriate handbook includes PREA information

ND Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 

701-667-1400

PREA pamphlet on how to report with youth sign-off; resident 

handbooks in cottages

OH Department of Youth Services,

740-477-2500, ext. 7128

PREA orientation includes gender-specific sessions and individual 

meetings

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261 PREA pamphlet (6–8 grade level) and posters

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800 PREA pamphlet and individualized session with counselor

WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,

608-240-5060

English and Spanish PREA posters
256 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

CLASSIFICATION

AR DOC, 870-267-6300 Revised classification system to identify sexually vulnerable and 

predatory inmates

CO DOC, 719-226-4696 Sexual abuse risk assessment tool

IN DOC, 317-232-1926 Developed gender-specific sexual abuse vulnerability assessment tool

IA DOC, 515-725-5714 Sexual violence propensity tool informs housing assignment (without 

limiting programming options)

MA DOC, 978-405-6610 Pilot program requires superintendent’s signature for housing plan

MI DOC, 517-780-6545 Sexual abuse screening tool (validated by external researcher)

MN DOC, 651-361-7224 Sexual abuse screening tool informs housing assignments

MS DOC, 601-359-5607 Sexual abuse screening tool in development

NE DOC, 402-479-5713 Mental health screening conducted at intake

RI DOC, 401-462-0373 Assignment of sexual abuse victims and perpetrators to specialized unit 

in community corrections through high-risk discharge planning strategy

SD DOC, 605-367-5020 Gender-specific sexual abuse screening tool (validated for males; 

developing tool for females)

WY DOC, 307-777-7208 Screening tool to evaluate sexual aggression levels (validated)

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266 Inquire about history of sexual abuse at intake

CO Division of Youth Corrections,

719-546-5108

ND Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 

701-667-1400

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Screening tool for past sexual victimization and aggressive behaviors

REPORTING

AL DOC, 334-872-6228 Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583 Anonymous third-party reports of sexual abuse accepted and 

investigated

CA Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with local rape crisis centers 

to receive reports of sexual abuse

GA DOC, 478-783-6015 Staff must report sexual abuse to highest-ranking officer; protection 

against retaliation for reporting sexual abuse in policy

IN DOC, 317-232-1926 Limited email access available for reporting sexual abuse (kiosks)

ME DOC, 207-893-7011 Bystander law (Failure to Report Sexual Assault of Person in Custody) 

holds DOC staff criminally liable for failure to report sexual abuse

MI DOC, 517-780-6458 Ombudsman receives reports of sexual abuse

MS DOC, 601-359-5607 Third step in grievance procedure permits unsatisfied inmate to access 

courts

MO DOC, 573-522-1207 Inmates’ family members receive pamphlet on how to report sexual 

abuse; reports forwarded for investigation

MT DOC, 406-444-3930 Inmate hotline answered by community sexual abuse group

NV DOC, 775-887-3142 Community tip line to sheriff’s office

NY Department of Correctional Services,

518-457-4951

All employees receive duty-to-report training, including mental and 

medical health
A P P E N D I X G : P R E A I N I T I AT I V E S 257

OR DOC, 503-945-0931 Governor’s Office receives reports

PA DOC, 717-975-4930 Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse (institution-specific PIN to 

ensure anonymity)

SC DOC, 803-896-8540 Anonymous inmate hotline to Inspector General’s Office

FL Miami-Dade County, 786-263-6500 How to report materials (three languages) for families of inmates

ID Bonneville County Jail, Idaho Falls,

208-529-1315

Hotline to police detectives

MD Montgomery County, 240-773-9747 Fliers on how to report sexual abuse given to visitors

NYC DOC, 212-361-8977 Inmate hotline to outside confidential support services

OH Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, 

419-428-3800

Sexual abuse reports forwarded to prisons

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266 Sexual abuse reports forwarded to facility at which incident occurred

VA Riverside Regional Jail, Hopewell,

804-524-6600

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

LA DOC CC, 225-342-1190

MO DOC CC, 573-522-1207

NC DOC CC, 919-716-3720

Duty to report sexual abuse in policy

OK DOC CC, 405-425-2505 Policy requires parole agents to report sexual abuse

VT DOC CC, 802-241-3956 Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365 Toll-free hotline for anyone to report sexual abuse

TX Juvenile Probation Commission,

512-424-6687

Hotline to report sexual abuse (24-hour direct reporting)

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294 Ombudsman receives reports of sexual abuse

INVESTIGATIONS

AR DOC, 870-267-6300 

OR DOC, 503-945-0931

SART at every facility

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583 All staff trained in first responder duties; inmate housing assignment 

reviewed immediately after an allegation of sexual abuse

CT DOC, 860-692-7497 MOU with University of Connecticut Medical Center regarding “A 

National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, 

Adults/Adolescents” (2004)

ID DOC, 208-658-2102

IN DOC, 317-232-1926

MOU with law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse

MA DOC, 978-405-6610 MOU with two county prosecutors

MI DOC, 517-780-6545 Staff pocket guide describes first responder duties

MN DOC, 651-361-7224 Health services sexual response evidence protocol checklist

MS DOC, 601-359-5607 MOU with private medical health provider for forensic medical exams

MT DOC, 406-444-3930 MOU with attorney general

NH DOC, 603- 271-5600 Contract with New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual 

Violence

NV DOC, 775-887-3142 Supervisors trained on first responder duties

NM DOC, 505-827-8600 All allegations of sexual abuse investigated

NC DOC, 919-716-3720 PREA investigator at every facility
258 N AT I O N A L P R I S O N R A P E E L I M I N AT I O N C O M M I S S I O N R E P O R T

OH Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction, 614-728-1152

Sexual abuse investigator duties in policy; multidisciplinary response 

(Sexual Assault Committee Policy)

PA DOC, 717-975-4930 Contract with Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape

RI DOC, 401-462-0373 Electronic monitoring used during investigative process

SD DOC, 605-367-5020 Purchased polygraph with PREA grant money

UT DOC, 801-545-5899 SART representative observes investigative interview and may 

accompany victim to court

WI DOC, 608-240-5000 20 trained PREA investigators

OR Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office, 

541-388-6667

MOU with St. Charles Hospital for forensic medical exams

NYC DOC, 212-361-8977 MOU with outside victim services organization; chaplain does periodic 

follow-up with victims of sexual abuse

OH Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, 

419-428-3800 

WA King County Department of Adult and 

Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1269

MOU with law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse

VA Northern Neck Regional Jail, Warsaw,

804-333-6365

All allegations of sexual abuse investigated

RI DOC CC, 401-462-0373 Community corrections staff report allegations directly to the DOC’s 

specialized investigative unit

HI Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, 

808-539-4613

Coordinated response to resident sexual abuse in development

OR Youth Authority, 503-373-7238 Staff trained on forensic medical exam procedures for evidence 

protocol

TREATMENT

CA Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Post-abuse counseling provided by outside rape crisis counselors (pilot 

program)

FL DOC, 850-410-4016 Unimpeded access to emergency medical and mental health care for 

victims of sexual abuse

GA DOC, Mental Health/Mental Retardation 

Program, 404-651-6483

Available sexual abuse treatment includes gender-specific response to 

PTSD

NV DOC, 775-887-3142 Mental health services without fee for victims of sexual abuse

OK DOC, 405-425-2505 Inmate required to meet with psychologist after reporting sexual 

abuse; psychologist determines treatment plan

CO Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office,

720-874-3404

Inmate services for victims of sexual abuse

PA Indiana County Jail, 724-471-7500 Local domestic violence shelter provides counseling to inmates

VA Northern Neck Regional Jail, Warsaw,

804-333-6365

Outside agency provides counseling to inmates

OH Alvis House for Former Offenders,

614-252-8402

Clinical staff conduct mental health assessments; residents “matched” 

with particular counselors

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261 Established sexual abuse medical exam procedures and train all staff 

on process
A P P E N D I X G : P R E A I N I T I AT I V E S 259

DISCIPLINE

OH Department of Rehabilitation and 

Correction, 614-728-1152

Policy contains staff and inmate sanctions developed by a committee

SC DOC, 803-896-8540 Standardized process for staff and inmate sanctions in policy

WA DOC, 360-725-8650 Employees trained in how to make disciplinary decisions regarding 

inmate sexual misconduct

MA Hampden County Sheriff’s Department, 

413-547-8000, ext. 2284

Unsubstantiated allegations do not result in discipline

MONITORING

AL DOC, 334-872-6228 Management reviews quarterly reports of sexual abuse to identify 

trends

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583 Sexual abuse incident review by division director and other executives

CT DOC, 860-692-7497 Sexual abuse data used to identify blind spots and promote a safe 

environment

DE DOC, 302-739-5601 Designing database to trace inmates from intake to parole; PREA 

management assessment at women’s prison

KY DOC, 502-564-7290 Purchased computers for jail facilities to improve data collection; hired 

jail inspector under PREA grant to enhance PREA implementation

NJ DOC, 609-292-4617 Sexual abuse advisory committee reviews all incidents 

ND Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation, 701-328-6100

Sexual abuse data collected and reviewed monthly; review by sexual 

abuse advisory committee

TN DOC, 615-741-1000 Sexual abuse data reviewed monthly

TX Department of Criminal Justice,

936-437-8918

Audits include PREA checks

VT DOC, 802-241-3956 PREA management assessment at all facilities

VA DOC, 804-674-3000 Director’s Task Force on Safety established after an incident of sexual 

misconduct; consultants reviewed the incident, interviewed inmates 

and staff, and made recommendations

WV DOC, 304-558-2036 Monthly reporting of sexual abuse data to central office

WI DOC, 608-240-5000 PREA review panel examines sexual abuse data

NV Washoe County, 775-328-6355 Incident database includes method of reporting sexual abuse

PA Allegheny County Jail, 412-350-2000 PREA management assessment

GA DOC CC, 478-783-6015 Community corrections monthly data report (to DOC) contains sexual 

abuse data

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088 Audit based on PREA policies and in anticipation of NPREC standards

KY Department of Juvenile Justice,

502-573-2738

Audit process evaluates the availability of PREA information within 

facilities

MA Department of Youth Services,

617-727-7575

Sexual abuse incident review for corrective action

OH Department of Youth Services,

740-477-2500, ext. 7128

Central office staff review sexual abuse incidents in real time; 

computerized reporting system; conduct PREA vulnerability 

assessments at each facility (includes survey of youth and staff through 

the victim services staff)

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294 Sexual abuse data available online

www.nprec.us