Report on 

Sexual 

Victimization 

in Prisons 

and Jails

Review Panel 

on Prison Rape 

April 2012
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

G. J. Mazza, Editor 

The Review Panel on Prison Rape’s Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails is 

available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/reviewpanel.htm. Obtaining prior 

permission is not necessary for copying and distributing this report. To contact the Review Panel 

on Prison Rape, e-mail PREAReviewPanel@usdoj.gov or call (202) 307-0690. 

Review Panel on Prison Rape, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (April 2012) 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson is currently the president and chief executive officer of the Ohio College 

Access Network. He is the former executive director of the Business Alliance on Higher Education and 

the Economy. He worked with the State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation since 1973, and prior to 

his retirement, he served as its director for sixteen years. Dr. Wilkinson is also a past president of the 

American Correctional Association (ACA) and the Association of State Correctional Administrators 

(ASCA). He is a past chairperson of the National Institute of Corrections Advisory Board on which he 

still serves as a member. Dr. Wilkinson has authored numerous articles on a variety of correctional 

topics, and he has received awards from many organizations, including the National Governors 

Association, the ACA, the ASCA, the International Community Corrections Association, the National 

Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice, and the Volunteers of America. Dr. Wilkinson’s academic 

background includes a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in higher education 

administration, both from The Ohio State University. He earned a doctorate in education from the 

University of Cincinnati. 

Dr. Gary E. Christensen has worked within the correctional field for the past thirty-three years. He has 

researched extensively the premise of evidence-based or outcome-driven practice within a correctional 

milieu and initiated several innovative correctional programs, including the Dutchess County Jail 

Transition Program, which has been recognized nationally for significant recidivism reduction and the 

enhancement of general public safety. In addition to his responsibilities as jail administrator, Dr. 

Christensen also served in an advisory capacity to the executive and legislative branches of county 

government as chair of the Dutchess County Criminal Justice Council. He authored legislation to counter 

the effects of police racial profiling, and he coordinated master planning for the criminal justice system, 

implementing system-wide, evidence-based, criminal justice practice. For his many contributions to the 

field of corrections, Dr. Christensen has received recognition from numerous local and state entities. In 

2007, he received national acclaim by being named the Jail Administrator of the Year by the American 

Jail Association. Since his retirement from public service, Dr. Christensen, as president of Corrections 

Partners, Inc., continues to work with leaders throughout the field of criminal justice to enhance the 

implementation of evidence-based practice. He has developed the Applied Correctional Transition 

Strategy, a comprehensive software suite designed to enhance all aspects of daily jail transition as well as 

to provide policymakers with essential information to ensure that allocated resources lead to the most 

productive, cost-efficient outcomes. Dr. Christensen continues to serve on several national advisory 

boards investigating innovative responses to pressing issues within corrections and to author publications 

for the field at large, including the Transition from Jail to the Community Implementation Toolkit. Dr. 

Christensen is a professor of management, leadership, and organizational psychology at the University of 

Phoenix, School of Advanced Studies; an adjunct professor at Marist College; and a qualified master 

police/peace instructor with the State of New York. 

Anne Seymour has been a national crime victim advocate for twenty-seven years, specializing in 

corrections-based victim services. She has authored or contributed to many texts and curricula that 

address improving victims’ rights and services throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes, 

including the 2008 Victim Issues Related to Prison Rape and Sexual Assault curriculum sponsored by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. She has received numerous honors for her 

work to benefit crime victims and the field of corrections, including the 1992 Outstanding Service to 

Victims of Crime Award from President George H.W. Bush and the 2007 U.S. Congressional Victims’ 

Rights Caucus Ed Stout Memorial Award for Outstanding Victim Advocacy. 
ii 

Executive Summary 

This Report presents the findings of the Review Panel on Prison Rape (Panel), resulting from the hearings 

it held in Washington, DC, in the spring and fall of 2011, based on the national survey that the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS) published in August 2010, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails, Reported by 

Inmates, 2008-09. Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the Panel is responsible for holding 

public hearings to which it invites, relying on data from the BJS, two correctional institutions with a low 

prevalence of sexual victimization and three institutions with a high prevalence of sexual victimization. 

The purpose of the hearings is to identify the common characteristics of (1) sexual predators and victims, 

(2) correctional institutions with a low prevalence of sexual victimization, and (3) correctional institutions 

with a high prevalence of sexual victimization. 

In 2011, the Panel held two sets of hearings. In April of 2011, the hearings addressed federal and state 

prisons; in September of 2011, the hearings addressed local jails. 

Hearings on Prisons 

For the April 2011 hearings on prisons, the Panel invited the following five prisons to appear: 

(1) Low Incidence: Elkton Federal Correctional Institution, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

Elkton, Ohio. 

(2) Low Incidence: Bridgeport Pre-Parole Transfer Facility, operated by Corrections 

Corporation of America for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), 

Bridgeport, Texas. 

(3) High Incidence: James V. Allred Unit, TDCJ, Wichita Falls, Texas. 

(4) High Incidence: Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, Virginia Department of 

Corrections, Troy, Virginia. 

(5) High Incidence: Elmira Correctional Facility, Department of Corrections and Community 

Supervision, Elmira, New York. 

Based on the prison hearings, the Panel identified the following common themes requiring careful 

consideration: 

● Recognizing Common Characteristics of Inmates Who are Vulnerable to Sexual Abuse 

● Understanding Common Differences between Male and Female Facilities 

● Understanding the Importance of Professional Language in Establishing a Safe 

 Environment 

● Recognizing the Vulnerability of Non-Heterosexual Inmates and Their Need for 

 Proper Treatment 

● Strengthening the Integrity of the Entire Complaint Process 

● Providing Effective Victim Services 

● Equipping Staff to Respond Effectively to Inmate Sexual Victimization 
iii 

The Panel identified the following topics for further study: 

● Why are Homosexuality and Prior Victimization Significant Indicators of Inmate 

 Victims of Sexual Abuse? 

● What are the Distinctive Needs of Female Facilities in Preventing Sexual 

 Victimization? 

Hearings on Jails 

For the September 2011 hearings on jails, the Panel invited the following five jails to appear: 

(1) Low Incidence: Hinds County Work Center, Hinds County Sheriff’s Department, 

Raymond, Mississippi. 

(2) Low Incidence: David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center, Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma. 

(3) High Incidence: Clallam County Corrections Facility, Clallam County Sheriff’s Office, 

Port Angeles, Washington. 

(4) High Incidence: Pre-Trial Detention Center, Miami-Dade County Corrections and 

Rehabilitation Department, Miami, Florida. 

(5) High Incidence: Orleans Parish Prison, Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, New Orleans, 

Louisiana. 

Based on the jail hearings, the Panel identified the following common themes requiring careful 

consideration: 

● Acknowledging the Importance of Facility Design 

● Appreciating the Value of Outside Oversight 

● Noting the Reluctance to Prosecute Sexual Victimization Cases Involving Inmates 

● Recognizing the Resource Challenges that Jails Face 

● Employing Well-Trained, Professional Staff 

The Panel identified the following topics for further study: 

● What are the Specific Challenges of Big-City and Rural Jails in Preventing Inmate 

 Sexual Victimization? 

● What are the Best Practices in Classifying and Housing LGBTQ Inmates? 

● What Would Encourage the Prosecution of Crimes Involving Inmate Sexual 

 Victimization? 

● What are the Policies and Practices that Contribute to a Jail Culture that Has Zero 

 Tolerance for Sexual Victimization? 

● What are the Best Practices for Monitoring Compliance with a Jail’s Zero- 

 Tolerance Policy for Sexual Victimization? 

● What are the Best Practices for Reliably Reporting Sexual Abuse in Jails? 
iv 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview.......................... ..........................................................................................................................1 

A. Background .......................................................................................................................................... 1 

B. BJS Report ............................................................................................................................................ 2 

C. Selection of Facilities for the Public Hearings ...................................................................................... 3 

II. Review of Facilities................ .................................................................................................................. 5 

A. Prisons ................................................................................................................................................... 6 

1. Low-Incidence Prisons .......................................................................................................... 6

a. FCI Elkton ....................................................................................................................... 6

i. Facility Description ............................................................................................ 6 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization ... 7 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 11 

b. Bridgeport ..................................................................................................................... 12 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 12 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization . 13 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 15 

2. High-Incidence Prisons ..................................................................................................... 16 

a. Fluvanna ........................................................................................................................ 16 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 16 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 18 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 22 

(a) The Distinctive Dynamics of Women’s Prisons ............................... 22 

(b) Onsite Visit ....................................................................................... 25 

(c) Inmates and Trauma .......................................................................... 26 

(d) Testimony from Former Inmate and Inmate Advocate ..................... 26 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 29 

b. Allred ............................................................................................................................ 30 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 30 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 32 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 33 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 37 

c. Elmira ............................................................................................................................ 38 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 38 
v 

ii. Facility Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization ... 40 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 41 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 46 

3. Common Themes ................................................................................................................ 47 

a. Recognizing Common Characteristics of Inmates Who are Vulnerable to Sexual 

Abuse ................................................................................................................................ 47 

b. Understanding Common Differences between Male and Female Facilities ................. 47 

c. Understanding the Importance of Professional Language in Establishing a Safe 

Environment ...................................................................................................................... 48 

d. Recognizing the Vulnerability of Non-Heterosexual Inmates and Their Need for Proper 

Treatment .......................................................................................................................... 48 

e. Strengthening the Integrity of the Entire Complaint Process ........................................ 49 

f. Providing Effective Victim Services ............................................................................. 50 

g. Equipping Staff to Respond Effectively to Inmate Sexual Victimization .................... 50 

4. Topics for Further Study ..................................................................................................... 50 

a. Why are Homosexuality and Prior Victimization Significant Indicators of Inmate 

Victims of Sexual Abuse? ................................................................................................. 50 

b. What are the Distinctive Needs of Female Facilities in Preventing Sexual 

Victimization? ................................................................................................................... 51 

B. Jails.. ................................................................................................................................................... 51 

1. Low-Incidence Jails ............................................................................................................. 51 

a. Hinds County ................................................................................................................ 51 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 51 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization . 52 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 53 

b. The Moss Center ........................................................................................................... 54 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 54 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low Incidence of Sexual Victimization . 56 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 57 

2. High-Incidence Jails ............................................................................................................ 58 

a. Clallam County ............................................................................................................. 58 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 58 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 59 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 61 
vi 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 61 

b. Miami-Dade PTDC ....................................................................................................... 62 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 62 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization 64 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 67 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 68 

c. OPP ............................................................................................................................... 68 

i. Facility Description .......................................................................................... 68 

ii. Facility’s Explanation of Reported High Incidence of Sexual Victimization . 71 

iii. Observations ................................................................................................... 73 

(a) Testimony of Civil Rights Attorney .................................................. 74 

(b) Statement of Former Inmate .............................................................. 76 

(c) OPP’s Response to the Former Inmate’s Testimony ......................... 78 

(d) Testimony of Youth Advocate .......................................................... 80 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations ............................................................... 82 

3. Common Themes ................................................................................................................ 84 

a. Acknowledging the Importance of Facility Design ...................................................... 84 

b. Appreciating the Value of Outside Oversight ............................................................... 84 

c. Noting the Reluctance to Prosecute Sexual Victimization Cases Involving Inmates ... 85 

d. Recognizing the Resource Challenges that Jails Face .................................................. 85 

e. Employing Well-Trained, Professional Staff ................................................................ 85 

4. Topics for Further Study ..................................................................................................... 86 

a. What are the Specific Challenges of Big-City and Rural Jails in Preventing Inmate 

Sexual Victimization? ....................................................................................................... 86 

b. What are the Best Practices in Classifying and Housing LGBTQ Inmates? ................ 86 

c. What Would Encourage the Prosecution of Crimes Involving Inmate Sexual 

Victimization? ................................................................................................................... 86 

d. What are the Policies and Practices that Contribute to a Jail Culture that Has Zero 

Tolerance for Sexual Victimization? ................................................................................ 86 

e. What are the Best Practices for Monitoring Compliance with a Jail’s Zero-Tolerance 

Policy for Sexual Victimization? ...................................................................................... 87 

f. What are the Best Practices for Reliably Reporting Sexual Abuse in Jails? ................. 87 

III. Conclusion.............. ....................................................................................................................... 87
vii 

Appendices 

Appendix A Contact Letters and Data Requests to Selected Facilities

Appendix B Chart Indicating Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Facility

Appendix C Charts Summarizing Facility Investigations of Inmate-on-Inmate and 

 Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Assaults

Appendix D Memorandum from D. Scott Dodrill, Assistant Director, Correctional 

 Program Division, Bureau of Prisons, to Chief Executive Officers (Oct. 

 12, 2011).

As the appendices are lengthy, they are accessible only from the Panel’s website at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/reviewpanel.htm. Online readers may also access the 

appendices by clicking on the title for each appendix, which will then direct the reader to the 

corresponding document posted online.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Report on Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

This Report presents the findings of the Review Panel on Prison Rape (Panel) related to the 

hearings it held in Washington, DC, in the spring and fall of 2011. Based on the national survey 

that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published in August 2010, Sexual Victimization in 

Prisons and Jails, Reported by Inmates, 2008-09,

1

 the Panel’s hearings focused on the 

experiences of selected correctional institutions that had either a high or low prevalence of 

inmate sexual victimization. The Panel’s goal in issuing this Report is to assist correctional 

practitioners by identifying common themes and making recommendations for further research 

that will lead to effective practices that prevent sexual victimization in prisons and jails. 

I. Overview 

A. Background 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 20032

 created the Panel and commissioned it to 

assist the BJS by holding public hearings based on data that the BJS collected on the incidence of 

sexual victimization in correctional institutions in the United States.3 According to PREA, the 

BJS is to survey state and federal prisons as well as other categories of correctional facilities that 

the Attorney General designates.4 Through BJS, the Attorney General identified jails as one of 

the categories of correctional institutions that merited a national survey under PREA. The 

purpose of the Panel’s hearings is to identify the common characteristics of (1) victims and 

perpetrators of prison rape, (2) prisons and prison systems with a low incidence of prison rape, 

and (3) prisons and prison systems with a high incidence of prison rape.5

In 2011, the Panel held two sets of hearings in Washington, DC.6 The first hearings, on April 

26-27, 2011, addressed state and federal prisons; the second hearings, on September 15-16, 2011, 

addressed jails. At each of these hearings, the Panel requested the appearance of five 

correctional institutions, two representing facilities with the lowest incidence of sexual 

victimization and three representing the highest.7 

PREA created both the Panel and the Commission on Prison Rape (Commission).8

 In June of 

2009, after issuing proposed institutional standards for reducing prison rape, the Commission 

 

1 BJS, Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09 (Jan. 2010) (A. Beck et al.), 

available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svpjri0809.pdf [hereinafter BJS Report]. 2

 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601-15609 (2006) (Pub. L. No. 108-79, 117 Stat. 972). 

3 Id. § 15603(b). 4 Id. § 15603(c)(4). 5 Id. § 15603(b)(3)(A). 6

 The members of the Panel in 2011 were Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Chairperson; Dr. Gary E. Christensen; and 

Ms. Anne Seymour. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice 

provided the Panel with professional staffing and support services. OCR staff persons assisting the Panel in 2011 

included Mr. George Mazza, Senior Counsel; Mr. Christopher Zubowicz, Attorney Advisor; Ms. Kimberly 

Scheckner, Attorney Advisor; Mr. Joseph Swiderski, Program Analyst; and Ms. Anna Offit, Law Clerk. 7

 42 U.S.C. § 15603(b)(3)(A). 8 Id. § 15606(a). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

2 

disbanded.9 The process for issuing national standards is still moving forward at the Justice 

Department and the Panel anticipates that the standards may appear in the near future.10 The 

Panel’s work complements the work of the Commission in issuing national standards, but it is 

independent of it. Through its hearings, the Panel intends to assist both prison administrators 

and victim advocates by identifying administrative practices that either contribute to or prevent 

sexual victimization of individuals in custody. 

B. BJS Report 

The BJS Report analyzed data on sexual victimization in prisons and jails from October of 2008 

until December 2009 based on computer-assisted self-interviews of 81,566 inmates, age eighteen 

or older, in 167 state and federal prisons and 286 jails in the United States.11 The survey of 

inmates is not a complete enumeration of all prison and jail inmates in the United States; rather, 

as PREA permits,12 it relies on sampling techniques that allow the BJS to add weights to the 

collected data to produce estimates at both the national and facility level.13 Following this 

methodology, the BJS was able to identify prisons and jails in the United States that have high 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization14 and staff sexual misconduct.15 The report was 

also able to identify prisons and jails with low rates of any type of sexual victimization.16 

According to the estimates in the BJS Report, 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates 

experienced sexual victimization within a period of twelve months or since admission to a 

correctional facility, if the admission took place within less than twelve months.17 “Nationwide, 

these percentages suggest that approximately 88,500 adults held in prisons and jails at the time of 

the survey had been sexually victimized.”18

Approximately 2.1% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates reported inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization, whereas approximately 2.8% of prison inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates 

reported staff sexual misconduct.19

In comparison to male inmates in prisons and jails, the BJS Report found that female inmates 

were more than twice as likely to report inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.20

Reported sexual activity with facility staff involved 2.9% of male prisoners, 2.1% of male jail 

inmates, 2.1% of female prisoners, and 1.5% of female jail inmates.21 

 

9

 National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report (June 2009), available at

http://www.cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/nprec/20090820154816/http://nprec.us/publication/. 10 National Standards To Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape, 76 Fed. Reg. 6248 (proposed Feb. 3, 2011) 

(to be codified at 28 C.F.R. pt. 115) [hereinafter Nat’l Standards]. 

11 BJS Report 6. 12 42 U.S.C. § 15603(a)(1)(4). 

13 BJS Report 6. 14 Id. 8 tbl.2. 15 Id. 9 tbl.3. 16 Id. 10 tbl.4. 17 Id. 5, 6. 18 Id. 5. 19 Id. 20 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

3 

The BJS Report identified risk factors for both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual 

victimization.22 The rates of reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were significantly 

higher for inmates who had the following characteristics: 

● Being white or multi-racial, 

● Having a college education, 

● Having a sexual orientation other than heterosexual, and 

● Experiencing sexual victimization prior to coming to the facility.23 

The rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were lower among inmates who were white and 

twenty-five years old or older, whereas the rates were higher among inmates who had a college 

education and who experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility.24 

Among inmates reporting inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 13% of male prisoners, 19% of 

male jail inmates, and 4% of female inmates in both prisons and jails said they were victimized 

within the first twenty-four hours of admission to a facility.25 Among inmates reporting staff-oninmate sexual victimization, 16% of male prisoners, 30% of male jail inmates, 5% of female 

prisoners, and 4% of female jail inmates said they were victimized within the first twenty-four 

hours of admission to a facility.26

Significantly, most perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct were female and most victims were 

male: among male victims of staff sexual misconduct, 69% of prisoners and 64% of jail inmates 

reported sexual activity with female staff.27

C. Selection of Facilities for the Public Hearings 

Relying on the BJS Report, the Panel selected a total of ten correctional institutions to appear at 

public hearings in Washington, DC, in 2011. 

For the April hearings on prisons, the Panel identified two institutions representing lowincidence facilities: (1) the Elkton Federal Correctional Institution (FCI Elkton), Federal Bureau 

of Prisons (BOP), in Elkton, Ohio, and (2) the Bridgeport Pre-Parole Transfer Facility 

(Bridgeport), operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) for the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), in Bridgeport, Texas; and three institutions representing highincidence facilities: (1) the James V. Allred Unit (Allred), TDCJ, in Wichita Falls, Texas; (2) the 

Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women (Fluvanna), Virginia Department of Corrections 

 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

4 

(VADOC), in Troy, Virginia; and (3) the Elmira Correctional Facility (Elmira), New York 

Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS),28 in Elmira, New York. 

One of the factors influencing the Panel’s selection of facilities in 2011 was its interest in 

gathering more information on the experiences of women who have been the target of sexual 

victimization in prisons and jails and to understand the dynamics of correctional facilities that 

serve women. Accordingly, for the prison hearings, the Panel chose Fluvanna, a women’s 

facility that the BJS Report identified as having not only one of the highest rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization but also one of the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct.29 

Seeking to learn from a female prison with a low incidence of sexual victimization, the Panel 

chose Bridgeport, which had no incidents of sexual victimization during the time period of the 

BJS survey.30 

The Panel selected FCI Elkton based on its having a low incidence of any type of sexual 

victimization,31 and the Panel wanted at least one representative of a federal prison at the 

hearings. 

The Panel chose Allred not only because the BJS Report identified it as having one of the highest 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization32 but also because the Panel had previously 

identified Allred, as well as other prisons in the TDCJ, as having a high rate of sexual 

victimization, and the Panel was interested in learning why the prison had not improved its 

performance despite having appeared at a prior hearing.33 The Panel chose Elmira based on its 

having the highest rate of male offenders reporting staff sexual misconduct that involved 

pressure.34 

For the September hearings on jails, the Panel again identified two institutions representing lowincidence facilities: (1) the Hinds County Work Center (Hinds County),35 Hinds County Sheriff’s 

Department (HCSD), in Raymond, Mississippi, and (2) the David L. Moss Criminal Justice 

Center (Moss Center), Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office (TCSO), in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and three 

institutions representing high-incidence facilities: (1) the Clallam County Corrections Facility 

(Clallam County), Clallam County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO), in Port Angeles, Washington; (2) 

the Pre-Trial Detention Center (PTDC), Miami-Dade County Corrections and Rehabilitation 

Department (MDCR), in Miami, Florida; and (3) the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP), Orleans 

Parish Sheriff’s Office (OPSO), in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

 

28 In April of 2011, the New York State Department of Correctional Services merged with the New York State 

Division of Parole to become the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision or 

DOCCS. 

29 BJS Report 8 tbl.2, 9 tbl.3. 30 Id. 10 tbl.4. 31 Id. 32 Id. 8 tbl.2. 33 See BJS, Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007, at 2 tbl.1 (Apr. 2008) 

available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svsfpri07.pdf [hereinafter BJS Report 2007]; Transcript of 

Record: Panel Hearing on Rape and Staff Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Prisons, E. Williams, 190 passim (Mar. 28, 

2008), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_mar08/080328_prea_hearing.txt. 34 BJS Report 9 tbl.3, 10. 35 Since the publication of the BJS Report, the name of the Hinds County Penal Farm has changed to the Hinds 

County Work Station. Id. 10 tbl.4, 11. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

5 

The Panel chose Hinds County and the Moss Center because the BJS Report identified each of 

them, in comparison to other surveyed jails, as having among the lowest rates of sexual 

victimization of any type.36 

Consistent with its intent to highlight female facilities during the 2011 hearings, the Panel 

initially selected the South White Street Jail, a female facility associated with the OPP, which the 

BJS Report identified as having one of the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization.37 Since the publication of the BJS Report, however, the OPSO closed the South 

White Street Jail, prompting the Panel to broaden its inquiry to the OPP as a whole. 

Based on the survey results in the BJS Report, the Panel also chose Clallam County, which had a 

high rate of reported staff sexual misconduct,38 and the PTDC, which had a high rate of reported 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.39

II. Review of Facilities 

In reviewing the correctional facilities that the Panel invited to appear at its hearings in 2011, a 

Panel Member or one of its staff members visited each of the facilities, touring the buildings and 

grounds and meeting informally not only with facility representatives but also at times with 

inmates. The Panel also issued tailored Data Requests to both prisons and jails,40 and each 

facility provided a response.41 The Panel engaged the services of Creative Corrections, a private 

contractor, to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each of the selected facilities.42 At the 

Panel’s request, Creative Corrections also produced a chart summarizing reported incidents of 

both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization at the selected facilities.43 

The Panel has organized this Report to correspond to its inquiry at the public hearings. The first 

half of the Report presents the prisons the Panel invited to the April 2011 hearings, treating first 

the low-incidence facilities and then the high-incidence facilities. Based on the data collected, 

the Panel offers facility-specific recommendations, identifies common themes, and proposes 

topics for further study. The second half of the Report presents the jails the Panel invited to the 

September 2011 hearings, again addressing first the low-incidence facilities before turning to the 

high-incidence facilities. With the focus on jails, the Panel also offers facility-specific 

recommendations, identifies common themes, and proposes topics for additional research. 

 

36 Id. 10 tbl.4. 37 Id. 8 tbl.2. 38 Id. 9 tbl.3. 39 Id. 8 tbl.2. 40 App. A. 

41 The responses to the Data Request are on file with the Panel. 

42 App. B. 

43 App. C. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

6 

A. Prisons 

1. Low-Incidence Prisons 

a. FCI Elkton 

i. Facility Description 

FCI Elkton, located in Elkton, Ohio, is a low-to-medium-security facility,44 which had a rated 

capacity in both January 2008 and January 2009 of 1536 male inmates.45 In January of 2008, the 

actual number of inmates at FCI Elkton was 1797.46 In calendar year 2008, 3045 inmates spent 

any time at FCI Elkton; the average length of stay was 539 days; and the longest stay of any 

inmate was 3501 days.47 In January of 2009, the actual number of inmates was 1925.48 In 

calendar year 2009, 2855 inmates spent any time at FCI Elkton; the average length of stay was 

555 days; and the longest stay of any inmate was 3704 days.49 

The ethnic and racial composition of the inmates in FCI Elkton in 2008 was 44.6% White, 54.1% 

African American, 13.9% Hispanic, 0.8% Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.5% Alaska Native or 

American Indian.50 In 2009, the ethnic and racial composition of the inmates in FCI Elkton was 

45.1% White, 53.6% African American, 1.7% Hispanic, 0.7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.5% 

Alaska Native or American Indian.51 

FCI Elkton reported no suicides or attempted suicides in 2008.52 In 2009, there were no suicides, 

but there were two suicide attempts—neither was connected to sexual victimization.53 

On January 1, 2008, FCI Elkton employed 149 correctional officers; the inmate-to-correctional 

officer ratio was 16.6 to 1.0; FCI Elkton employed 185 other correctional workers; the inmate-toother-correctional-worker ratio was 13.3 to 1.0; the total onboard staff was 334, with an inmateto-total-staff ratio of 7.4 to 1.0.54 On January 1, 2009, FCI Elkton employed 152 correctional 

officers; the inmate-to-correctional-officer ratio was 16.6 to 1.0; FCI Elkton employed 183 other 

correctional workers; the inmate-to-other-correctional-worker ratio was 13.8 to 1.0; the total 

onboard staff was 335, with an inmate-to-total-staff ratio of 7.5 to 1.0.55

 

44 Transcript of Record: Panel Hearings on Rape and Staff Sexual Misconduct in U.S. Prisons, H. Lappin, 279:7-8 

(Apr. 26-27, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/transcript_04_2011.htm [hereinafter Tr.]. 45 FCI Elkton Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 

46 Id. 9(b). 47 Id. 9(f)-(h). 48 Id 10(b). 49 Id. 10(f)-(h). 50 Id. 11. In reporting national origin and racial data for inmates, FCI Elkton used the category of Asian and Pacific 

Islander rather than the two separate categories that the U.S. Census Bureau employs: (1) Asian and (2) Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders. FCI Elkton did not provide an explanation for the total exceeding 100%. 

51 Id. 12. FCI Elkton did not provide an explanation for the total exceeding 100%. 52 Id. 13. 53 Id. 15, 16. 54 Id. 25. 55 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

7 

In 2008 and 2009, FCI Elkton terminated no staff members for sexual misconduct.56 In 2009, 

FCI Elkton permitted one staff member to resign in a matter related to sexual misconduct.57 

There was one instance in each of the calendar years 2008 and 2009 when a staff member 

received either discipline or a warning for sexual misconduct, but the investigations sustained 

neither charge.58

During calendar years 2008 and 2009, there were two investigations of staff-on-inmate sexual 

misconduct.59 One investigation found that the evidence did not substantiate the allegations; the 

other investigation concluded that the evidence did support the following charges: unprofessional 

conduct of a sexual nature, preferential treatment of an inmate, breach of security, introduction 

of contraband, and soliciting or accepting anything of value.60 Subsequently the staff member 

resigned.61 During the same time period there were three investigations of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization.62 In all three instances the investigations did not sustain the charges.63

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

In his written statement to the Panel, Director of BOP Harley G. Lappin testified that the BOP’s 

management approach is the basis for preventing sexual victimization in its facilities, including 

FCI Elkton.64 He noted in particular that BOP employs numerous oversight strategies, as well as 

an internal system of checks and balances, to ensure compliance with the applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, and procedures that exist to prevent sexual victimization of inmates.65 In 

addition, the BOP has a written policy that specifically addresses sexual abuse in its facilities.66 

According to Mr. Lappin, for security, the BOP relies on a combination of approaches, including 

direct-management supervision, facility design, cameras and other enhanced technology, and the 

use of the unit-management concept.67 In addition, the BOP uses an inmate-classification system 

based on a variety of risk factors, which allows facilities to assign housing based on the needs of 

each inmate for security and targeted programming.68 

Mr. Lappin noted that inmate participation in programming, which may include prison industries 

as well as vocational and educational training, is an important aspect of the operations of BOP 

 

56 Id. 22(a). 57 Id. 22(b). 58 Id. 22(c). 59 App. C (FCI Elkton Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 

60 Id. 61 Id. (Incident 2). 62 Id. (FCI Elkton Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 63 Id. 64 Lappin Test. 2 (Apr. 26, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/Lappin_Statement.pdf. Mr. Lappin’s testimony also appears in 

the Transcript of Record. See Tr., H. Lappin, 227:8-233:10. 65 Lappin Test. 2. 

66 Id. (citing Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program, P5324.06 (Apr. 27, 2005)). 67 Id. 3. 68 Id. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

8 

facilities.69 Inmate programming plays an important role in reducing inmate idleness and the 

stresses associated with prison life.70 

Mr. Lappin also testified, “Qualified and trained staff are essential for effective inmate 

management.”71 He stated, “All staff are expected to be vigilant and attentive to inmate 

accountability and security issues.”72 

In regard to discouraging staff misconduct, Mr. Lappin testified that the BOP’s approach is 

multidimensional, which begins with employees clearly understanding BOP’s zero-tolerance 

policy and continues with staff training on the shared responsibility to report incidents of 

misconduct.73 BOP expects staff to report incidents of staff sexual misconduct to the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which then refers the matter back 

to BOP’s independent Office of Internal Affairs.74 The OIG has a hotline available to the public 

for reporting employees of the Justice Department who have violated a person’s civil rights or 

civil liberties; this hotline is available to BOP inmates for reporting the sexual misconduct of 

BOP staff.75 

Mr. Lappin said that the BOP also takes allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults 

seriously, referring all allegations to BOP staff.76 If the matter potentially involves a crime, Mr. 

Lappin explained, BOP staff will promptly refer the case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI).77 

The BOP’s policy for preventing sexually abusive behavior, Mr. Lappin noted, contains the 

following elements: (1) fostering awareness of the BOP’s zero-tolerance policy, (2) following 

standardized procedures to detect and prevent sexually abusive behavior, (3) responding 

effectively to the various needs of victims, (4) intervening and promptly investigating reported 

sexually abusive behavior, and (5) disciplining and prosecuting perpetrators.78 

Mr. Lappin observed, “Staff are required to assume all reports of victimization are credible, 

regardless of the source.”79 Mr. Lappin stressed that BOP staff needs to be mindful of inmates 

who are at risk, either as victims or predators; he stated that prevention of sexual abuse relies on 

following basic correctional practices, which include observing inmates’ interactions, 

communicating with inmates effectively, noting behavior changes, and monitoring the 

institutional environment.80

 

69 Id. 70 Id. 71 Id. 72 Id. 73 Id. 4. 74 Id. 75 Id. 5. 76 Id. 77 Id. 78 Id. 6. 79 Id. 80 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

9 

Inmates learn about their rights and responsibilities in preventing sexually abusive behavior 

during orientation; they learn about prevention strategies, methods for reporting incidents, 

treatment, and the consequences for perpetrators.81 They also receive this information in written 

form.82

In elaborating on his prepared remarks, Mr. Lappin noted the importance at BOP of having 

separate oversight teams to keep individual facilities accountable: 

We’re blessed in the Bureau of Prisons as large as we are that we can have a 

separate oversight group. So the warden, even though he’s practicing this 

[sexual-abuse prevention] policy every day, he also knows in the back of his mind 

that several times a year, a team of people are going to come in there and they’re 

going to look at the policy. They’re going to look at the incidents where there is a 

sexual, physical or verbal assault, or an escape or whatever, and somebody’s 

going to critique what occurred . . . [and] make some recommendations as to what 

you need to do to improve upon the adherence of that policy in the future.83 

In his testimony before the Panel, Mr. John Shartle, Warden of the Federal Correctional 

Institution in Fairton, New Jersey, and former Warden of FCI Elkton, noted in particular the 

importance of creating a prison culture that treats seriously every allegation related to sexual 

victimization of an inmate.84 Mr. Shartle said, “Every allegation is taken extremely seriously. 

Whether you think this inmate is manipulative or not, that’s not your decision to make.”85 Mr. 

Shartle said that the key word in creating a prison culture that does not tolerate the sexual abuse 

of inmates is “buy-in” from staff members at every level of the organization: 

[W]hat you need is buy-in, not just from the management staff and the executive 

staff, but from the correctional officer who is walking through the unit and just 

sort of senses that something is wrong or the case manager who’s talking to the 

inmate and they seem a little distracted and they have that sixth sense to sort of 

pursue that and find out if something is going on. And once they have that 

awareness that something is going on, again, the protocols kick in . . . it has been 

my experience, in my twenty-plus years of experience with the Bureau of Prisons, 

that I have not been witness to one case where somebody just said, “You know 

what, that was nothing.” When there’s even the slightest sense of it, it kicks in.86

In responding to questions from the Panel about the protocols FCI Elkton employs to respond to 

an allegation of sexual victimization, Mr. Kevin Schwinn, Chief of Intelligence for the Central 

Office of the BOP, stated that the procedures are similar regardless of whether the alleged assault 

involves another inmate or a staff member.87 When a staff member initially receives a report of 

sexual victimization, regardless of what form it may take, the notice triggers an institutional 

 

81 Id. 8. 82 Id. 83 Tr., H. Lappin, 241:19-242:9. 

84 Id., J. Shartle, 237:2-19. 85 Id. 237:14-16, 266:2-20. 86 Id. 237:21-238:14. 87 Id., K. Schwinn, 243:2-5. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

10 

response.88 The staff member notifies the operations lieutenant, the chief of correctional 

services, the local investigator, and the Special Investigative Support office, which then 

immediately launches an investigation.89 Also within minutes of a reported sexual incident, staff 

members notify the warden.90 The institution then reassigns the alleged victim to a safe area 

while the investigation proceeds.91 Departing from its past practices and in keeping with the 

recommendations of the Commission,92 the BOP advises wardens to consider thoughtfully the 

reassignment of alleged victims, to weigh other options other than automatically placing the 

alleged victim in segregation.93 Staff members collect as much evidence as possible at the scene 

in accordance with FBI procedures.94 The facility sends the alleged victim to the medical unit 

for an initial evaluation; once that is complete, the warden will authorize the inmate’s transfer to 

a local hospital for the administration of a rape kit.95 The facility maintains the rape kit as 

evidence in the event of future prosecution.96 

Mr. Lappin noted that BOP investigators are already relying on the Commission’s work, using a 

PREA checklist in the investigative process.97 According to Mr. Lappin, having local PREA 

coordinators in facilities, along with coordinators in regional offices and at the central office, 

contributes to the BOP’s ability to audit the investigative process.98

Dr. Paul Clifford, Chief Psychologist at FCI Elkton, stated that following an alleged sexual 

assault, mental health workers receive notification as soon as possible so that they can make an 

immediate assessment of the effects of trauma on the alleged victim—this assessment takes 

place, in accordance with established policy, within twenty-four hours of the alleged incident.99 

The psychological assessment includes an evaluation of the alleged victim’s suicide risk.100 

Psychological services quickly identify the treatment needs of the alleged victim, ranging from 

immediate care to long-term follow up.101 

If an alleged sexual assault comes to the attention of FCI Elkton staff a significant time after the 

alleged incident, staff members who learn of the allegation still immediately contact 

psychological services.102 In dealing with an incident that occurred after a lapse of time, the 

facility follows the same protocols it does in dealing with an alleged sexual assault that had just 

 

88 Id. 243:6-8. 89 Id. 243:10-14. 90 Id. 251:17. 91 Id. 244:6-7. 92 Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6282 (§ 115.66). 

93 Tr., H. Lappin, 260:15-261:7; see app. D (Memorandum from D. Scott Dodrill, Assistant Director, Correctional 

Program Division (CPD), BOP, to Chief Executive Officers (Oct. 12, 2011) (Inmate Sexual Abuse Follow-up) 

(citing Memorandum from D. Scott Dodrill, Assistant Director, CPD, BOP, to Chief Executive Officers (Oct. 16, 

2009) and Sexual Abusive Behavior Prevention Intervention Program, P5324.06 (Apr. 27, 2005))). 94 Tr., K. Schwinn, 244:11-16. 

95 Id. 245:2-7. 96 Id. 245:8-9. 97 Id., H. Lappin, 260:1-6. 98 Id. 260:7-14. 99 Id., P. Clifford, 247:3-19. 100 Id. 247:15. 101 Id. 247:16-19. 102 Id., K. Schwinn, 254:3-17. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

11 

taken place; the only difference is that investigators will be less able to collect physical 

evidence.103 Whether the lapse of time would make the administration of a rape kit unproductive 

is a question that the BOP defers to the FBI.104

Dr. Clifford testified that the low incidence of reported sexual victimization at FCI Elkton may 

be attributed to “culture and continuum,” meaning that the institutional environment is based on 

good correctional practices, which extend not only to recruiting and training staff but also to 

fostering professional behavior that may not be directly related to implementing PREA.105 

According to Dr. Clifford, among those good correctional practices are the maintenance of 

professional boundaries between staff and inmates, which includes taking care to keep desks and 

bulletin boards free of inappropriate materials and avoiding abusive language in dealing with 

inmates.106 Dr. Clifford said that a proactive approach was key, noting that the phrase repairing 

“broken windows” captures this idea: when an institution tends to minor infractions, similar to 

fixing a broken window, it communicates to staff and inmates a commitment, along a continuum, 

to address larger, more serious issues.107

iii. Observations 

In reviewing the testimony from administrators from FCI Elkton, its response to the Data 

Request, and the information that the Panel gathered through an onsite visit to the facility, the 

Panel would like to underscore three general principles that appear to have contributed to the low 

incidence of sexual victimization at the prison. 

First, BOP has implemented managerial practices that promote facility oversight. The BOP has 

more than just a policy that addresses sexual victimization of inmates; it has put into place 

procedures that evaluate whether a facility has put the policy into practice. A review team 

periodically visits each facility to examine how it deals with allegations of sexual victimization 

and how the staff has responded. The BOP not only has PREA coordinators at the facility level, 

but it also has PREA coordinators at the regional and central-office levels to serve as a check and 

balance on the work of the facility coordinator. If there were a break-down in a facility’s 

response to incidents of sexual victimization, the BOP has put into place a system designed to 

identify the problem and correct it. 

Second, the BOP takes seriously the issue of developing an institutional culture that prevents 

sexual victimization. This is apparent through a number of institutional practices, which include 

treating every allegation of sexual victimization as being important rather than dismissing some 

claims based on a prejudgment of the complainant’s credibility or motives, avoiding abusive 

language in interactions with inmates, cultivating in the staff an attentiveness to subtle warnings 

 

103 Id. 104 Id., H. Lappin, 257:19-158:1. 105 Tr., P. Clifford, 262:2-15. 106 Id. 262:9-15, 262:17-263:5. 107 Id. 263:6-14. Although Dr. Clifford did not cite the work of George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson in his 

testimony, he was referring to the broken-windows theory of community policing that they formulated. See George 

L. Kelling & James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Mar. 

1982 at 29-38, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken-windows/4465/. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

12 

that may indicate sexually abuse behavior, and encouraging the staff at all organizational levels 

to buy in to the shared responsibility to identify and report sexual victimization. 

Third, consistent with the draft PREA standards, the BOP’s policy to consider alternatives to 

administrative segregation in housing inmates alleging sexual victimization avoids a practice that 

has often resulted in punishing victims. Consequently, inmates may be more likely to report 

incidents of sexual victimization. 

b. Bridgeport 

i. Facility Description 

Bridgeport, located in Bridgeport, Texas, is a minimum security female facility operated by the 

CCA under a contract with the TDCJ. The facility at its full rated capacity houses 200 inmates, 

and on January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the facility was at full capacity.108 The average 

length of stay for inmates at Bridgeport in calendar year 2008 was 190 days;109 the average 

length of stay in calendar year 2009 was 191 days.110 The longest length of stay of any inmate at 

Bridgeport in calendar year 2008 was 1761 days;111 the longest length of stay in calendar year 

2009 was 1476 days.112 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Bridgeport in 

calendar year 2008 was 588,113 consisting of 289 Whites, 160 African Americans, 136 Hispanics, 

1 Asian, and 1 Alaska Native or American Indian.114 The total number of inmates who spent any 

time at Bridgeport in 2009 was 565,115 consisting of 286 Whites, 141 African Americans, 136 

Hispanics, 1 Asian, and 1 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.116 

The total number of authorized staff positions at Bridgeport at full capacity on January 1, 2008, 

and on January 1, 2009, was sixty-one.117 On January 1, 2008, Bridgeport staffing consisted of 

fourteen custody staff members and three non-custody staff members.118 On January 1, 2009, 

Bridgeport staff consisted of fifteen custody staff members and five non-custody staff 

members.119 The ratio of custody staff members to offenders on January 1, 2008, and on January 

1, 2009, was one to eleven.120 

In calendar years 2008 and 2009, no Bridgeport inmates either attempted or committed 

suicide.121 There were also no allegations of sexual abuse of any type at Bridgeport in calendar 

years 2008 and 2009.122

 

108 Bridgeport Resp. 9(a)-(b), 10(a)-(b) (on file with the Panel). 109 Id. 9(g). 110 Id. 10(g). 111 Id. 9(h). 112 Id. 10(h). 113 Id. 9(f). 114 Id. 11. Bridgeport did not account for the racial and ethnic background of one inmate. 115 Id. 10(f). 116 Id. 12. 117 Id. 23(a), 24(a). 118 Id. 23(d)(i). 119 Id. 24(d)(i). 120 Id. 25(a), (e). 121 Id. 13(a)-(b), 15(a)-(b). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

13 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

Mr. Steven Conry, who serves as the PREA coordinator for CCA, linked the low incidence of 

sexual victimization at Bridgeport to three broader strategies that the CCA has adopted to 

eliminate sexual abuse in its correctional facilities: (1) working on prevention, (2) exceeding 

contract requirements with government partners related to the current draft of the national PREA 

standards, and (3) improving policies and practices.123 Mr. Conry noted that CCA has taken a 

number of steps to prevent sexual victimization of inmates in its facilities. The CCA has 

appointed a corporate PREA committee, and each time the CCA learns about an allegation of 

sexual abuse at one of its facilities, the committee convenes within forty-eight hours of the 

incident and holds a conference call with administrators at the facility to discuss the incident and 

make sure that the facility is adhering to the CCA’s PREA policy in regard to the investigative 

process and the treatment of the alleged victim.124 The CCA has also worked to install at most of 

its facilities a digital platform for the telephone system that will alert a warden if an inmate calls 

a staff member’s home or mobile telephone.125 The CCA is conducting a PREA vulnerability 

assessment of all of its facilities nationwide; it has already completed an assessment of its female 

facilities and it is in the process of completing an assessment of its male facilities.126 The CCA 

is investing in recording systems, cameras, and signage to prevent sexual abuse at its facilities.127 

Although it has not as yet been successful, the CCA is also sponsoring psychological research to 

develop a screening instrument for prospective employees that would identify individuals with 

predatory tendencies.128 The CCA has also retained independent outside groups to audit its 

facilities and to make recommendations on how it could improve its operations to prevent the 

sexual victimization of inmates.129

Ms. Mary Brandin, Warden of Bridgeport, testified that the hard work of her staff, combined 

with the support of the CCA and TDCJ, contributed to the low incidence of sexual victimization 

at her facility.130 She said that even though there is a sound program in place at Bridgeport, the 

biggest challenge is not to become complacent.131 She noted that it is important for 

administrators to guard against thinking that there are no problems on their units: “[t]o do so 

would mean that you are not looking at the situation with an open mind.”132 Warden Brandin 

volunteered that to be effective, prison officials have to be willing to be open to information 

from staff that she categorized as “hard to hear.”133

 122 Id. 29(a). 123 Tr., S. Conry, 283:3-14. 124 Id. 284:6-22; see also id., M. Brandin, 303:1-13. 125 Id., S. Conry, 285:7-12. 126 Id. 285:12-19. 127 Id. 285:20-286:5. 128 Id. 286:21-287:6. 129 Id. 287:7-14. 130 Id., M. Brandin, 288:12-18. 131 Id. 288:19-289:3. 132 Id. 293:15-21. 133 Id. 293:21-294:3. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

14 

Warden Brandin testified that based on her prior experience working for almost twenty years in 

male facilities, she would characterize female correctional institutions as significantly 

different.134 She said that one has to be aware in working with a female population that 

“everything that they do is emotion-based . . . .”135 Consequently, Warden Brandin said that it is 

important to have programming that keeps the inmates busy and focused on what is important to 

them, which means having them keep in mind not only their upcoming release dates but also the 

lives they will lead beyond the release dates: 

[W]hat we preach to them is who you are. It’s not so much what you are. You 

are an inmate, but it’s who you are. You are a mother, a sister, a daughter, a 

grandmother, and you need to focus on that and you need to better yourself on 

that.136

Warden Brandin said that in male facilities inmates may join groups that pose a security threat, 

whereas in female facilities the inmates tend to form family cliques.137 Bridgeport administrators 

have let inmates know that creating in-house surrogate families is an unacceptable way to obtain 

the attention and affection that many crave.138 Warden Brandin noted that one of the ways in 

which Bridgeport discourages family cliques is through programming that gives inmates unitwide recognition; one example of such programming is the production of a talent show.139 The 

intent of these programs is to boost an inmate’s sense of self-respect with the hope that there will 

be less need to seek one-on-one attention.140 

Echoing the testimony of Mr. Shartle, the former warden at FCI Elkton, Warden Brandin 

observed that it was important to have staff members who are attentive to the needs of inmates: 

It’s very important that your staff are able to recognize a change or a sway in 

behavior or attitude, and I think that we have excellent staff who have been able 

to recognize any type of immediate mood, physical/emotional/behavioral change 

and openly report . . . that to the administration and to their supervisors, and then 

from there, we pull in the offender and express to them our concern for their wellbeing.141

Warden Brandin said that Bridgeport had an excellent education system for both staff members 

and offenders so that both would know the consequences of violating the facility’s policies 

related to sexual misconduct.142 She also said that there is a great need to train new staff 

members who come to Bridgeport whose only prior experience was working in male facilities.143 

Warden Brandin said that she will often have a one-on-one briefing with these new staff 

 

134 Id. 313:16-21. 135 Id. 292:14-15. 136 Id. 294:17-22. 137 Id. 311:21-312:3. 138 Id. 312:3-14. 139 Id. 312:15-20, 313:1-4. 140 Id. 312:20-313:4. 141 Id. 292:18-293:4. 142 Id. 292:7-11. 143 Id. 314:6-11. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

15 

members to discuss their experience in working at a women’s facility, where, according to 

Warden Brandin, the inmates, in comparison with men, tend to be more emotional, self-involved, 

and unwilling to let an issue drop.144 She said that she will often sit down with the new staff 

members every two weeks to see how they are adjusting to the new environment.145 

Warden Brandin said that she will also often counsel staff members to use the facility’s 

surveillance cameras to their advantage, instructing them to interact with inmates in view of the 

cameras so as to protect themselves from any possible future allegations of misconduct.146

One of the distinctive features of Bridgeport, contributing to its low incidence of sexual 

victimization, is its no-touch policy.147 Warden Brandin explained that Bridgeport does not 

allow any form of touching among inmates: 

[T]here are no handshakes. There is no hugging. There is no patting on the back. 

There is no sitting there at the dayroom table with your hand on her knee. It is not 

acceptable and we approach it [as] a manner of professionalism. You’re here to 

go to school. You’re here to meet goals. You’re here to meet a certain parole 

presumptive date. You have a job to do. You do your job. We’ll do our job. If 

you don’t do so well in your job, then we will follow through with our job.148 

Warden Brandin said that in one of her quarterly discussions with inmates, the topic was PREA 

and the prevention of sexual abuse.149 During the discussion, the inmates agreed that if she as 

the warden gave them an inch, they would take a mile; so when it comes to touching, having a 

clear boundary prevents any confusion about what is appropriate behavior.150 Warden Brandin 

said, “[I]t starts with a handshake. It starts with a hug. It starts with a hand on the knee, and . . . 

it progresses into something that could create a violation or is a violation.”151

iii. Observations 

In reflecting on the testimony and the data response from Bridgeport, as well as the onsite visit, 

the Panel takes note of five broad issues that may relate to Bridgeport’s success in having a low 

incidence of inmate sexual victimization: (1) the culture of the women’s facility, (2) the 

relatively small size of the institution, (3) the rapport between the warden and her staff, (4) the 

select population and the effectiveness of incentives, and (5) the challenge of the no-touch 

policy. 

Women’s prisons appear to have interpersonal dynamics that are significantly different than male 

facilities.152 To their credit, the warden and administration of Bridgeport are mindful of this 

 

144 Id. 314:11-16. 145 Id. 314:17-315:3. 146 Id. 315:4-10. 147 Id. 308:19. 148 Id. 310:4-13. 149 Id. 310:14-21. 150 Id. 310:21-311:3. 151 Id. 311:5-9. 152 See infra Part II.A.2.a.iii.(a). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

16 

difference, which has far-reaching effects, from the training provided to staff to the daily 

interactions with inmates. 

Given Bridgeport’s relatively small size, the Panel anticipates that other facilities may dismiss its 

success as difficult to replicate in prisons that may be ten or more times larger. Without in any 

way diminishing Bridgeport’s achievement—as few other facilities of the same size and security 

level were able to match its no-incident results, the Panel notes that prison size in itself may be a 

significant factor in reducing the incidence of inmate sexual victimization. This conclusion is 

consistent with the Panel’s previous report on juvenile justice facilities, in which it found a 

correlation between small facilities and reduced incidents of sexual victimization.153 

Based on the onsite visit and the warden’s testimony, the Panel found that one of the 

distinguishing characteristics of Bridgeport was the rapport that the warden had with her staff. In 

addition to meeting with the staff regularly, she has one-on-one debriefings with new hires to 

guide them in adjusting to the unique dynamics of a women’s facility. To her credit, the warden 

is also open to listening to the staff, knowing that the most important information is often the 

most difficult to hear. 

Bridgeport is undoubtedly unlike many other prisons in the BJS survey in that its inmates are 

screened for its programming based on their success at other state facilities and a release date 

within six months. Given that inmate misconduct risks a delayed release date as well as transfer 

back to another state facility, inmates have clear incentives to comply with the rules of the 

institution. While these particular dynamics might not be replicable in other institutions, the 

Panel notes that tailored incentives to discourage sexual impropriety may play a key role in 

controlling inmate behavior that contributes to sexual victimization. 

Bridgeport’s no-touch policy invites further consideration. Although the Panel was at first 

inclined to view the policy as too restrictive, it is unaware of alternative approaches at other 

female facilities that have been able to match Bridgeport’s level of success in eliminating inmate 

sexual victimization.154 There is a need, however, for a careful study of Bridgeport’s “no-touch 

policy” to determine its correlation with reported reduced rates of inmate sexual victimization. 

 

2. High-Incidence Prisons 

a. Fluvanna 

i. Facility Description 

Fluvanna, located in Troy, Virginia, and operated by VADOC, is Virginia’s maximum-security 

prison for women.155 The number of inmates at Fluvanna at its full rated capacity on January 1, 

 

153 Review Panel on Prison Rape, Report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Correctional Facilities 34-35 (Oct. 

2010), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf [hereinafter Juvenile 

Justice Report]. 154 See infra Part II.A.2.a.iii.(a). 155 Tr., J. Jabe, 120:5-7. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

17 

2008, and on January 1, 2009, was 1257.156 The actual number of inmates housed at Fluvanna 

on January 1, 2008, was 1190.157 In calendar year 2008, the total number of inmates who spent 

any time at Fluvanna was 1568;158 the average length of stay was 30 months;159 and the longest 

stay of any inmate was 309.6 months.160 On January 1, 2009, the actual number of inmates 

housed at Fluvanna was 1212.161 In calendar year 2009, the total number of inmates who spent 

any time at Fluvanna was 1352;162 the average length of stay was 31.7 months;163 and the longest 

stay of any inmate was 217.6 months.164

In 2008, the racial and ethnic composition of the total inmate population at Fluvanna was 802 

Whites, 750 African Americans, 8 Hispanics, 4 Asians, and 3 unknown.165 In 2009, the racial 

and ethnic composition of the total inmate population at Fluvanna was 695 Whites, 644 African 

Americans, 9 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 2 unknown.166

 

On January 1, 2008, the total number of authorized positions at Fluvanna was 372 (318 filled and 

54 vacant), which included 285 security staff (239 filled and 46 vacant) and 87 non-security staff 

(80 filled and 7 vacant).167 The actual staffing level on January 1, 2008, was 318 (238 sworn and 

80 non-sworn).168 On January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized positions at Fluvanna was 

372 (329 filled and 43 vacant), which included 285 security staff (247 filled and 38 vacant) and 

87 non-security staff (83 filled and 4 vacant).169 The actual staffing level on January 1, 2009, 

was 329 (246 sworn and 83 non-sworn).170 On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the 

staff-to-inmate ratio was one to five.171 

In calendar years 2008 and 2009, Fluvanna did not designate a PREA coordinator.172

In 2008 and 2009, there were no suicides at Fluvanna, but in each year there were three suicide 

attempts.173 There was no evidence to connect the six suicide attempts to sexual victimization.174

In calendar years 2008 and 2009, there were nine inmate grievances alleging inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization.175 The charges included sexual assault and rape.176 Of the nine charges, 

 

156 Fluvanna Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 157 Id. 9(b). 158 Id. 9(f). 159 Id. 9(g). 160 Id. 9(h). 161 Id. 10(b). 162 Id. 10(f). 163 Id. 10(g). 164 Id. 10(h). 165 Id. 11. Fluvanna did not account for the racial and ethnic background of one inmate. 166 Id. 12. 167 Id. 23(a)-(c). 168 Id. 23(d)-(f). 169 Id. 24(a)-(b). 170 Id. 24(d)-(f). 171 Id. 24(d)-(f), 25(a). 172 Id. (noting that the institutional investigator coordinated PREA-related issues in the absence of a designated 

PREA coordinator). 

173 Id. 13(a)-(b), 15(a)-(b). 174 Id. 14, 16. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

18 

five were not sustained; one investigation was inconclusive; one rape charge was sustained, 

resulting in the perpetrator receiving ten days in isolated confinement and referral to the 

Commonwealth’s Attorney for prosecution; in one charge involving unwanted touching, both 

inmates received discipline of ten days in isolated confinement; and in one charge against a 

fellow inmate for making sexual advances, the charge was sustained and the perpetrator received 

fifteen days of disciplinary segregation.177

In 2008 and 2009, there were six inmate grievances alleging staff-on-inmate sexual 

victimization.178 All of the charges alleged sexual assault.179 Of the six charges, all but one were 

not sustained, inconclusive, or unfounded.180 One grievance resulted in a finding of 

fraternization between a male staff member and a female inmate, but the more serious charge of 

carnal knowledge was not sustained.181 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

In written testimony, Mr. Harold W. Clarke, Director of the VADOC, stated that the reported 

high incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization that the BJS Report identified at Fluvanna 

should be understood in light of allegations that surfaced in 2007 involving the facility’s former 

chief of security.182 Ultimately, the chief of security stood trial in 2008 and was convicted of 

engaging in sexual acts with female offenders at Fluvanna.183 Mr. Clarke noted that VADOC 

investigated these incidents and the perpetrator was disciplined, terminated, and charged under 

Virginia law.184 Mr. Clarke observed, “Due to his high position in [Fluvanna’s] management, 

confidence in the leadership and management of the facility was lost. Therefore, when the 

surveys were completed the offenders based their responses on issues which occurred during 

2007.”185

Mr. Clarke conceded that there were a number of factors that led to the former chief of security’s 

sexual misconduct, including the lack of supervision, the distance of the chief of security’s office 

from his supervisor’s office, the chief of security’s office having an unmonitored entrance, 

inadequate procedures for tracking the movement of inmates, the lack of strategically located 

surveillance cameras, the chief of security’s work schedule extending beyond business hours, his 

working behind closed doors, no protocols for male staff working alone with female offenders, a 

staff who feared retaliation for reporting the sexual misconduct of a supervisor, inadequate 

 175 App. C (Fluvanna Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 176 Id. 177 Id. 178 Id. (Fluvanna Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 179 Id. 180 Id. 181 Id. (Incident 3). 182 As Mr. Clarke was unable to appear before the Panel, he provided a sworn, written response to questions that the 

Panel sent to him in writing. See Clarke Test. 1(a) (Apr. 18, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_clarke.pdf. 183 Id. 184 Id. 185 Id. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

19 

training for staff, the dismissal of complaints from offenders, and poor communication at various 

levels within the organization.186

Mr. Clarke also testified that the following factors related to offenders may have contributed to 

the high incidence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization that the BJS Report identified at 

Fluvanna: 

● Lack of knowledge of PREA and the process for reporting incidents, 

● Fear of retaliation for reporting sexual victimization, 

● Fear of being placed in administrative segregation during the investigation 

 of a reported incident, 

● Lack of trust in the staff to handle properly allegations of sexual 

 victimization, and 

● Fear of the staff’s labeling an offender as a consenting participant in a 

 sexual relationship with another inmate.187 

Mr. Clarke also stated that short staffing during the early morning and late evening hours, when 

most incidents occur, may have contributed to the high incidence of reported inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization at Fluvanna.188 He asserted that VADOC believes that some consensual 

sexual relationships among inmates were improperly classified as PREA violations.189

The Panel notes that in the wake of the sexual scandal at Fluvanna, VADOC took action to 

address the problem, replacing both the warden, who retired, and the chief of security, who was 

sent to prison, and appointing a committee in July of 2009 to investigate the facility and make 

recommendations for improving its management.190 When the committee ultimately released its 

report, among other issues, it addressed management styles and practices at Fluvanna and 

reviewed whether inmate housing assignments were related to sexual orientation.191 

The committee found that the chief of security at the time192 had tried to enhance security 

measures at the facility, but the committee had concerns with his management style, noting his 

use of inappropriate language with offenders and low staff morale: 

Interviews revealed that the [chief of security] and key administrators were 

ineffective in their communication of changes to operational procedures. Input 

 

186 Id. 187 Id. 1(b). 188 Id. 189 Id. 190 See Fluvanna Managerial Review Final Report (Jan. 4, 2010) (on file with the Panel) [hereinafter Fluvanna 

Report]. 

191 Fluvanna Report 1. 192 The Panel learned after the April 2011 hearings that the security chief at Fluvanna at the time of the Panel’s 

onsite visit and hearings subsequently left this position. This chief of security should not be confused with his 

predecessor who was convicted of sexual misconduct. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

20 

from impacted staff and others was not obtained before the implementation of 

changes which has led to low morale of staff, offenders, and volunteers. 

According to staff . . . [the chief of security’s] management practices lack a 

contemporary participatory style and staff feels uncomfortable in approaching the 

[chief of security]. There were multiple complaints concerning the [chief of 

security’s] use of inappropriate language in some of his interactions with staff and 

volunteers.193

In testimony before the Panel, Mr. John Jabe, Deputy Director of Operations at VADOC, stated 

that he doubted the accuracy of the Fluvanna Report as it pertained to the alleged complaints 

against the chief of security.194 He sensed that the former warden and her staff did not like the 

way the new chief of security implemented VADOC policies; consequently, Mr. Jabe believed 

that the negative comments about the chief of security that appeared in the Fluvanna Report were 

inaccurate.195

Based on an article published by the Associated Press claiming that Building 5D at Fluvanna was 

a “butch wing,” where the facility allegedly segregated offenders based on their masculine 

physical appearance and sexual orientation,196 the committee investigated housing practices at 

Fluvanna and concluded that there was no factual evidence to support this news story.197

Among the recommendations that the committee made were the following: 

● Staff should have additional training on working with female offenders; 

● Administrators needed training on effective communication and 

 leadership; 

● Staff should be consulted before the facility implemented policy changes; 

● The administration should develop facility expectations and communicate 

 them to all staffing levels; 

● The facility should clarify staff roles in the operation of the facility; 

● The administration should apply policies consistently, and 

● The facility should implement an equitable system to make special 

 programming available to all offenders.198

Ms. Wendy Hobbs, the current warden at Fluvanna, who took leadership of the facility in 

December of 2009,199 stated that problems at Fluvanna were the result of poor security 

 

193 Id. 4. 194 Tr., J. Jabe, 204:10-205:3; but see infra notes 251 and 274. 195 Tr., J. Jabe, 205:7-10, 12. 196 Dena Potter, Women’s Prison Said to Have Segregated Lesbians, Others, WASH. TIMES, June 11, 2009, available 

at http://www.washingtontimes.com. 197 Fluvanna Report 6-7. 198 Id. 9. 199 Tr., W. Hobbs, 133:1. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

21 

measures.200 When she was the warden at the Virginia Correctional Center for Women in 

Goochland, Virginia, Warden Hobbs served on the committee that investigated Fluvanna.201 

Warden Hobbs assured the Panel that the administration at Fluvanna takes incidents of sexual 

victimization at the facility seriously, investigating any allegations, taking statements from both 

the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator, and providing medical services as needed.202 

Warden Hobbs said that one of her priorities at Fluvanna is to increase the number of female 

security staff, which is not as high as she would like.203 She said that she would like to increase 

the percentage of female security officers from the current percentage, which is fifty-three, to at 

least seventy.204 She said that there is no cross-gender supervision at Fluvanna.205

Warden Hobbs said that she is trying to create a culture at Fluvanna where inmates would feel 

free to report sexual victimization and where the staff understands its professional obligation to 

report sexual victimization.206 She testified that in investigating an allegation of inmate-oninmate sexual assault, “both inmates are put into investigative hold . . . .”207 She said that even 

though this is a form of segregation, she cautioned that one should distinguish between 

protective segregation during an investigation and segregation as punishment.208 Still, Warden 

Hobbs acknowledged that alleged victims may spend weeks in segregation during an 

investigation.209 She said that even though placement in segregation during an investigation is 

not punishment, inmates understandably perceive it as so because they are removed from the 

general population.210

Warden Hobbs said that Fluvanna places the alleged victim of staff sexual misconduct in 

segregation during an investigation to control the communication between the staff person and 

the inmate, to make sure that they are not coordinating their stories to undermine the integrity of 

the investigation.211 In the coming year, Warden Hobbs said that she plans to provide training to 

staff on working with female inmates and revamping a master pass list so that women do not 

miss participation in programming.212

 

200 Id. 131:16-18. 201 Id. 130:10-11, 131:7-13. 202 Id. 132:12-21. 203 Id. 133:15-17. 204 Id. 133:19-20, 133:22-134:1. 205 Id. 134:8-14. 206 Id. 135:9-21. 207 Id. 136:1. 208 Id. 136:2-10. 209 Id. 136:11-16. 210 Id. 139:20-140:4. 211 Id. 142:3-19. 212 Id. 191:9-11, 14-21. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

22 

iii. Observations 

(a) The Distinctive Dynamics of Women’s 

Prisons 

The Panel invited testimony from Dr. Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology at the California 

State University at Fresno, to provide perspective on the unique dynamics of female correctional 

institutions, such as Bridgeport and Fluvanna.213 She stated, “[Y]ou have to pay separate 

attention to the issues of women or they get lost in the discussion of men.”214 Dr. Owen noted 

that consistent with the BJS Report, prior victimization contributes to the cycle of violence 

among women.215 Using an ecological model suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Dr. Owen stated that “[m]ultiple organizational, environmental and individual 

factors contribute to violence in women’s facilities . . . the dynamic interplay between individual, 

relational, community, facility and societal factors create and sustain violence potentials in 

women’s jails and prisons.”216 

Dr. Owen observed that women who come from dysfunctional families, where emotional support 

is not available or where the primary caregivers may be violent or exploitative, may struggle 

with developing healthy relationships in adulthood.217 “One of the most consistent findings has 

been that female offenders are more likely than male offenders to have experienced violent 

victimization in childhood, and much more likely to have experienced violent victimization than 

non-incarcerated women.”218 A prison sentence may trigger earlier trauma, aggravating the 

symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).219 Although it is unclear why women who 

have been prior victims of sexual abuse are more likely to be targets for recurrent victimization, 

for “incarcerated women, it is most probably due to a variety of risky behaviors and their 

tendency to become involved with abusive partners and engage in high-risk sexual behavior.”220 

According to Dr. Owen, one of the key concepts in understanding women’s prisons is “that the 

primary motivation for women throughout life is not separation, but connection. Women’s 

emotional development is dependent upon relationships and when women feel disconnected 

from others, they experience disempowerment, confusion, and anxiety.”221 Dr. Owen confirmed 

prior testimony that the cultures in men’s and women’s prisons differ significantly.222 She 

observed, “Women’s sexual relationships are described as usually consensual rather than 

coercive; unlike men, women sometimes develop pseudo-families as a result of these 

relationships.”223 Dr Owen noted that “some of the inmate-inmate violence that we see in the 

prisons can be thought of as interpersonal violence . . . replicating domestic violence.”224

 

213 Owen Test. (Apr. 26, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_owen.pdf 214 Tr., B. Owen, 90:8-10. 215 Owen Test. 1. 216 Id. 2. 217 Id. 218 Id. 3. 219 Id. 4. 220 Id. 221 Id. 3. 222 Id. 223 Id. 4. 224 Tr., B. Owen, 98:2-5. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

23 

Dr. Owen noted female offenders are not all the same, and the reasons for their engaging in 

sexual activity while in prison vary considerably: 

[F]emale inmates are not a homogenous group of passive victims. Some do fall in 

love with correctional officers, some actively exploit male or female officers who 

fall in love with them, and some willingly participate in sexual banter. If it is true 

that female inmates actively seek out sexual relationships with male staff 

members, it may be the case that such relationships are truly consensual; or it may 

be that such relationships can be understood as the tactics of the oppressed, a 

result of sexualized identity and low self image because of childhood sexual 

abuse, or a result of gender socialization.225

In any case, Dr. Owen testified that any official reports of sexual victimization of female inmates 

are certain to be lower than the actual numbers, as the consequences for reporting a sexual 

assault are too high for both the inmate and the staff member.226

To improve the safety of women inmates, Dr. Owen asserts that it is important to consider both 

the individual as well as the place of confinement in analyzing the factors that increase the risk 

of sexual victimization, noting that “safety and violence have different meanings for female and 

male inmates.”227 Dr. Owen suggests that correctional institutions should broaden the definition 

of safety in considering female inmates to include “physical, psychological, social, moral, and 

ethical safety.”228 She writes, “Expanding on these broader components of safety for female 

offenders directs our attention not only to improving safety in women’s facilities, but also 

supports successful re-integration and rehabilitation.”229 

In fashioning recommendations to reduce institutional violence, Dr. Owen, referring again to the 

ecological model, offered suggestions for improvement in three broad categories: individual 

factors, relationship factors, and community and facility factors.230 

In regard to individual factors, she suggests that correctional facilities should provide training to 

staff on trauma and responding to trauma, including PTSD, and understanding the impact 

domestic and intimate-partner violence may have on offenders.231 Correctional institutions 

should have the capacity to provide treatment to inmates who experienced violence prior to 

incarceration as well as to inmates who experience violence while incarcerated.232 

In regard to relationship factors, Dr. Owen encourages correctional institutions to have frank 

discussions with inmates during orientation about the benefits and consequences of developing 

relationships with other inmates.233 The orientation should touch on alternative ways for women 

to develop healthy relationships with each other and to identify and develop healthy relationship 

 

225 Owen Test. 5-6. 226 Id. 6. 227 Id. 228 Id. 229 Id. 230 Id. 7-8. 231 Id. 7. 232 Id. 233 Id. 8. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

24 

boundaries.234 Correctional facilities should also provide constructive programming for inmates, 

which may include education on conflict management, the warning signs and components of 

domestic and intimate-partner violence, the mechanisms to promote personal safety, and the 

ways to break the cycle of violence.235 

In regard to community and facility factors, Dr. Owen wrote that it is important for correctional 

institutions to evaluate the level of violence tolerated in the facility, which includes whether the 

staff sexually harasses inmates, whether the management has a rehabilitative or custodial 

approach, and whether verbal and nonverbal interactions with female inmates are either 

respectful or degrading.236 Dr. Owen wrote that it is important for correctional facilities to have 

clear policies against verbal, physical, or sexual misconduct.237 Among other recommendations, 

she suggested that correctional facilities implement processes for reporting and investigating 

sexual victimization that protect confidentiality, provide treatment to victims, and refer them to 

appropriate services.238 She wrote that prisons should require staff training on “genderappropriate ways to manage female offenders, with a particular emphasis on respecting female 

inmates, understanding the role of trauma and victimization as a pathway to prison/jail, sexual 

harassment, and staff sexual misconduct.”239 She also noted that staff training should address 

negative attitudes toward women, especially stereotypes about women in the criminal justice 

system.240 Finally, Dr. Owen recommended that correctional institutions develop committees 

that include the participation of female inmates, as well as the custody and treatment staffs, to 

“implement innovative ideas to reduce institutional violence.”241

In elaborating on her written testimony, Dr. Owen observed that verbal harassment in prison is a 

key indicator of the level of violence a correctional institution may tolerate: 

Our findings show that both inmate-inmate victimization and staff sexual 

misconduct occurs on a continuum, and when we take this prevention or 

intervention approach, it’s almost like the broken windows philosophy of stop the 

small stuff, and I think probably the most single indicator of that is staff verbal 

harassment. When we hear the reports, again nationwide, of the terms that are 

allowed to be used in addressing women, and I just want to footnote they’re often 

used to address female staff as well, there’s a tolerance for that type of 

language.242

Dr. Owen also suggested that there are two terms that are often part of the discussion of the 

sexual victimization of women in prisons that require closer examination.243 She said that 

thinking of women as “sexual predators” tends to be confusing, because based on her research, 

 

234 Id. 235 Id. 236 Id. 237 Id. 238 Id. 9. 239 Id. 240 Id. 241 Id. 242 Tr., B. Owen, 92:16-93:4; see also supra note 107. 243 Tr., B. Owen, 99:2-3. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

25 

the roles of predator and victim are often interchangeable for women on an individual level.244 

Dr. Owen also said that the term “manipulation” is an ill-fitting term in describing the 

relationship between women offenders and staff members; she said that this language requires 

more careful thought, otherwise it suggests that women are “magical creatures” who can make 

people do things they might not otherwise want to do.245 Dr. Owen also observed that a common 

term in discussing women’s prison is “drama,” which she believes is a stereotypical way of 

dismissing women’s issues.246

Dr. Owen testified that violence in women’s prisons is rarely stranger violence; instead, it often 

takes place within the context of a relationship with staff or with other inmates.247

(b) Onsite Visit 

In preparation for the hearings, the Panel toured Fluvanna on April 21, 2011. In listening to 

inmates in the general population, the Panel heard a number of comments questioning the 

wisdom of reporting sexual victimization to prison officials, as many perceived that reporting an 

incident invariably led to segregation, which they saw as a form of punishment.248 One inmate 

commented, “If you dial the PREA number, it’s a ticket to SEG.”249 Several inmates also 

alleged that the correctional staff mistreated them.250 Some stated that the chief of security at the 

time of the onsite visit used derogatory language in referring to them.251 Some of the inmates 

also alleged that despite VADOC’s efforts to change the environment at Fluvanna, at least one 

male officer in a supervisory position was still having sex with female inmates.252 

The Panel learned that inmates receive training on PREA that lasts between thirty and forty-five 

minutes.253 One inmate said, however, that she had not been to a PREA orientation in nine 

years.254

The Panel witnessed one inmate in segregation who was being moved with what inmates called a 

“dog leash” or “dog collar,” or what correctional officers referred to as a “tether strap” or 

“control strap.”255 The tether strap is a restraining device that encircles an inmate’s waist, which 

 

244 Id. 99:4-9. 245 Id. 99:10-16. 246 Id. 101:17-21. 247 Id. 103:20-104:3. 248 Interview with Wendy Hobbs, Warden, Fluvanna, et al. in Troy, Va. 1 (Apr. 21, 2011) (on file with the Panel) 

[hereinafter Fluvanna Interview]. 

249 Id. 250 Id. 251 Id. 5. 252 Id.; see also Andrews Test. 2 (Apr. 26, 2011), available at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_andrews.pdf. Ms. Andrews’ testimony also appears in 

the Transcript of Record. See Tr., M. Andrews, 36:20-50:7. During the onsite visit, the Panel heard inmate 

allegations of sexual misconduct involving a lieutenant at Fluvanna. At the time of the visit, the Panel conveyed 

these inmate complaints to Warden Hobbs. Since the Panel’s hearings on Fluvanna in April of 2011, the lieutenant 

who was the subject of the inmates’ complaints has been arrested on three charges of carnal knowledge with a 

prisoner. Crime Scene: Former Va. Guard Accused of Repeated Sex with Female Inmate, WASH. POST, Mar. 9, 

2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/. 253 Fluvanna Interview 5. 254 Id. 255 Id. 1; Tr., M. Andrews, 52:2-4; id., D. Ratliffe-Walker, 156:1-3. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

26 

correctional staff use, along with hand and foot shackles, when moving inmates located in 

segregated housing.256 

During the hearing, in response to the Panel’s questions about the necessity of using the tether 

strap in dealing with inmates in segregation, especially in balancing its usefulness relative to the 

negative message it communicates to inmates, Mr. Jabe stated that VADOC will reevaluate its 

policy on the use of the tether strap.257

During the onsite visit, the Panel learned about Fluvanna’s “honor wing,” housing that allows 

inmates more privileges based on their good behavior.258

The Panel found that the investigators at Fluvanna had limited training in dealing with sexual 

assault.259

(c) Inmates and Trauma 

Mr. Wayne Reed, the mental health director at Fluvanna, noted that at least half of the women at 

Fluvanna have trauma histories and the facility has programming that works with women to 

control symptoms associated with trauma.260 Mr. Nathan Young, the assistant director for 

mental health at Fluvanna, said that all staff members receive annual training on mental health 

issues.261 One of the elements of this training program is to remind staff members that PTSD is a 

mental health diagnosis and that they need to be aware of the symptoms of this disorder, 

especially in the way that female inmates may respond to correctional officers:262 

[We] underscore that an offender’s response to an officer, if it’s negative or 

disproportionate, . . . may not have anything to do with that situation or that 

particular officer or those officers personally, but that the situation . . . or 

something related to it may be triggering that response, which security staff may 

interpret as being manipulative, [or] antisocial.263 

Mr. Young said that eighty percent of the women at Fluvanna meet the diagnostic criteria for 

PTSD or have symptoms of it; he noted that “basically the institution is a big trauma wing.”264 

(d) Testimony from Former Inmate and 

Inmate Advocate 

The Panel heard testimony from Ms. Melissa Andrews, who served eight-and-half years as an 

inmate in the custody of VADOC. 265 She was incarcerated in 2002 and spent over a year at 

Fluvanna from 2003 to 2004 before she was transferred to another facility.266 She returned to 

 

256 Id., M. Frame, 156:17-21. 257 Id., J. Jabe, 163:13-19. 258 Fluvanna Interview 4. 259 Id., S. Horn, 181:22. 260 Id., W. Reed, 173:17-174:9; see supra note 219 (Owen Test.). 261 Tr., N. Young, 187:19-22. 262 Id. 188:2-4. 263 Id. 188:5-12. 264 Id.189:3-7. 265 Id., M. Andrews, 37:15-16. 266 Id. 37:18-20. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

27 

Fluvanna in November of 2007, where she spent the last three years of her sentence before her 

release in July of 2010.267 Ms. Andrews testified as a survivor of an inmate-on-inmate sexual 

assault at another VADOC facility, but she nonetheless provided first-hand observations about 

the culture of Fluvanna. Ms. Andrews testified that the sexual encounters between female 

inmates and male correctional staff were not violent; instead they were often the result of an 

agreement between the parties: 

I’ve never heard or seen a violent sexual exchange between officers and inmates 

because it is more of an exchange of services between the two. Women would 

allow these officers to have sexual relations with them because they were lonely, 

wanted a better job, wanted more privileges, wanted less consequences for 

infractions or just for something to do.268

Ms. Andrews said that incarcerated women are especially vulnerable to staff members who show 

an interest in them, as the women come to prison with poor self-esteem and welcome attention 

that would give them an advantage over other inmates.269

Commenting on her own experience at another facility where she said that she was the target of a 

fellow inmate’s sexual assault, Ms. Andrews said that the investigation was significantly 

wanting: she was not sent to the medical unit; she was not provided counseling services; no 

pictures were taken; and the inquiry was limited.270 She asserted that Fluvanna would similarly 

not take inmate-on-inmate allegations of sexual assault seriously unless there were physical signs 

to prove the allegation.271 Ms. Andrews said that what she learned from her experience was that 

“never, ever to tell any authority anything that was going on.”272

Ms. Andrews said that when she returned to Fluvanna in 2007, the warden at that time repeatedly 

told the inmates that “if she took anything and everything from us, including our humanity, 

maybe we would not return to prison.”273 Consistent with the Fluvanna Report, but contrary to 

Mr. Jabe’s testimony, Ms. Andrews testified that the chief of security, who replaced his 

convicted predecessor, took a hard line, often referring to women inmates in a derogatory way.274 

She said that if inmates felt mistreated under the harsh, new policies, they could only appeal to 

the very people who were implementing them.275 She said that as part of this new regime, 

women could not use makeup and had to cut their hair above the collar of their shirts.276 If the 

women did not comply with these requirements, they were denied access not only to religious, 

educational, and vocational programming but also to family visits.277 One aspect of the new 

 

267 Id. 37:20-22. 268 Id. 38:16-39:1. 269 Id. 39:2-9. 270 Id. 41:8-16. 271 Id. 41:16-21. 272 Id. 42:12-14. 273 Id. 42:22-43:2. 274 Id. 43:3-7. 275 Id. 43:7-12. 276 Id. 43:20-22. 277 Id. 43:22-44:4. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

28 

policies was an absolute ban on physical contact between inmates, not permitting hand-holding 

or hugging even during religious services.278

Ms. Andrews attested to the serious problem that women inmates had in accessing the toilet, not 

only during the night but also especially during weekly shakedowns.279 As the cells do not have 

toilets, the staff would allow women to access the restroom only one at a time.280 Women would 

often have to wait hours to use the toilet, forcing many to urinate on themselves, an infraction 

that resulted in disciplinary segregation.281

Contrary to the Fluvanna Report’s conclusion, Ms. Andrews corroborated the Associated Press’ 

story regarding the segregation of lesbians and masculine-appearing women at Fluvanna.282 She 

stated that Fluvanna created a “butch wing” in Building 5D:283

They segregated all the butch inmates into D wing . . . They segregated all the 

butch girls that had short hair or sagged their pants or looked like boys, grew 

facial hair, whatever the case may be. Put them all in one wing thinking that it 

would stomp down relationships between them and their girlfriends, and the truth 

of the matter is, is they just continued relationships and then they wrote about it 

because they were segregated.284

Ms. Andrews reported that during her time at Fluvanna she was aware of officers and inmates 

having sex in a windowless bathroom and supply closet; both were free of monitoring cameras 

installed at the facility in the wake of PREA.285

With Ms. Hobbs’ appointment at Fluvanna, Ms. Andrews said that the atmosphere changed for 

the better, but still, based on her correspondence with former inmates at Fluvanna, the usage of 

the “dog collar” and the problem of access to toilets remain.286 

Ms. Helen Trainor, the former director of the Virginia Institutionalized Persons Project for the 

Legal Aid Justice Center of Charlottesville, Virginia, testified that she worked as an advocate for 

inmates in Virginia prisons from 2007 to 2010.287 She said that the primary focus of her contact 

with inmates at Fluvanna was civil rights work.288 Ms. Trainor said that based on her 

interactions with inmates at Fluvanna, the complaints of staff sexual misconduct significantly 

outnumbered complaints of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.289 She stated that the 

policies and practices at Fluvanna served a dual purpose: to foster the illusion that inmate-oninmate sexual victimization is a problem, which deflects attention away from the recent sex 

 

278 Id. 44:5-14. 279 Id. 45:6-19, 46:8-12. 280 Id. 45:6-19. 281 Id. 282 Id. 47:11-21. 283 Id. 66:13-15, 67:2-3. 284 Id. 67:2-11. 285 Id. 46:20-47:10. 286 Id. 48:5-8, 49:7-21. 287 Id., H. Trainor, 70:4-7. 288 Id. 71:5-6. 289 Id. 71:15-19. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

29 

scandal at the prison involving the former chief of security, and to create a “a culture of 

degradation, shame, and intimidation” that allows officers to victimize inmates unchallenged.290

Ms. Trainor testified that she had evidence of the current chief of security using derogatory 

language in dealing with female offenders.291 She also corroborated Ms. Andrews’ testimony 

regarding the existence of a “butch wing” at Fluvanna,292 the distress inmates encountered in 

accessing toilets,293 the policy of restricting any physical contact inmates had with each other,294

and the use of the “dog leash” in moving inmates in segregation.295 

Commenting on Fluvanna’s alleged practice, at least at one time, of segregating masculineappearing women, Ms. Trainor observed, “Unit managers were authorized to identify . . . women 

who looked butch on the basis solely of their appearance, notably a preference for wearing baggy 

clothes and having short hair. The assumption, I assume, was that women who looked butch 

were, in fact, sexual predators and should therefore be punished.”296

Ms. Trainor said that “correctional officers routinely referred to the wing in which butch women 

were housed as ‘the locker room’ and to the women there as ‘little boys.’”297 She also testified 

that Fluvanna mistreated inmates by failing to provide sufficient privacy during consultations 

with medical staff.298

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations 

In light of Fluvanna’s response to the Data Request, the Panel’s site visit, and the testimony that 

the Panel received regarding Fluvanna, the Panel recommends that the VADOC revisit the 

Fluvanna Report and determine whether it has been effective in implementing the 

recommendations contained in it, particularly in regard to staff training, effective 

communication, and the investigation of alleged sexual victimization. The Panel also 

recommends that the facility revisit its policy of holding alleged victims of sexual misconduct in 

administrative segregation during an investigation. Consistent with the recommendations of the 

proposed regulations, the Panel encourages Fluvanna to explore other alternatives before placing 

an alleged victim of sexual assault in segregation. The Panel found the use of tether straps at 

Fluvanna disturbing, failing to understand their value in enhancing security while recognizing 

the dehumanizing message their use sends to inmates at the facility. The Panel welcomed Mr. 

Jabe’s offer to revisit VADOC’s policy on the use of tether straps. The question as to whether 

Fluvanna segregated inmates based on sexual orientation or masculine physical appearance is 

beyond the purview of these hearings. Still, the Panel received credible testimony that women at 

Fluvanna may have been subject to discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical 

 

290 Id. 72:9-12. 291 Id. 75:13-19. The Panel requested documentation of the e-mails that Ms. Trainor claimed to have in her files 

showing the usage of offensive language (see id., G. Christensen, 85:13-16; id., H. Trainor, 85:17-21); however, Ms. 

Trainor was unable to produce these documents. 

292 Id. 76:10-21. 293 Id. 77:7-22. 294 Id. 76:22-77:6. 295 Id. 79:18-21. 296 Id. 76:11-17. 297 Id. 75:20-76:1. 298 Id. 79:22-81:8. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

30 

appearance. Given these allegations, it may make sense to invest in staff training on the 

obligation to respect inmates, regardless of sexual orientation or physical appearance. The staff 

training might include a segment on the importance of appropriate professional language in 

creating a positive institutional culture. Consistently speaking to inmates with respect plays a 

key role in creating a prison culture that does not tolerate any form of sexual victimization. In 

practice, implementing zero tolerance for inmate sexual victimization might begin with insisting 

on zero tolerance for verbal harassment of inmates in any form. The Panel encourages Warden 

Hobbs to strengthen staff training programs, particularly for male staff, on the dynamics of 

working in a female facility and on the importance of maintaining appropriate professional 

boundaries. 

b. Allred 

i. Facility Description 

Allred is a maximum-security prison for men operated by the TDCJ, in Wichita Falls, Texas. On 

January 1, 2008, and January 1, 2009, the facility’s capacity was 3682; on January 1, 2008, the 

actual inmate population was 3646; and on January 1, 2009, the actual inmate population was 

3636.299 In 2008, 5866 inmates spent any time at Allred; the average length of stay was 1302 

days; and the longest stay was 4941 days.300 In 2009, 4693 spent any time at Allred; the average 

length of stay was 1682 days; and the longest stay was 5306 days.301 In 2008, out of a total of 

5866 inmates, the racial and ethnic breakdown was as follows: 2290 African Americans, 1727 

Hispanics, 1818 Whites, 3 Asians, 1 American Indian, and 27 others.302 In 2009, out of a total of 

4693 inmates, the racial and ethnic breakdown was as follows: 1814 African Americans, 1401 

Hispanics, 1415 Whites, 2 Asians, 1 American Indian, and 24 others.303

In 2008, Allred had one suicide, fifty-eight attempted suicides, no homicides, and six attempted 

homicides.304 In 2009, Allred had four suicides, forty-eight attempted suicides, no homicides, 

and five attempted homicides.305 In 2008 and 2009, none of the suicides or attempted homicides 

was related to sexual victimization.306 In 2008, of the fifty-eight suicide attempts, seven inmates 

alleged prior inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization;307 in 2009, of the forty-eight suicide 

attempts, two inmates alleged prior inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.308

In 2008 and 2009, no employees at Allred were terminated, disciplined, or received a warning 

for sexual misconduct;309 however, in the same time period, eighteen staff members were 

 

299 Allred Resp. 9-12 (on file with the Panel). 300 Id. 301 Id. 302 Id. 303 Id. Allred did not account for the racial and ethnic backgrounds of thirty-six inmates. 304 Id. 13-16. The TDCJ explained that in reporting the number of attempted homicides at Allred, it relied on data 

from the OIG, which characterizes attempted homicide as aggravated assault. 305 Id. 306 Id. 14, 16. 307 Id. 14. 308 Id. 16. 309 Id. 22(a), (c). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

31 

investigated for improper conduct involving an inmate and resigned prior to receiving 

discipline.310 According to the investigative summaries that the Panel received from the TDCJ, 

about half of these cases involved female staff members who developed inappropriate 

relationships with male offenders.311 Of the eighteen staff members who resigned following an 

investigation in 2008-09, one resigned based on a “Failure to Provide Notification of Offender 

Relationship;” and seventeen resigned based on “Establishment of Offender Relationship that 

Jeopardizes Security or Compromises the Employee (other than cohabitation or sexual 

misconduct).”312 

On January 1, 2008, Allred had 973 authorized staff positions, including 842 security positions 

and 131 non-security positions.313 On January 1, 2008, Allred had in actuality 850 staff persons, 

721 in security positions and 129 in non-security positions.314 On January 1, 2009, Allred had 

974 authorized staff positions, including 842 security positions and 132 non-security positions.315 

On January 1, 2009, Allred had in actuality 896 staff persons, 748 in security positions and 121 

in non-security positions.316 On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) assigned three sworn officers to Allred.317 As the security staff in 

Texas is not sworn, the only sworn officers at Allred in 2008 and 2009 were from the OIG; 

consequently, the TDCJ did not provide data on the ratio of security staff to inmates during this 

time period.318 

At Allred the staffing plan provided for a Unit Safe Prisons Program Coordinator in 2008-09; 

this position would include many of the duties of a PREA coordinator.319 This position was 

vacant from January of 2008 to March 15, 2008; then it was assigned to a sergeant on staff.320 

For the period under review, there were sixty-six investigations at Allred responding to 

complaints of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.321 In all instances, the charges were not 

sustained.322 

During the same time period, there were twenty-five investigations of staff sexual misconduct 

involving inmates.323 The investigations involved staff members of both sexes and included a 

range of charges from establishing a relationship with an inmate to rape.324 None of the charges 

were sustained except for eight incidents, as previously noted, involving female staff members 

who either wrote romantic letters to inmates or established inappropriate relationships with 

 

310 Id. 22(b) & electronic file supp. 311 Id. 312 Id. 22(b). 313 Id. 23(a). 314 Id. 23(d)(i). 315 Id. 24(a). 316 Id. 24(d)(i). These figures do not total 896; the discrepancy is a reporting error attributable to Allred. 317 Id. 23(b), 24(b). 318 Id. 23-25. 319 Id. 2. 320 Id. 321 App. C (Allred Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 322 Id. 323 Id. (Allred Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 324 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

32 

them.325 The investigative reports indicated that when the charge was sustained against a female 

staff member, she was either escorted from the facility or allowed to resign without facing 

discipline or criminal prosecution.326

In reviewing the complete investigative files from Allred, there were instances in which the 

Panel could not determine from the produced documents what happened either to the 

complainant or the alleged perpetrator.327 On reviewing the investigative files, the Panel noted 

that there were a significant number of complainants who self-identified as homosexual.328

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

Neither the written nor oral testimony to the Panel from representatives from the TDCJ provided 

a sufficient explanation for the sustained high level of sexual victimization at Allred in 2008 and 

2009. In responding to the Panel’s Data Request,329 the TDCJ stated that the high level of 

reported sexual victimization at Allred may be related to the classification of inmates at the 

facility, but the TDCJ did not explain how inmate classification led to the high prevalence of 

sexual victimization: 

Due to Allred’s maximum security profile, it houses various custody levels 

ranging from general population offenders that are housed in accordance with the 

agency’s Classification Plan to various levels of administrative segregation. 

Additionally, the unit houses a significant number of Safekeeping offenders. 

Safekeeping is a classification status utilized for housing offenders who have been 

identified as vulnerable and in some cases have been victimized in the past. 

These custody levels are contributing factors in the allegations of sexual 

victimization.330

Mr. Brad Livingston, Executive Director, TDCJ, explained in his written testimony that the 

Texas Board of Criminal Justice (TBCJ), comprised of nine members appointed by the governor 

 

325 Id. (Incidents 1-3, 21-25); see supra note 311. 326 App. C (Allred Staff-on-Inmate Assaults) (Incidents 1-3, 21-25). 327 Id. (Incidents 27, 28); see also Tr., R. Taler, 427:1-3 (“I can’t even tell from the documentation any additional 

actions taken against the offender.”). 

328 Based on the Panel’s review of Allred’s investigative files of inmate complaints alleging inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization, the Panel found that a significant number of the complainants self-identified as being other 

than heterosexual. In 2008, out of thirty-four inmate complaints alleging inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 

fourteen complainants (41%) self-identified as other than heterosexual. In 2009, out of thirty-two inmate complaints 

alleging inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, seventeen complainants (53%) self-identified as being other than 

heterosexual. 

329 Question forty-six in the Data Request that the Panel sent to the TDCJ is “What are the key factors that led to the 

high incidence of sexual victimization at the Allred Unit in calendar years 2008 and 2009?” See app. A (Letter and 

Data Request from Michael L. Alston, Attorney Advisor, Panel, to Brad Livingston, Executive Director, TDCJ (Feb. 

2, 2011)). 

330 Allred Resp. 46 (italics in original). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

33 

of Texas, is the policy-making and oversight body for the TDCJ.331 The OIG, the Internal Audit 

Division, the PREA Ombudsman, and the Special Prosecution Unit are independent agencies that 

report directly to the TBCJ.332 Mr. Livingston noted that prior to the enactment of PREA, the 

Texas Legislature mandated that TDCJ implement a safe prisons program to address offender 

assault.333 Moreover, in 2007, the Texas Legislature codified into law the TDCJ’s zero-tolerance 

policy toward sexual assault in Texas prisons and created the position of PREA Ombudsman 

within the TDCJ.334 Mr. Livingston stated, “From the time an offender enters our system and an 

individual accepts employment with our agency, we communicate our expectations for behavior 

and our mechanisms for reporting behavior in violation of our standards of conduct.”335 He said 

that the offender population receives orientation and a handbook that addresses the issue of 

sexual assault, and during intake and prior to permanent assignment to a unit, the Safe Prisons 

Program Coordinator interviews each inmate and provides information on the TDCJ Safe Prisons 

Program.336 The Safe Prisons Program is “a coordinated effort to integrate education, training, 

classification, security, monitoring medical and investigative functions in a manner which 

promotes offender safety.”337 The TDCJ displays posters on its zero-tolerance policy in 

prominent locations in each unit.338 TDCJ employees also receive written standards of conduct 

and an ethics policy, and they must acknowledge receipt of these documents in writing.339 All 

employees receive a toll-free telephone number for the OIG to report any criminal violations, 

including sexual assault.340 Mr. Livingston noted that avenues for reporting sexual victimization 

include grievance procedures, the agency’s ombudsman, the PREA Ombudsman, the 

administrative monitor for the use of force, and direct reports to the OIG.341 Mr. Livingston 

noted that none of these administrative functions report to the division responsible for prison 

operations.342

iii. Observations 

 

Mr. Wayne Krause, the legal director of the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), provided 

testimony to the Panel on the culture at Allred.343 He stated that the TCRP has an active prisoner 

rights program, which receives hundreds of complaints from inmates throughout the State of 

Texas, but his organization represents less than one percent of the inmates who contact it.344 Mr. 

Krause provided two examples of inmates whom the TCRP represents who have alleged sexual 

victimization at Allred in 2008; he referred to one as John and to the other as Jane, a transgender 

 

331 Livingston Test. 2 (Apr. 26-27, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_livingston.pdf. Mr. Livingston’s testimony also 

appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., B. Livingston, 351:2-372:17. 332 Livingston Test. 2. 333 Id. 334 Id. 3; see TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 501.011 (zero-tolerance policy), 501.172 (ombudsperson) (2011). 335 Livingston Test. 4-5. 336 Id. 5. 337 Id. 6. 338 Id. 5. 339 Id. 340 Id. 341 Id. 342 Id. 343 Tr., W. Krause, 324:18-22. 344 Id. 325:1-8. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

34 

inmate.345 Producing a redacted sworn statement from John, who is still housed at TDCJ, Mr. 

Krause stated that on October 5, 2008, a correctional officer came to John’s cell and forced him 

to perform oral sex.346 Mr. Krause contended that there were two good reasons to believe John’s 

version of this event: first, there is an official report that shows that the semen sample that John 

produced matched the DNA of the accused correctional officer; and second, the correctional 

officer confessed to prison authorities that John performed oral sex on him.347 Mr. Krause said 

that according to Jane’s sworn statement, which Mr. Krause produced, the same correctional 

officer who victimized John used the same techniques of intimidation to force Jane to perform 

oral sex on him, too.348

Mr. Krause said that one of the saddest aspects of this story is that at the time of the alleged 

sexual victimization of John, the administrators of Allred were already aware that the facility had 

one of the nation’s highest rates of sexual victimization, by both correctional staff and other 

inmates.349 Moreover, according to Mr. Krause, John told Allred’s Safe Prisons Program Officer 

that the same correctional officer had sexually assaulted him twice previously and the program 

officer allegedly did nothing to protect him.350 Most significantly, Mr. Krause claims that the 

Safe Prisons Program Officer refuted John’s allegations without investigation.351 Citing the 

documents he produced, Mr. Krause stated that when John gave the semen sample to the Safe 

Prisons Program Officer she threatened him, allegedly telling him that if the semen sample did 

not match the accused correctional officer, she would charge him with assaulting her with a 

bodily fluid.352 She also allegedly warned him not to file another grievance.353

Mr. Krause noted that the TDCJ has some good policies on paper that try to prevent and respond 

to sexual victimization, but based on the experiences of John and Jane, the practice does not 

appear to conform to the policies.354 He said that the culture at Allred is one that blames and 

punishes the victim.355 Mr. Krause contended that the grievance procedures are inherently 

flawed when it comes to reporting sexual victimization because the TDCJ allows an inmate only 

fifteen days after an incident to file a grievance.356 Mr. Krause said that based on his experience, 

some victims of sexual assault may need more than fifteen days to process what happened to 

them.357 He said that one should contrast this fifteen-day period to criminal sexual assault 

 

345 Id. 325:9-10, 328:7. 346 Id. 326:7-20. The sworn statements and other documents related to Mr. Krause’s testimony are on file with the 

Panel. 

347 Id. 327:4-8. 348 Id. 328:5-12. 349 Id. 327:15-19; see supra note 33. 350 Tr., W. Krause, 327:20-328:1. 351 Id. 329:4-5. 352 Id. 329:9-14. 353 Id. 329:14-15. 354 Id. 328:16-21. 355 Id. 329:20-21. 356 Id. 331:14-17. 357 Id. 331:17-20. The proposed national standards state that an inmate should have a minimum of twenty days to 

file a grievance following an incident of sexual abuse. Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6298 (§ 115.352(a)(1)). The 

proposed national standards also state that a correctional institution should grant an extension of no less than ninety 

days for filing a grievance when an inmate can provide documentation that the normal time limit for filing a 

grievance was impractical because of either physical or psychological trauma. Id. (§ 115.352(a)(2)). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

35 

statutes, which in most states extend the reporting period to five years or more after the 

incident.358 Mr. Krause also commented on the lack of services for victims of sexual assault at 

Allred and a culture that follows rules at the expense of people.359 

Mr. Krause offered four recommendations for improving Allred: (1) providing consistent, 

effective education on preventing and responding to sexual victimization for both correctional 

staff and inmates; (2) having correctional officials take every complaint of sexual victimization 

seriously; (3) collaborating with organizations outside the prison to provide services to inmate 

victims; and (4) expanding the staff of TDCJ’s PREA Ombudsman (currently there is just one 

ombudsman and one assistant) and improving communication between the PREA Ombudsman’s 

Office and inmates who have complained of sexual victimization, especially when it comes to 

informing them of the disposition of the charges made against sexual predators.360

In reflecting on Mr. Krause’s testimony regarding the alleged treatment of both John and Jane, 

the Panel noted that during its onsite visit of Allred, staff members referred to homosexual 

inmates as “queens.”361

At the request of the Panel, the BJS prepared a short summary comparing the incidence of sexual 

victimization at Allred between its last appearance before the Panel, based on 2007 data, and the 

data collected in the most recent BJS Report. The summary, Trends in Sexual Victimization at 

Allred, appears in the following chart:362

Trends in Sexual Victimization at Allred 2007 2008-09 

Total 9.9% 10.9% 

Inmate-on-Inmate 

 Nonconsensual Sexual Acts 

4.8 

4.0 

7.6 

2.5 

Staff Sexual Misconduct 

 Nonconsensual Sexual Acts 

6.7 

4.9 

5.6 

3.6 

Nonconsensual Sexual Acts 8.0 6.5 

Abusive Sexual Contacts Only 1.9 4.4 

Physically Forced 

 Inmate-on-Inmate 

 Staff 

3.6 

3.2 

6.8 

3.2 

Pressured 

 Inmate-on-Inmate 

 Staff 

2.8 

3.2 

3.9 

3.7 

No Force/Pressure 2.3 3.2 

Injured 

 Inmate-on-Inmate 

 Staff 

3.3 

3.3 

0.9 

1.9 

0.6 

1.9 

 

358 Tr., W. Krause, 332:6-9. 359 Id. 332:12-13, 333:7-9. 360 Id. 335:1-337:10. 361 Interview with Eddie Williams, Senior Warden, Allred, et al. in Wichita Falls, Tex. (Apr. 19, 2011) (on file with 

Panel). 

362 The BJS relied on data that appears in the BJS Report and the BJS Report 2007 in preparing the chart. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

36 

Based on the chart that the BJS prepared, the Panel expressed concern that the data indicated that 

abusive sexual contact at Allred more than doubled since the BJS Report 2007.

363 Mr. 

Livingston said that the data from BJS significantly differs from the number of reported incidents 

that the TDCJ has.364 He said that he could not offer an explanation for why the incidence of 

sexual victimization at Allred increased, nor could he make sense of the discrepancy between the 

BJS’ data and the TDCJ’s data on the reported incidence of sexual victimization at Allred, as 

TDCJ’s numbers are roughly ten times less than the numbers reported in the BJS Report.

365 Mr. 

Livingston stated that contrary to the trend suggested by the BJS data in the above chart, the 

TDCJ as a whole actually had a decrease in the incidence of sexual victimization from 261 in 

2007 to 168 in 2009.366 Mr. Livingston testified that during the same three-year period, Allred 

also experienced a slight decrease in the incidence of sexual victimization.367 Mr. Livingston 

noted that Allred has an inmate population with many of the characteristics that the BJS Report

identified as being overrepresented among inmates who have experienced sexual victimization, 

including inmates convicted of violent offenses, inmates with mental illness, inmates who 

identify as being other than heterosexual, and inmates in safekeeping status.368

In reviewing reports of both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff-on-inmate sexual 

victimization that Allred provided to the Panel, the Panel chose one report involving the 

investigation of an inmate’s sexual assault on a cellmate to examine more closely with the 

assistance of representatives of the TDCJ.369 The Panel noted that the record showed that the 

perpetrator had a history of being disciplined repeatedly for sexual misconduct,370 and the facility 

had identified the perpetrator as a sexual predator.371 In reviewing the report, TDCJ officials 

noted that some of the previous disciplinary actions against the perpetrator were most likely 

based on his masturbating in front of female staff members, but the inmate’s disciplinary record 

attached to the report lacked sufficient detail to determine whether the other incidents prompting 

discipline for sexual misconduct were limited to masturbation or involved sexual activity with 

other inmates.372 In this instance, the investigative report noted that the perpetrator admitted to 

the sexual assault on his cellmate.373 Despite this admission, the investigator checked a box on 

the standard investigative report form, indicating that the investigator was “Unable to 

Substantiate Subject’s Allegation.”374 

After reviewing the investigative report, Mr. Eddie Williams, Senior Warden of Allred, said that 

he was unable to explain the investigator’s action.375 The report showed that the victim was 

placed in transient housing pending the outcome of the investigation,376 but the report was silent 

 

363 Tr., G. Christensen, 369:14-17. 364 Id., B. Livingston, 370:3-12. 365 Id. 372:7-12, 373:2-4; see also id., R. Thaler, 374:22-375:3. 366 Id., B. Livingston, 377:18-22. 367 Id. 378:4-5. 368 Id. 380:5-21, 381:4-13. 369 Id., G. Christensen, 410:1-4. 370 Id., G. Christensen & E. Williams, 414:13-415:5. 371 Id., E. Williams, 416:18-19. 372 Id. 414:22, 417:7-8, 420:7; id., J. Moriarty, 423:9-14. 373 Id., E. Williams, 418:22-419:2. 374 Id. 419:19-21. 375 Id. 376 Id. 415:17-21. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

37 

as to whether Allred took any actions against the alleged perpetrator.377 Sgt. Lisa James, Safe 

Prisons Program Coordinator, testified that even though the report that the TDCJ provided did 

not contain this information, Allred did place the perpetrator in maximum security.378

Mr. Livingston acknowledged that in a system as large as the TDCJ, there is always a challenge 

in trying to close the gap between stated policy and actual practice.379 In dealing with this 

challenge in the context of addressing inmate sexual victimization, the TDCJ has emphasized the 

significance of staff training.380 To augment existing in-service training programs for staff, Mr. 

Livingston said that the TDCJ has in the last few years strengthened its training department and 

created special training programs for both newly promoted sergeants and captains.381 

In discussing the prosecution of serious cases involving inmate-on-inmate sexual assault, Mr. 

John Moriarty, Inspector General, TDCJ, stated that even when there is overwhelming evidence, 

grand juries are often reluctant to move forward with the cases because they often lack sympathy 

for victims of prison sexual assault.382 Ms. Gina DeBottis, Special Prosecution Unit, OIG, 

agreed with this assessment, noting the number of sound cases that her office presented to grand 

juries that chose not to issue indictments.383 Mr. Moriarty noted that prosecutors often face the 

same prospect at trial, citing a particularly disturbing case in which a jury ignored aggravated 

sexual assault charges against an inmate despite convincing DNA evidence supporting a 

conviction.384 

Ms. DeBottis stated to the Panel’s surprise that in prosecuting cases, her office cannot use the 

evidence gathered for administrative discipline.385 

Ms. Charma Blount, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner at TDCJ, testified that Allred does take 

measures to provide services to inmates who are victims of sexual assault, which takes the form 

of giving a pamphlet to an inmate at the beginning of a sexual assault investigation to explain the 

inmate’s rights, providing the inmate a forensic examination, and referring the inmate to mental 

health services.386 The institution also provides inmates with an “offender victim 

representative,” a trained advocate who is to be the “eyes and ears” of an inmate during the 

forensic medical examination process.387

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations 

The Panel finds disturbing that Allred, which the Panel identified previously as a facility with a 

high incidence of sexual victimization, does not appear to have made significant improvements 

since the same administrators from the facility and TDCJ appeared before the Panel in 2008.388 

 

377 Id., R. Thaler, 427:1-3. 378 Id., L. James, 433:1-10. 379 Id., B. Livingston, 385:8-12. 380 Id. 385:20-386:1. 381 Id. 386:1-22. 382 Id., J. Moriarty, 449:14-16. 383 Id., G. DeBottis, 450:1-15. 384 Id. 451:12-21. 385 Id. 448:6-8. 386 Id., C. Blount, 464:15-465:8. 387 Id. 461:11, 21-22. 388 See supra note 33. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

38 

The Panel strongly recommends that TDCJ and Allred develop a comprehensive management 

plan that identifies the factors contributing to the high incidence of sexual victimization at 

Allred, including measurable goals that an outside observer can track to ensure demonstrable 

progress. The plan should include an evaluation of Allred’s compliance with directives, policies, 

and common practices that TDCJ has promulgated to eliminate sexual misconduct.389 The Panel 

also urges TDCJ and Allred to review administrative investigations into allegations of sexual 

abuse, which might involve having TDCJ or OIG conduct quarterly reviews of all investigations, 

strengthening the training for investigative staff, improving documentation of investigative 

outcomes, and ensuring better coordination of administrative and OIG investigations. The Panel 

also encourages the prosecutor’s office to review its stated practice of not relying on evidence 

gathered during administrative investigations. The TDCJ should also review the services it 

provides to inmates who have been the target of sexual abuse. In light of the high number of 

grievances from self-identified homosexual inmates at Allred, the Panel encourages the Allred 

administrators to provide training to staff on the vulnerability of homosexual inmates and to take 

steps to protect them from sexual assault. Given the significant number of female staff members 

who were forced to resign from Allred in the wake of investigations finding that they established 

inappropriate relationships with male inmates, Allred should provide staff training, especially for 

newly hired female staff, on how to maintain proper professional boundaries. The training 

should include information for both staff members and supervisors on how to identify early 

warning signs that a staff member’s professional relationship with an inmate may be headed in 

the wrong direction. 

c. Elmira 

i. Facility Description 

Elmira, located in Upstate New York, is a maximum-security prison for men. On January 1, 

2008, and on January 1, 2009, the full rated capacity at Elmira was 1680; in addition there were 

fifty-four beds in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) and thirty-four beds in the infirmary.390 The 

actual number of inmates on January 1, 2008, was 1718 in the general population, 51 in the 

SHU, 15 inmates in the infirmary, and 16 inmates out of the count, making a total of 1800 

inmates.391 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Elmira in 2008 was 9464.392 In 

2008, the average length of stay for an inmate was 161 days; the longest length of stay was 6463 

days.393 The actual number of inmates at Elmira on January 1, 2009, was 1750 in the general 

population, 54 in the SHU, 17 in the infirmary, and 11 out of the count, making a total of 1832 

inmates.394 The total number of inmates who spent any time at Elmira in 2009 was 9396.395 In 

2009, the average length of stay for an inmate was 168 days; the longest length of stay was 6776 

days.396

 

389 See Livingston Test. 3-6. 390 Elmira Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 391 Id. 9(b). 392 Id. 9(f). 393 Id. 9(g), (h). 394 Id. 10(b). 395 Id. 10(f). 396 Id. 10(g), (h). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

39 

In 2008, among the 9464 inmates who spent any time at Elmira, the racial and ethnic 

composition was as follows: 3260 Whites, 4782 African Americans, 1249 Hispanics, 18 Asians, 

95 Alaska Natives or American Indians, 40 others, and 20 unknown.397 

In 2009, among the 9396 inmates who spent any time at Elmira, the racial and ethnic 

composition was as follows: 3384 Whites, 4612 African Americans, 1226 Hispanics, 15 Asians, 

100 Alaska Natives or American Indians, 53 others, and 6 unknown.398 In 2008 and 2009, 

Elmira did not collect inmate data either for the category of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander or for the category of Two or More Races.399

At Elmira in 2008, one inmate committed suicide, and ten inmates attempted suicide.400 The 

suicide and attempted suicides in 2008 were not related to sexual victimization.401 In 2009, two 

inmates committed suicide, and eleven attempted suicide.402 One of the inmates who attempted 

suicide in 2009 had alleged that he was the victim of inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse about three 

months earlier at another correctional facility, but the charge was not substantiated and the 

inmate had a well-documented history of mental illness.403 There were no homicides at Elmira 

in 2008 and 2009, and Elmira does not gather data on attempted homicides.404

On January 1, 2008, there were 727 staff positions at Elmira at full capacity (523 sworn and 204 

non-sworn).405 On January 1, 2008, however, there were 232 sworn staff members and twentysix non-sworn staff members actually present.406 DOCCS does not require a minimum 

mandatory number of daily staff at each of its facilities; rather it employs a “plot-plan approach” 

to determine the staffing pattern.407 In 2008, the plot-plan for Elmira entailed 266 security and 

sixteen non-uniform positions.408

On January 1, 2009, Elmira at full capacity had 741 staff positions (544 sworn and 197 nonsworn).409 On January 1, 2009, there were, however, 235 sworn staff and nineteen non-sworn 

staff actually present.410 In 2009 the staffing plot-plan for Elmira entailed 269 security and 

sixteen non-uniform positions.411

 

397 Id. 11(a)-(g). 398 Id. 12(a)-(g). 399 Id. 11(g), 12(g). 400 Id. 13(a)-(b). 401 Id. 14. 402 Id. 15(a)-(b). 403 Id. 16. 404 Id. 13(c)-(d), 14(c)-(d). 405 Id. 23(a)-(c). 406 Id. 23(e)(i), (f)(i). These numbers refer to individuals and do not account for staff members who may have 

worked more than one shift. 

407 Id. 23(g). 408 Id. 409 Id. 24(a)-(c). 410 Id. 24(e)(i), (f)(i). These numbers refer to individuals and do not account for staff members who may have 

worked more than one shift. 

411 Id. 24(g). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

40 

On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the ratio of uniformed staff to inmates was one to 

3.49.412 

In 2008 and 2009, Elmira did not have a PREA coordinator.413

For the period under review, calendar years 2008 and 2009, there were four investigations into 

inmate-on-inmate charges of sexual assault at Elmira.414 In each case, the charge was not 

sustained.415 During the same period, there were twenty-two investigations into staff sexual 

misconduct at Elmira.416 In all but one of these cases the charges were not substantiated.417 In 

one instance, the investigation substantiated a charge of unwanted touching against a contract 

phlebotomist; Elmira referred the matter for prosecution, but at trial the accused was found not 

guilty.418

In reviewing the complaint files that Elmira produced, the Panel found them unorganized, 

incomplete, and difficult to follow, hindering an independent review of the facility’s complaint 

process. 

ii. Facility Explanation for Reported High Incidence of 

Sexual Victimization 

After reviewing the data in the BJS Report showing a high incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual 

victimization at Elmira, Brian Fischer, Commissioner of DOCCS, made two observations: (1) 

the results of the recent BJS survey differ significantly from a comparable BJS survey of Elmira 

in 2007 that showed a significantly lower rate of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization, and (2) the 

inmate-reported incidents of staff sexual misconduct may reflect the inmates’ objection to 

Elmira’s thorough pat-frisk procedures.419

Mr. Fischer noted that the BJS survey in 2007 found that the reported rate of staff-on-inmate 

sexual victimization at Elmira was 3.3%, which is less than half the 7.7% rate of staff-on-inmate 

sexual victimization for Elmira in the recent BJS Report.

420 Mr. Fischer said that DOCCS has 

undertaken its own analysis of sexual victimization at Elmira, which includes reviewing reported 

incidents and having discussions with offenders, but the analysis is not yet complete.421

Mr. Fischer stated that it was the belief of DOCCS that the majority of the reported staff-oninmate incidents at Elmira are related to “necessary and thorough pat frisks.”422 Mr. Fischer 

stated that anecdotal evidence suggests that Elmira inmates were surprised by the reported high 

 

412 Id. 25(a), (e). 413 Id. 2. 414 App. C (Elmira Inmate-on-Inmate Sexual Assaults). 415 Id. 416 Id. (Elmira Staff-on-Inmate Assaults). 417 Id. Two of the unsubstantiated charges involved allegations of staff sexual misconduct during the pat frisk of an 

inmate (Incidents 7, 22). 

418 Id. (Incident 2). 419 Fischer Test. 8 (Apr. 27, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_fischer.pdf. 420 Id. Compare BJS Report 2007, at 26 (app. tbl.4) with BJS Report 43 (app. tbl.2). 421 Fischer Test. 8. 422 Id. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

41 

incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization, whereas those same offenders considered pat 

frisks a form of sexual assault: 

Anecdotally, when asked about the results of the [BJS Report], offenders housed 

at Elmira expressed shock that their facility would be rated as a facility with high 

incidence of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse. They reported never having 

experienced any such abuse, nor even knowing of any staff-on-inmate sexual 

contact at the facility. What is relevant is that a number of these same offenders, 

when asked about pat frisks, responded that they felt they were being conducted 

inappropriately by a small number of employees. Those offenders stated that they 

consider a thorough pat frisk to constitute a sexual assault. We believe that the 

perception that a good pat frisk constitutes a sexual assault is the major fact 

influencing the results of the [BJS Report].423

iii. Observations 

At the request of the Panel, two experts provided testimony and sworn, written statements on the 

conditions of confinement at Elmira: Mr. Jack Beck, Director of the Prison Visiting Project 

(PVP) for the Correctional Association (CA) of New York, and Ms. Betsy Hutchings, Managing 

Attorney of the Ithaca Office of Prisoners’ Legal Services (PLS) of New York. 

In his sworn, written statement, Mr. Beck explained that the New York State Legislature created 

the CA to inspect prisons operated by DOCCS and then report its findings to the Legislature.424 

“The CA uses this unique mandate to advocate for improved prison conditions and to issue 

comprehensive reports to policymakers and the public.”425 The CA’s PVP conducts onsite 

assessments of DOCCS’ sixty-two male facilities, visiting six to eleven facilities each year.426 In 

the past six years, the PVP has gathered extensive data from the prison population in DOCCS, 

surveying inmates on a variety of issues, including general prison conditions, substance abuse 

and other treatment programs, medical health services, disciplinary confinement, reentry 

programs, and inmates’ experience with prison violence and staff abuse.427

Mr. Beck stated that the PVP’s survey of Elmira in March of 2010 is consistent with the finding 

in the BJS Report of elevated levels of staff sexual misconduct at the facility:428 

Eleven percent of the 176 Elmira general population inmates who responded to 

our survey reported that they frequently or very frequently hear about staff sexual 

abuse occurring in the prison, suggesting that sexual abuse is more prevalent at 

Elmira than at approximately two-thirds of the state prisons we have visited. 

Similarly, 11% of Elmira survey participants said that staff sexual abuse was 

 

423 Id. 424 Beck Test. 2 (Apr. 27, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_beck.pdf. Mr. Beck’s testimony also appears in the 

Transcript of Record. See Tr., J. Beck, 476:11-505:2. 425 Beck Test. 2. 426 Id. 427 Id. 428 Id. 3. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

42 

common in the prison, a rate that is higher than the response from survey 

participants at approximately two-thirds of the CA-visited prisons.429

Mr. Beck stated that CA also analyzed complaints of sexual abuse at Elmira and found that in the 

three-year period from 2008 to 2010, Elmira averaged seventeen complaints of staff sexual abuse 

per year per 1000 inmates, a rate five times higher than the median rate at all DOCCS 

facilities.430 The CA also found that even though inmates at Elmira did not express “strongly 

negative views of the prison’s staff,” the survey found that the “rate of Elmira inmates’ 

grievances about staff conduct for the period 2007-09 was 67% higher than the median rate for 

all state prisons.”431 

Addressing the DOCCS’ contention that the high rate of reported staff sexual misconduct at 

Elmira in the BJS Report may be attributable to inmates’ dissatisfaction with thorough but proper 

pat frisks, Mr. Beck acknowledged that aggressive pat frisks may be “highly charged 

encounters” that some inmates perceive to be “sexually offensive,” but he cautioned that the 

“persistence of inmates’ complaints of aggressive pat-frisking procedures . . . should not be 

use[d] to dismiss or minimize the existence of other staff conduct that involves sexual abuse.”432 

Moreover, Mr. Beck testified that based on the data CA collected from Elmira in 2010, 

aggressive pat-frisk procedures may account for some of the inmates’ sexual misconduct 

complaints against staff; however, inmate discomfort with aggressive pat frisks does not account 

for the reported high levels of staff sexual misconduct at the prison: 

The CA 2010 survey of Elmira inmates specifically asked whether the survey 

respondent experienced abus[ive] pat frisks; how frequently the individual heard 

about abusive pat frisks of others at the prison; and how common such activity 

was in the prison. Elmira survey participants’ responses support the conclusion 

that abusive pat frisks occurred at Elmira at rates that were about average for all 

CA-visited prisons. A review of inmates’ comments included in the survey 

responses did not reveal any particular expression of heightened concern about 

sexually abus[ive] pat frisks compared to other prisons we have visited.433

Mr. Beck said that it would be difficult to assess all of the factors at Elmira that may contribute 

to staff sexual abuse, but based on previous conversations with inmates and the CA’s recent visit 

to the facility, he identified three causes of concern.434 First, he asserted that Elmira’s physical 

plant is not conducive to safety.435 Mr. Beck observed that cells in housing areas run along long 

tiers, making it difficult for inmates to view activity outside their cells.436 In addition, the facility 

has few video cameras, allowing staff members, who routinely escort inmates, to isolate them 

from the observation of other inmates.437 Second, Mr. Beck noted that an analysis of incident 

reports suggests that “violence is a significant issue at the prison, both between inmates and staff 

 

429 Id. 3-4 (citation omitted). 430 Id. 4. 431 Id. 432 Id. 5. 433 Id. (citation omitted). 434 Id. 6. 435 Id. 436 Id. 437 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

43 

and among inmates.”438 Mr. Beck observed that there were a large number of inmate grievances 

at Elmira alleging staff misconduct, which may include any allegations of mistreatment by staff; 

the CA found a high correlation between allegations of staff misconduct and sexual abuse.439 

According to the CA, “[t]he rate of such grievances was substantially higher for Elmira than at 

most other state prisons.”440 Finally, Mr. Beck stated that Elmira inmates are particularly 

vulnerable during the work shift from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm when most reported staff misconduct 

occurs, which is after the executive staff has left for the day.441 

In viewing DOCCS from a system-wide perspective, Mr. Beck made additional observations 

related to the incidence of sexual victimization. He noted that in analyzing DOCCS prisons with 

high rates of staff sexual abuse, “the common factors at these prisons were high levels of 

violence and staff-inmate confrontations, and an intimidating atmosphere where threats by staff 

with retaliation were common.”442 He also stated that in comparing the rates of sexual abuse 

allegations between maximum-security prisons and medium-security prisons within DOCCS, the 

characteristics of inmates, including whether they received convictions for violent offenses, do 

not account for the higher rates.443 Mr. Beck stated that another factor influencing the high rate 

of sexual victimization in DOCCS facilities is the relative unavailability of protective custody for 

vulnerable inmates.444 He reported that CA estimates that the total prison population in 

protective custody in New York State prisons is significantly less than 1000 beds or less than two 

percent of the prisons’ capacity.445 

According to Mr. Beck, the CA frequently receives complaints from prisoners who are unable to 

obtain protective custody because they cannot meet the requirement of demonstrating a specific 

threat from identified individuals.446 

Based on data that it has collected, the CA is also concerned that inmates under-report staff 

sexual abuse, especially at maximum-security prisons, because they are justifiably concerned 

that they risk staff intimidation and retaliation.447 In light of the Panel’s interest in the treatment 

of women inmates, it noted in particular Mr. Beck’s reporting that all of the women’s facilities in 

DOCCS have high rates of staff-on-inmate sexual abuse.448 

Mr. Beck noted that tracking allegations of staff sexual misconduct in DOCCS is difficult 

because the available data from DOCCS is confusing; although apparently at odds with his 

earlier statement about the under-reporting of staff sexual misconduct, he noted, for example, 

that the BJS Report contains only forty-six percent of the allegations of staff sexual misconduct 

that the DOCCS reported to CA.449 

 

438 Id. 439 Id. 6-7. 440 Id. 7. 441 Id. 442 Id. 8. 443 Id. 444 Id. 445 Id. 446 Id. 447 Id. 9. 448 Id. 449 Id. 11. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

44 

Finally, Mr. Beck identified the DOCCS’ low rate of substantiating inmate complaints alleging 

staff sexual misconduct as a factor that discourages inmates from reporting sexual abuse.450 Mr. 

Beck stated that at best, DOCCS substantiated only six percent of all inmate complaints alleging 

staff sexual misconduct.451 In contrast, Mr. Beck noted that about ninety-five percent of all 

disciplinary charges against inmates result in a guilty finding.452 In view of facing potential 

retaliation and further abuse from corrections staff, Mr. Beck stated that it is understandable that 

an inmate would be reluctant to file a complaint, as “[i]t is difficult to justify undertaking these 

risks given such limited possibilities for success.”453

The Panel also received information on the conditions of confinement at Elmira from Ms. 

Hutchings, who explained that the PLS is a statewide civil legal service program that provides 

advocacy services to indigent inmates in DOCCS facilities.454 The Ithaca Office of PLS, where 

Ms. Hutchings serves as the managing attorney, receives requests for assistance from inmates at 

Elmira as well as other DOCCS prisons.455 In 2010, Ms. Hutchings’ office received seventeen 

letters from Elmira inmates who requested legal assistance related to allegations of staff physical 

misconduct.456 Twelve letters concerned excessive force, and five involved claims of sexual 

misconduct.457 None of the complaints that PLS received from Elmira inmates alleging staff-oninmate sexual misconduct occurred during pat frisks.458 Concurring with Mr. Beck, Ms. 

Hutchings stated that the discrepancy between the high rate of reported staff sexual misconduct 

at Elmira in the BJS Report and the low number of complaints involving staff sexual misconduct 

that the PLS has received can be attributed to “the reluctance of inmates to report such conduct 

due to shame, fear of retaliation and the belief that . . . their reports will be found untrue.”459 Ms. 

Hutchings observed, “These factors are inherent in the prison culture and are the result of the 

power disparity between staff and inmates, the solidarity of the security staff, and insularity of 

prison culture.”460 Ms. Hutchings stated that a further disincentive that inmates have in reporting 

staff sexual misconduct is DOCCS’ written policy warning inmates that making a false claim of 

staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct may lead to discipline, including prosecution.461 

To illustrate the deterrent effect of DOCCS’ policy, Ms. Hutchings presented a case study of an 

inmate whom PLS represented in 2010 who complained of staff excessive force.462 According to 

Ms. Hutchings, prior to contacting PLS, the inmate filed a grievance concerning a staff physical 

assault, including a report to the superintendent of the facility where the assault allegedly 

occurred.463 After an initial interview with a PLS staff attorney, the inmate confided that he had 

 

450 Id. 12. 451 Id. 452 Id. 13. 453 Id. 12. 454 Hutchings Test. 1 (Apr. 22, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_apr11/testimony_hutchings.pdf. A portion of Ms. Hutchings testimony 

appears in the Transcript of Record. See, Tr., K. Scheckner, 520:16-528:16. 455 Hutchings Test. 1. 456 Id. 457 Id. 458 Id. 459 Id. 2 (citation omitted). 460 Id. 461 Id. & n.2 (citing Directive No. 4028A). 462 Id. 2. Ms. Hutchings did not identify the DOCCS facility. 463 Id. 2-3. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

45 

also been sexually assaulted during the alleged excessive use of force, but he was afraid to 

include the sexual misconduct claim in his grievance “out of ‘personal pride’ and because he 

thought he would not be believed and would suffer retaliation.”464 Ms. Hutchings testified that 

after speaking to the PLS attorney, the inmate felt sufficiently safe to amend his grievance to 

include the sexual assault charge.465 After investigating the inmate’s grievance and dismissing it, 

investigators instituted charges against the inmate, claiming that he lied based on the 

inconsistencies in his grievances and the lack of medical evidence to prove his claim.466 At the 

subsequent disciplinary hearing, despite the inmate’s explanation that he did not include the 

sexual assault charge in the initial grievance because he feared retaliation and despite his citing 

another DOCCS written policy that prohibits reprisal against an inmate who reports staff sexual 

misconduct (and despite contesting the investigators’ understanding of the medical reports), the 

hearing officer found the inmate guilty and imposed a penalty of nine months in isolated 

confinement.467 Ms. Hutchings stated that on appeal the Director of Inmate Disciplinary 

Programs affirmed the determination of guilt.468 Ultimately the PLS contacted the 

Commissioner of DOCCS on the inmate’s behalf and obtained a reversal of the decision, but 

only after the inmate had spent four months confined to the SHU.469 

Ms. Hutchings stated that the details of this case study are important because it shows that the 

very people entrusted with protecting inmates from reprisal failed to protect an inmate when he 

made a charge of sexual misconduct against a staff member.470 Significantly, Ms. Hutchings 

noted that the inmate’s initial fears about filing a sexual-misconduct grievance against a staff 

member were justified; she contends that other inmates will cite his experience to confirm their 

belief that reporting incidents of staff sexual misconduct results in retaliation.471 

Similar to Mr. Krause’s concerns with the limited timeframe for filing grievances with TDCJ, 

Ms. Hutchings criticized the grievance procedures at DOCCS because she believes there is 

insufficient time to make claims of staff sexual misconduct.472 She cited a twenty-one day 

deadline for filing a grievance, which may be extended to forty-five days for good cause.473 She 

contended that these time limits do not sufficiently take into account the reluctance that many 

inmates must overcome to file a sexual misconduct grievance against a staff member.474

Ms. Hutchings stated that based on her interviews with civilian victim advocates, who come to 

local hospitals to assist inmates who are victims of sexual assault, she learned that prison security 

staff routinely remain in the room during the meetings between victims and advocates.475 The 

advocates reported that the presence of the security staff had a chilling effect, discouraging 

 

464 Id. 3. 465 Id. 466 Id. 467 Id. 468 Id. 4. 469 Id. 5. 470 Id. 471 Id. 472 Id. 6. 473 Id. 474 Id.; see supra note 357. 475 Hutchings Test. 7. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

46 

inmates from speaking about staff perpetrators because they feared retaliation from the security 

staff.476 

Ms. Hutchings also dismissed the assertion that aggressive pat frisks could account for the high 

level of reported staff sexual misconduct at Elmira. She wrote, “The notion that inmate reports 

of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct during pat frisks is based on the inmates’ misunderstanding 

of invasiveness of a properly conducted pat frisk is misguided.”477 She said that an otherwise 

proper pat frisk can become improper when it includes sexual taunts, when it is “unduly rough, 

or when it involves unnecessary touching.”478 479 

Ms. Hutchings offered five recommendations to reduce sexual victimization in DOCCS 

facilities: (1) to revise disciplinary policies so that inmates need not fear retaliation based on 

filing a complaint alleging staff sexual misconduct; (2) to transfer the responsibility for 

processing inmate complaints alleging staff sexual misconduct to an agency outside DOCCS so 

as to encourage inmates to file complaints; (3) to amend DOCCS written policies to give 

additional time to inmates to file staff sexual misconduct complaints; (4) to ensure that meetings 

between civilian victim advocates and victims of staff sexual misconduct can take place outside 

the earshot of security staff; and (5) to develop a policy that would allow DOCCS to videotape 

and review pat frisks.480 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations 

In light of the testimony from Mr. Beck and Ms. Hutchings and other data relating to Elmira, the 

Panel recommends that the administrators of Elmira look beyond the explanation of inmate 

dissatisfaction with aggressive pat-frisk procedures as the cause for the high rate that the BJS 

Report found of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization at the facility.481 To minimize any inmate 

allegations of staff sexual misconduct associated with legitimate pat frisks, the Panel also 

counsels the DOCCS to provide corrections staff with a refresher course on the proper 

procedures for conducting a pat frisk. DOCCS should also appoint a PREA coordinator not only 

for the system as a whole but for Elmira and each of the facilities in the New York prison 

system. The PREA coordinators should track inmate complaints of sexual misconduct to ensure 

that inmates are protected from reprisal when they make charges of sexual misconduct against 

staff members.482 The PREA coordinators should also ensure that staff members who are 

 

476 Id. 477 Id. 478 Id. 7-8. 479 Apart from her testimony, Ms. Hutchings drew the Panel’s attention to an article in the New York Post that 

reported that an inmate at a state prison other than Elmira won a $300,000 settlement for an incident in 2007 when a 

corrections officer roughly groped the inmate’s genitals during a pat frisk. Janon Fisher, Inmate Scores $300k for 

Prison Grope, N.Y. POST, June 10, 2010, available at http://www.nypost.com. The trial judge in this matter said 

that there was a clear, systemic problem in the management at the state prison facility where this incident occurred, 

contributing “‘to an environment that allows the abuse of inmates to go unpunished.’” Id. 480 Hutchings Test. 8-9. 

481 Given the lack of meaningful data related to Elmira complaint investigations, the Panel has concerns that the 

current DOCCS investigation into the causes of the reported high rate of sexual victimization at Elmira (see Fischer 

Test. 8) will yield information that prompts a significant change in policy or practice. 482 Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6299 (§ 115.365(a)). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

47 

involved in all aspects of an investigation into inmate sexual victimization are aware of their 

roles and responsibilities. 

DOCCS may also want to reconsider the rationale for its written policies that caution inmates 

that they may face severe penalties for making a false charge of sexual misconduct against staff. 

The proposed national standards note that as long as an inmate makes a report of sexual abuse in 

good faith, the inmate should be protected from disciplinary sanctions even if the investigation 

does not substantiate the allegation.483 

The Panel strongly encourages Elmira administrators to undertake a careful review of the 

documentation of complaint investigations. Without records that easily show the course of an 

investigation and the results, neither managers nor outside observers can monitor the integrity of 

the complaint process. 

DOCCS should also revisit its procedures in providing appropriate support services to inmates 

who have been targets of sexual assault. Victim advocates at local hospitals may be able to offer 

support to traumatized inmates outside the earshot of security staff so that the inmates need not 

fear staff retaliation. 

3. Common Themes 

The Panel is mindful of the inherent limitations in drawing generalizations based on the 

experiences of the five prisons it selected to appear at the April 2011 hearings. Nonetheless, in 

carrying out its statutory mission to identify similarities and differences among low- and highincidence prisons, the Panel approached the testimony as illustrative case studies that help to 

identify common themes. The Panel has previously written about the significance of institutional 

culture in creating environments that either prevent or permit sexual victimization.484 Each of 

the common themes that the Panel has identified below profoundly affects a prison’s culture. 

 

a. Recognizing Common Characteristics of Inmates Who 

are Vulnerable to Sexual Abuse 

The BJS Report emphasized that two groups of inmates are particularly vulnerable as targets of 

sexual victimization: inmates who have had a prior history of being victims of sexual abuse and 

inmates who identify as being other than heterosexual.485 The Panel’s review of sample 

investigative records and the hearing testimony supports this finding.486

b. Understanding Common Differences between Male and 

Female Facilities 

The Panel heard testimony that stressed understanding the differences in operating male and 

female facilities.487 Of particular importance in female prisons is recognizing the relationship 

 

483 Id. at 6300 (§ 115.377(f)). 484 Juvenile Justice Report 33. 485 BJS Report 14 & tbl.8, 15. 486 Owen Test. 4. 487 Id.; Tr., M. Brandin, 313:16-21. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

48 

needs of women inmates.488 In creating prison cultures that protect women from sexual abuse, it 

is important to recognize that self-esteem is a significant criminogenic factor for female 

offenders. 

c. Understanding the Importance of Professional 

Language in Establishing a Safe Environment 

The importance of language in creating an institutional culture is an issue that the Panel heard 

previously in its hearings on juvenile justice facilities;489 so it is not surprising that the Panel 

received corroborative testimony at its prison hearings that the language that correctional officers 

use in referring to inmates under their supervision, particularly female inmates, serves as an 

indicator of whether an institution is committed to creating an environment that has zero 

tolerance for sexual victimization of inmates.490 In prisons where inmates must bear verbal 

harassment from the staff, the question arises as to whether other forms of mistreatment are 

tolerated in the facility, including sexual abuse. This question is particularly significant in light 

of the testimony the Panel heard from Fluvanna, which may be a case study in the linkage 

between the alleged demeaning terms that the staff used to refer to the women in custody and the 

reported high incidence of both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.491

d. Recognizing the Vulnerability of Non-Heterosexual 

Inmates and Their Need for Proper Treatment 

Given that inmates who identify as being other than heterosexual are more likely to be targets of 

sexual abuse while in custody,492 the way a prison treats non-heterosexual inmates may also be a 

marker that indicates its commitment to preventing sexual victimization. The experience at 

Fluvanna may again be instructive. If it is true, as alleged, that Fluvanna segregated lesbians and 

masculine-appearing women into separate housing units and it also allowed its staff to refer to 

these women in demeaning ways, then one would expect to find, as the BJS Report did, a facility 

with a high rate of reported sexual victimization.493 

A similar dynamic may also have been work at Allred in the context of responding to and 

investigating grievances alleging sexual victimization from homosexual inmates, whom staff 

referred to as “queens.” As mentioned previously, the Panel noted in its review of sample 

investigative files that a significant number of complainants self-identified as homosexual. 

Given Allred’s history of being a prison with a high rate of sexual victimization while having no 

records substantiating sexual abuse—other than inappropriate relationships between female staff 

members and male inmates, a question remains as to whether complaints from homosexual 

inmates are treated as seriously as they deserve.494

 

488 Owen Test. 3. 489 Juvenile Justice Report 6 (citing Transcript of Record: Panel Hearings on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile 

Correctional Facilities, T. Decker, 54:10-15 (June 3-4, 2010), available at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//reviewpanel/pdfs_june10/transcript_060410.pdf). 490 Tr., B. Owen, 92:16-93:4. 491 BJS Report 8 tbl.2, 9 tbl.3. 492 Id. 14. 493 Id. 8 tbl.2. 494 National studies have found that a significant number of correctional officers believe that homosexual inmates 

should not be protected from rape or that if homosexual inmates are raped, they got what they deserved. See
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

49 

e. Strengthening the Integrity of the Entire Complaint 

Process 

An institution’s treatment of an inmate who alleges sexual abuse, either against another inmate 

or a staff member, is a telling indicator of its culture. As the Panel learned from FCI Elkton, a 

facility with a low incidence of sexual victimization, the prison takes every complaint seriously; 

it is not up to staff members to decide whether an inmate is being manipulative or abusing the 

grievance process. Complainants at FCI Elkton are also not immediately moved to segregation, 

which inmates view understandably as punishment. In contrast, facilities with a high incidence 

of sexual victimization appeared to have had a different approach. At Fluvanna, complainants 

are placed in administrative segregation while the charge is being investigated, which may be a 

number of weeks; at Elmira, the Panel heard testimony that inmates feared retaliation for coming 

forward to make a complaint; and at Allred, despite more than sixty complaints of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization, the subsequent investigations did not substantiate even one claim. 

Institutions with faulty documentation of investigative procedures may have a higher incidence 

of sexual victimization. The Panel found that missing information from the investigative files at 

Allred and Elmira—including such important information as an alleged perpetrator’s prior 

history of predatory behavior and the ultimate disposition of an investigation—may suggest a 

correspondence between lax investigative procedures and an institutional culture that permits the 

sexual victimization of inmates. 

There may be a correlation between outside oversight of investigations and the incidence of 

sexual victimization. Notably, the Panel heard testimony that the BOP has management controls 

that allow for periodic review of adherence to all institutional policies and procedures, including 

investigations. The Panel also heard that the CCA’s central office carefully monitors 

investigations into allegations of sexual abuse at all of its facilities. These approaches may 

explain, at least in part, the relative successes of both FCI Elkton and Bridgeport. The Panel saw 

no evidence that similar, regular outside monitoring of investigations was present at the 

institutions with a reported high incidence of sexual victimization. The lack of such outside 

oversight was also evident in the incomplete investigative files that these institutions sent to the 

Panel to review. 

The Panel also heard from victim advocates that prisons should consider enlarging the time 

period that an inmate has for making a complaint. Given the trauma that a victim of sexual 

assault endures, an inmate alleging sexual abuse may need more than a few weeks before he or 

she may be in a position to make the charge. 

The specter of retaliation may be a significant deterrent, pressuring inmates to be quiet when 

they should come forward with a legitimate complaint against a staff member. Prisons that fail 

to take reasonable steps to protect inmates from retaliation for filing a sexual abuse charge, 

regardless of whether the investigation ultimately substantiates the charge, risk undermining the 

entire complaint process. 

 

Katherine Robb, What We Don’t Know Might Hurt Us: Subjective Knowledge and the Eighth Amendment’s 

Deliberate Indifference Standard for Sexual Abuse in Prisons, 65 N.Y.U. ANN. SURV. AM. L. 705, 719 nn.69 & 70 

(2010) (citing Peter L. Nacci & Thomas R. Kane, Sex and Sexual Aggression in Federal Prisons: Inmate 

Involvement and Employee Impact, 48 FED. PROBATION 46, 48 (1984); Helen Eigenberg, Correctional Officers’ 

Definition of Rape in Male Prisons, 28 J. CRIM. JUST. 435, 442 (2000)). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

50 

When inmates lose confidence in the grievance process and the resultant investigations, victims 

of sexual abuse are unlikely to come forward. 

f. Providing Effective Victim Services 

The services a prison provides to an inmate after a sexual assault demonstrate how seriously it 

takes the issue of sexual victimization. The failure to provide comprehensive victim services to 

an inmate alleging sexual abuse devalues the significance not only of the claim but also of the 

individual making the claim. 

Institutions that are relatively isolated from outside services may tend to have closed 

environments that invite deviant behavior.495 When outside victim advocates are not available or 

when their interactions with victims are not confidential, inmates may be less inclined to take 

advantage of the support they need or report staff sexual misconduct. 

There is a need for correctional institutions to collaborate with victim service providers. In many 

states, victim advocates and, in particular, statewide sexual assault coalitions and rape crisis 

centers seek to partner with correctional agencies in both preventing and responding to sexual 

victimization.

g. Equipping Staff to Respond Effectively to Inmate 

Sexual Victimization 

The Panel noted that institutions that either lacked a PREA coordinator or had an ineffective one 

risked having a higher incidence of sexual abuse. 

Many of the wardens who appeared at the hearings stressed the importance of providing their 

staffs with appropriate training to deal with the particular challenges their facilities encounter in 

dealing with sexual victimization. Notably, at Bridgeport and Fluvanna, the wardens stressed the 

need to provide training to staff in operating a female facility and understanding the importance 

of maintaining professional boundaries. The need for this training is no less needed at male 

facilities such as Allred, where female staff members entered into inappropriate relationships 

with male inmates. With each staff training program, however, it is important to identify the 

desired outcome and then measure the staff’s progress toward achieving it. 

4. Topics for Further Study

The Panel encourages academics and practitioners to conduct additional research on the 

following topics. 

a. Why are Homosexuality and Prior Victimization 

Significant Indicators of Inmate Victims of Sexual 

Abuse? 

The Panel is interested in understanding more precisely the dynamics that make homosexual 

inmates and inmates with a history of sexual victimization prior to coming to prison particularly 

vulnerable to sexual aggression. There are a number of questions related to this issue. If having 

a history of victimization attracts predators, how do inmates who have internalized this identity 

 

495 See Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6282 (§ 115.53). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

51 

convey this message? Are there effective tools that prior victims can access to protect 

themselves in prison? Do negative attitudes of prison staff toward homosexual inmates play a 

significant role in making the inmates particularly vulnerable to sexual assaults? If so, is there 

effective training that engages these attitudes in a constructive way to create an environment that 

protects homosexual inmates? 

b. What are the Distinctive Needs of Female Facilities in 

Preventing Sexual Victimization? 

The Panel is aware of the paucity of resources that are available to female correctional facilities 

when it comes to serving the particular needs of female offenders. The Panel encourages 

additional research into ways of creating healthy female prisons based on data that show the 

relationship between institutional practices (e.g., policies on touching between inmates) and the 

incidence of sexual victimization. The Panel also encourages the development of training tools 

especially tailored to helping staff who work in female facilities in addressing such issues as 

maintaining proper professional boundaries and creating an environment free of verbal 

harassment. 

 B. Jails 

1. Low-Incidence Jails 

a. Hinds County 

i. Facility Description 

Located in Raymond, Mississippi, Hinds County, which opened in 2009, is a joint county and 

state facility for men, which housed on August 9, 2011, 156 state inmates convicted of felonies 

and fifty-six county inmates convicted of misdemeanors.496 

The state inmates and the jail inmates occupy separate sections or “zones” of the jail, and they do 

not interact with each other.497 Each zone can house up to 200 inmates at a time.498 The facility 

consists of open bays, which afford correctional officers a clear line of sight to observe the 

inmates at all times.499 All of the inmates are convicted on nonviolent charges; some are at the 

facility for a few months, whereas others are at the facility for as long as five to eight years.500 

None of the inmates has a sex-crime conviction, and state inmates have an incentive to abide by 

the jail’s rules or they risk being sent back to state prisons where they would not have the same 

level of freedom and variety of work assignments.501 The work assignments include such 

 

496 Interview with John Hulsebosch, Deputy, HCSD, in Raymond, Miss. (Aug. 9, 2011) (on file with the Panel) 

[hereinafter Hinds County Interview]. In response to the Panel’s Data Request, Hinds County provided no data 

related to the capacity of the facility, the number and composition of inmates, and the number and composition of 

staff. Hinds County Resp. 9-12, 23-27 (on file with the Panel). 

497 Hinds County Interview 1. 498 Id. 3. 499 Id. 1, 4. 500 Id. 1. 501 Id. 3, 4. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

52 

projects as cutting grass on state and county roads, assisting nonprofit organizations, and serving 

on the facility’s volunteer fire department that serves the local community.502

The facility has eighty-seven staff members.503 All are sworn deputies, but only two or three are 

certified deputies, which means that they completed training at a law-enforcement academy.504 

The staff is male except for four females: two nurses, one kitchen worker, and one state 

caseworker.505 During each shift, three staff members work in each zone.506

There were no suicides, attempted suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides at the facility in 

2008 and 2009.507 There were also no reported allegations of sexual abuse of any kind at the 

facility in either 2008 or 2009.508 Consequently, during the time period under review, there were 

no investigations into allegations of sexual abuse, and no employees received discipline or were 

terminated for sexual misconduct.509 

Hinds County does not have a specific policy on preventing or responding to sexual 

victimization.510 On touring the facility, the Panel did not observe any posters or other materials 

that educate inmates on how to prevent or report sexual assault.511 In 2008 and 2009, Hinds 

County did not have a PREA coordinator.512

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

Mr. Malcom McMillin, Sheriff of Hinds County, who is responsible for the operation of the 

Hinds County facility, testified that the low incidence of sexual victimization at the work center 

may be attributable to a number of factors, including the caliber and training of the correctional 

officers, the design of the facility, the inmate population, and the work center’s communityservice programming.513 

Sheriff McMillin noted that Hinds County deputies assigned to detention must complete eighty 

hours of training to be certified, and there are no uncertified jailers at Hinds County.514 In 

referring to his staff, Sheriff McMillin said, “They are trained to be fair but firm with those 

individuals who are incarcerated in our facility, allowing them to be observant towards 

 

502 Id. 2. 503 Id. 504 Id. 505 Id. 506 Id. 3. 507 Hinds County Resp. 13, 15. 508 Id. 29-33. 509 Id. 22. 510 Hinds County Interview 2. 511 Id. 512 Hinds County Resp. 2. 513 Tr., M. McMillin, 440:20-445:3. As he was not re-elected, at the end of calendar year 2011, Sheriff McMillin’s 

term of office ended. 

514 Id. 442:6-10; but see supra note 504. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

53 

conditions that might lead to possible sexual assault, and trusting enough for inmates to confide 

in them should such an incident occur.”515 

Sherriff McMillin said that the work center’s open-bay design, which allows for direct 

supervision, deters sexual assault because it minimizes places where they could occur.516 He 

also noted that the jail has a modern video surveillance system that detention officers monitor 

twenty-four hours a day.517

According to Sheriff McMillin, the composition of the inmate population at Hinds County may 

also be a factor in its low incidence of sexual assault, because all of the state inmates are 

carefully selected as to their suitability in taking advantage of the programming provided by the 

work center.518 

Finally, Sheriff McMillin testified that the fact that Hinds County is a work center minimizes the 

opportunities for sexual assault.519 He said there is constant supervision of inmates as they work 

thirty hours each week at jobs in the facility and community.520 The assignments may include 

working for nonprofit organizations such as the Mississippi Food Network and Habitat for 

Humanity, serving in the facility-operated volunteer fire department, collecting litter, and 

eradicating graffiti.521

Chief Deputy Steven Pickett observed that the inmates’ work in the community has a positive 

impact on the culture of Hinds County, which has a low number of assaults, aggravated assaults, 

and sexual assaults.522 He said that the community service that the inmates perform leads to a 

greater sense of respect not only for themselves but for each other.523 

iii. Observations 

Based on Hinds County’s response to the Data Request, the onsite visit, and the testimony that 

the Panel received on Hinds County, the Panel notes that the low incidence of sexual 

victimization in the jail may be attributable to many of the factors that Sheriff McMillin cited, 

including the inmate population, which does not have any violent offenders. There are, however, 

three factors that Sheriff McMillin identified that the Panel would like to underscore: prison 

design, community service, and the caliber and training of the correctional officers. First, 

although building design alone does not reduce sexual victimization of inmates, a correctional 

facility that has a design that promotes direct supervision, eliminates hidden areas, and includes 

monitored surveillance cameras can make the work of corrections administrators significantly 

easier in preventing sexual abuse. Second, when inmates work on community-service projects, 

their efforts not only benefit the neighboring communities they serve, but they also have a 

 

515 Tr., M. McMillin, 442:12-18. 516 Id. 442:19-21, 443. 517 Id. 443:10-13. 518 Id. 443:2-7. 519 Id. 443:18-19. 520 Id. 443:20-444:1, 21. 521 Id. 444:1-3, 7-9, 22. 522 Id., S. Pickett, 449:20-450:2. 523 Id. 450:1-5. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

54 

rehabilitative effect. Through community service, inmates have an opportunity to develop 

greater self-respect, which then extends to the respectful treatment of other inmates in the 

facilities where they live. Lastly, when corrections staff members are “firm but fair,” acting with 

professional integrity in keeping with the organization’s mission, inmates will find them not only 

approachable but also trusted to take necessary actions to address sexual impropriety. 

b. The Moss Center 

i. Facility Description 

The Moss Center, located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and completed in 1999, provides for direct 

supervision of inmates; the facility is bright, light, and airy.524 The Moss Center houses both 

male and female inmates at all custody levels, including a small number of juveniles.525 In 

addition to inmates from Tulsa County, the Moss Center houses inmates detained by the U.S. 

Marshals Service and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).526 

On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the rated capacity of the jail was 1714.527 On 

January 1, 2008, there were 1390 inmates in the jail.528 In calendar year 2008, the total number 

of inmates who spent any time at the Moss Center was 30,312; the average length of stay was 

eighteen days; and the longest length of stay was 204 days.529 On January 1, 2009, there were 

1359 inmates in the jail.530 Although the jail ordinarily functioned well below its rated capacity 

in 2008 and 2009, on June 1, 2009, there were 1717 inmates present in the jail.531 In calendar 

year 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the Moss Center was 30,879; the 

average length of stay was eighteen days; and the longest length of stay was 365 days.532

In calendar year 2008, the inmate composition at the Moss Center was as follows: 12,222 White 

males; 4126 White females; 7414 African American males; 2274 African American females; 

2586 Hispanic males; 200 Hispanic females; 894 Alaska Native or American Indian males; 383 

Alaska Native or American Indian females; 189 males or other or unknown ancestry; and 24 

females of other or unknown ancestry.533 In calendar year 2009, the inmate composition at the 

Moss Center was as follows: 12,122 White males; 4414 White females; 6952 African American 

males; 2074 African American females; 3681 Hispanic males; 257 Hispanic females; 863 Alaska 

Native or American Indian males; 353 Alaska Native or American Indian females; 135 males of 

other or unknown ancestry; and 28 females of other or unknown ancestry.534 The Moss Center 

did not use the following three categories in tracking the racial or ethnic backgrounds of inmates 

 

524 Interview with Stanley Glanz, Sheriff, TCSO, et al. in Tulsa, Okla. 1 (Aug. 17, 2011) (on file with the Panel). 525 Id. 526 Id. 527 Moss Center Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 528 Id. 9(b). 529 Id. 9(f)-(h). 530 Id. 10(b). 531 Id. 10(d). 532 Id. 10(f)-(h). 533 Id. 11(a)-(c), (e), (g). 534 Id. 12(d), (f), (g). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

55 

in 2008 and 2009: (1) Asian, (2) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and (3) two or more 

races.535

The Moss Center reported that in 2008, there was one inmate suicide, twenty-five attempted 

suicides, no homicides, and no attempted homicides.536 The suicide and attempted suicides in 

2008 were not related to sexual victimization.537 The Moss Center reported that in 2009, there 

was one suicide, nineteen attempted suicides, no homicides, and no attempted homicides.538 The 

suicide and attempted suicides in 2009 were not related to sexual victimization.539

On January 1, 2008, the total number of authorized staff positions at the Moss Center was 340 

(forty-three sworn and 297 non-sworn).540 The staffing level on January 1, 2008, was 333 (fortythree sworn and 297 non-sworn).541 On January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized staff 

positions at the Moss Center was 339 (sixty-two sworn and 277 non-sworn).542 The staffing 

level on January 1, 2008, was 339 (sixty-two sworn and 277 non-sworn).543 

The Moss Center does not distinguish between sworn and non-sworn staff members.544 On 

January 1, 2008, the ratio of staff members to inmates was one staff person per 4.17 inmates; on 

January 1, 2009, the ratio of staff members to inmates was one staff person per 4.01 inmates.545

In calendar year 2008, one staff person was terminated from employment for sexual 

misconduct.546 In calendar year 2009, on the basis of sexual misconduct, the Moss Center 

terminated three staff members and allowed one to resign.547 

There was one investigation of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct in 2008 at the Moss Center and another 

investigation in 2009.548 In the first incident, a male nurse allegedly observed a female juvenile while she 

was showering.549 The investigation produced sufficient evidence to present the charge to the district 

attorney, who then declined to prosecute.550 In the second incident, a male detention officer allegedly 

used coercion to perform oral sex on a male inmate.551 The investigation produced sufficient evidence to 

present the charge to the district attorney, who then prosecuted the case and obtained a conviction.552 

 

535 Id. 11(d), (f), (g); id. 12(d), (f), (g). 536 Id. 13. 537 Id. 14. 538 Id. 15. 539 Id. 16. 540 Id. 23(a)-(c). 541 Id. 23(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). There appears to be a computing error in the data supplied by the Moss Center. If on 

January 1, 2008, there were forty-three sworn and 297 non-sworn staff members actually present, the total would be 

340 instead of the reported 333. 

542 Id. 24(a)-(c). 543 Id. 24(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). 544 Id. 25(m)-(n). 545 Id. 25(a), (e). 546 Id. 22(a) (2008). 547 Id. 22(a)-(b) (2009). 548 App. C (Moss Center Staff-on-Inmate Assaults); Moss Center Resp. 35. 549 Id. 35(g) (2008). 550 Id. 35(h), (j) (2008). 551 Id. 35(b), (g) (2009). 552 Id. 35(h), (j) (2009). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

56 

In 2008 and 2009, there were a total of six investigations into inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization.553 The charges included forcible sodomy, sexual misconduct, sexual battery, and 

attempted rape.554 Three of the charges involved unwanted touching that resulted in the 

perpetrators receiving in-house discipline.555 The Moss Center presented two charges of sexual 

victimization to the district attorney, who declined prosecution; one of the charges was sexual 

assault, and the other was attempted rape.556 The facility also presented a charge of forcible oral 

sodomy to the district attorney, who accepted the matter for prosecution.557

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported Low 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

Mr. Stanley Glanz, Sheriff of Tulsa County, identified a number of factors that contributed to the 

low incidence of sexual victimization at the Moss Center, but he particularly emphasized the 

importance of staff training and the accreditation of the facility.558 

Beginning in 2005, all employees who attended basic jail training received a four-hour session 

on harassment, sexual awareness, and prison rape.559 Since 2008, the Moss Center’s training 

division has also presented to new staff members information and resources related to PREA, 

which were made available by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC).560

Through module training programs, which allow all employees who work in security areas to 

receive from eighty to a hundred hours of in-service training annually by attending daily thirtyminute squad meetings, the Moss Center is able to provide continuing education courses to its 

staff.561 One of these courses, entitled Sexual Harassment, includes the following materials: 

Cross Gender Supervision; Sexual Harassment: An Innovative Perspective; Men, Women and 

Respect; and Correctional Workplace Issues, Sexual Harassment in Corrections.562

Sheriff Glanz testified that there is a benefit that comes from having outside monitors; he noted 

that the Moss Center and the TCSO have welcomed inspections, often related to meeting 

accreditation standards, from the American Correctional Association (ACA), the National 

Commission on Correctional Health Care, the Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Homeland 

 

553 Id. 36. The Moss Center’s response to the Panel’s Data Request and the chart prepared by Creative Corrections 

both agree that there were six investigations into inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in calendar years 2008 and 

2009; however, there is a discrepancy in the reported incidents. The second incident in 2009 described in the Moss 

Center’s Response does not appear in the chart that Creative Corrections prepared based on the files that the facility 

produced; also, the Moss Center does not account for incident five in Creative Corrections’ chart (see app. C (Moss 

Center Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults)). The analysis here follows the Moss Center’s Response. See Tr., S. Glanz, 

410:12. 

554 App. C (Moss Center Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 555 Moss Center Resp. 36 (Incidents 2 & 3 in 2008; Incident 2 in 2009). 556 Id. (Incidents 1 & 3 in 2009). 557 Id. (Incident 1 in 2008). 558 Tr., S. Glanz, 429:1-2. 559 Moss Center Resp. 43(a). 560 Id. 561 Id. 43(b). 562 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

57 

Security.563 Sheriff Glanz observed that being open to outside inspection prevents sexual 

assaults at the Moss Center.564 He noted that another deterrent to sexual victimization at the 

facility, consistent with this openness, is the daily presence of hundreds of community volunteers 

who work with inmates.565

According to the testimony that the Panel heard, other factors that contributed to the low 

incidence of sexual victimization at the Moss Center are a corrections philosophy and a facility 

design that promote direct supervision,566 a rapid response to and in-depth investigation of sexual 

assaults,567 inmate programming that develops life skills,568 and an inmate classification system 

based on behavior.569

In the written response to the Panel’s Data Request, Sheriff Glanz summarized the reasons for 

the Moss Center’s success: 

It is my belief that employees of this facility are proactive with sexual assault due 

to their professionalism, the training that is given on a continual basis that 

addresses such issues, the thoroughness of the investigations into every complaint 

or allegation and that the management style is such that inmates are treated as 

people.570

iii. Observations 

Sheriff Glanz noted that he has found reluctance on the part of prosecutors to pursue cases 

involving female staff members who have entered into inappropriate relationships with male 

inmates; however, prosecutors appear to be more inclined to take sexual misconduct cases 

involving a male staff member and a male inmate.571 Sheriff Glanz said that he has found that 

both federal and local authorities often decline to prosecute female staff members.572 

In reviewing the reported incidents of sexual victimization at the Moss Center, the Panel found 

documentation that a rape kit was provided in one instance to the complainant; however in two 

instances the perpetrator was a repeat offender.573 Also, a review of the incidents showed that 

even though the Moss Center had a contract with an outside vendor to provide mental health 

services, the contract did not address specifically counseling for sexual assault victims.574 In 

none of the reviewed cases was there documentation that the facility provided an advocate or 

 

563 Tr., S. Glanz, 425:15-426:15. 564 Id. 427:21-428:4. 565 Id. 428:4-10. 566 Id. 412:4-413:7. 567 Id. 415:5-7. 568 Id., M. Robinette, 416:15-417:1, 417:13-418:2. 569 Id. 432:18-434:6. 570 Moss Center Resp. 46. 571 Tr., S. Glanz, 420:14-21. 572 Id. 421:8-18. 573 App. B 18, 19 (Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Facility (Jails)). 574 Id. 20. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

58 

counseling services to victims of sexual assault.575 The Moss Center may want to review its 

practices in making available victim services to inmates who have been sexually assaulted. 

Like Hinds County, the Moss Center is a modern building designed to support the philosophy of 

direct supervision of inmates. Despite the significant differences between Hinds County and the 

Moss Center, it may be no coincidence that the two jails that the Panel identified as having a low 

incidence of sexual victimization share this common commitment. The Panel supports Sheriff 

Glanz’s assessment that providing ongoing staff training and welcoming outside inspection—

whether through the accreditation process of professional organizations or the constant presence 

of community volunteers—are invaluable tools in creating a jail culture that prevents sexual 

victimization. 

2. High-Incidence Jails 

a. Clallam County 

i. Facility Description 

Clallam County is located in Port Angeles, Washington. On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 

2009, the full rated capacity of Clallam County was 120.576 The actual number of inmates 

present in the facility on January 1, 2008, was 125.577 In calendar year 2008, the total number of 

inmates who spent any time at the jail was 44,544; the average length of stay was sixteen days; 

and the longest stay of any inmate was 339 days.578 The actual number of inmates present in the 

facility on January 1, 2009, was 126.579 In calendar year 2009, the total number of inmates who 

spent any time at the jail was 43,781; the average length of stay was fourteen days; and the 

longest stay of any inmate was 342 days.580 

In calendar year 2008, the racial and ethnic composition of the total number of inmates at 

Clallam County was as follows: 37,781 Whites, 1205 African Americans, 1574 Hispanics, 47 

Asians, 3902 Alaska Natives or American Indians, no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific 

Islanders, and 45 inmates classified as other or unknown.581 In calendar year 2009, the racial and 

ethnic composition of the total number of inmates at Clallam County was as follows: 36,827 

Whites, 1736 African Americans, 886 Hispanics, 22 Asians, 4295 Alaska Natives or American 

Indians, no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders, and 15 inmates classified as other or 

unknown.582

 

575 Id. 576 Clallam County Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 577 Id. 9(b). 578 Id. 9(f)-(h). 579 Id. 10(b). 580 Id. 10(f)-(h). 581 Id. 11(a)-(g). These figures total 44,554 instead of 44,544; the discrepancy is a reporting error attributable to 

Clallam County. Clallam County does not collect inmate data under the category of two or more races. 582 Id. 12(a)-(g). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

59 

In 2008, there were no inmate suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides at Clallam County; 

but there was a single attempted suicide.583 Clallam County provided no information on whether 

the suicide attempt in 2008 had any connection with sexual victimization.584 In 2009, there were 

no inmate suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides; however, there were nine suicide 

attempts.585 None of the suicide attempts in 2009 involved sexual victimization.586

On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized staff positions at 

Clallam County was forty-one (forty-one sworn and no non-sworn).587 The staffing level on 

January 1, 2008, was thirty-nine (thirty-nine sworn and no non-sworn).588 The staffing level on 

January 1, 2009, was forty (forty sworn and no non-sworn).589 The ratio of sworn staff members 

to inmates on January 1, 2008, was one staff person per 3.13 inmates; the ratio of sworn staff 

members to inmates on January 1, 2009, was one staff person per 3.15 inmates.590 

Clallam County reported that in 2008 and 2009, there were no allegations of sexual abuse 

involving either inmates or staff.591

In 2008 and 2009, the jail did have a PREA coordinator.592 When inmates pick up telephones in 

the facility they receive information on PREA and how to report sexual victimization.593

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

Mr. William L. Benedict, Sheriff of Clallam County, contended that the BJS Report was in error 

for reporting a high incidence of sexual victimization at Clallam County, because the jail simply 

did not have any incidents of sexual abuse.594 He testified that shortly after he received the 

results of the survey he went to the FBI to request an investigation and he went on a local radio 

station to request anyone who was a victim at Clallam County to come forward.595 Sheriff 

Benedict said he respected the confidentiality and anonymity of those inmates who participated 

in the BJS survey, but by requesting victims to contact his office he wanted information.596 

Sheriff Benedict said that he broadcast the PREA hotline number to the public so that it could 

report instances of sexual abuse at the jail, and he also contacted the public defenders and 

requested any information regarding clients who might be victims.597 Despite all of these efforts, 

Sheriff Benedict testified that no one has ever come forward to claim being a victim of sexual 

 

583 Id. 13. 584 Id. 14. 585 Id. 15. 586 Id. 16. 587 Id. 23(a)-(c), 24(a)-(c). 588 Id. 23(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). 589 Id. 24(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). 590 Id. 25(a), (e). 591 Id. 22, 30-33. 592 Id. 2. 593 Tr., G. Christensen, 263:7-10. 594 Id., W. Benedict, 221:11-13. 595 Id. 221:14-15, 221:22-222:3. 596 Id. 222:5-6, 11. 597 Id. 222:20-21, 223:2-5. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

60 

abuse while housed at Clallam County.598 Sheriff Benedict said that he also received a letter 

from the head of the public defenders, who concurred with him in questioning whether any 

sexual abuse occurred in the jail; Sheriff Benedict noted that the head of the public defenders 

would know about sexual abuse in the jail because he interviews every inmate.599 Sheriff 

Benedict also said that the FBI reported to him that there was no evidence that his staff was 

abusing inmates and until it could find a victim there was nothing the FBI could do.600 Sheriff 

Benedict pointedly observed, “[T]here are no victims.”601 

Sheriff Benedict stated that he did not question the methodology of the BJS survey, its accuracy, 

its internal safeguards to identify dissemblers, or the veracity of inmates.602 He also said that he 

also understood that prison rape happens and that it needs to be eliminated.603 He did, however, 

question what the survey actually measures; he contended that in addition to gathering data on 

sexual misconduct, the survey may reflect a “cultural delusion.”604 Sheriff Benedict argued that 

the survey results may be understood in reference to the fantasy that a significant number of 

people sincerely believe that they have been abducted and sexually molested by aliens: 

I think there is, for lack of a better term—and I’ve done some research on this—

there is a factor that I’ll call cultural delusion. And it is very prevalent in our 

society, and I’ll give you an example. You may think it’s far off, but it is very 

true. 

Many surveys have been done, and it shows that between fifty and seventy 

percent of our population believe in UFOs. . . . Does that prove that they exist? 

No. But there is a subset of that which says two percent of the general population 

that believe—and survey after survey concludes this—that believe that they have 

been abducted by aliens, have gone to the mother ship. Some of them have been 

sexually abused in the mother ship.605

Sheriff Benedict said that the frequency of reported alien abductions is unlikely, yet he infers that 

this cultural phenomenon may be a useful reference in thinking about inmate responses to the 

BJS survey.606 He noted that many inmates suffer from PTSD as well as mental illness; and so, 

despite facts to the contrary, they may sincerely believe that they have been the victims of sexual 

abuse by another inmate or a staff member.607 He suggested that the survey should filter out 

these self-deluded responses; the survey’s current capacity to screen out inconsistent responses is 

insufficient because it does not eliminate responses from inmates who are convinced that their 

 

598 Id. 222:22-223:2. Sheriff Benedict stated that there was one reported incident of an attorney who engaged in 

sexual misconduct while visiting a client in a sealed attorney-client booth at the jail, a place the jail cannot observe; 

the attorney was not a staff member. Sheriff Benedict immediately suspended the attorney from the jail and took 

measures to have him disbarred. Id. 223:6-17. 599 Id. 223:18-22. 600 Id. 262:10-15. 601 Id. 224:15; see also id. 266:7-8, 274:15-16. 602 Id. 227:22-228:3, 230:17-18, 268:20-21, 270:12-18. 603 Id. 226:4-6. 604 Id. 227:18-21, 228:12-17. 605 Id. 228:12-229:4. 606 Id. 229:11-13. 607 Id. 229:17-22. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

61 

delusions of sexual abuse are real.608 Sheriff Benedict observed, “[W]ith human beings, belief is 

often as powerful as experience.”609

Sheriff Benedict also questioned the results in the BJS Report based on extrapolating the survey 

results to the yearly population size at Clallam County.610 He said that if as the BJS Report

showed, eight percent of the daily population at the jail experienced sexual victimization, the 

Sheriff speculated that with roughly 4000 bookings per year, which the Sheriff then halved to 

take into account repeat offenders, there would be approximately 160 people who have 

experienced sexual abuse in the jail every year (i.e., eight percent of 2000).611 He noted that if 

these numbers were true, then there would be 800 victims since he took office five years ago.612 

Contesting these results, Sheriff Benedict said, “Now surely one of them would have come 

forward to say, ‘I’m one of those victims.’ I didn’t get that.”613 He also noted that he receives 

400 inmate complaints each year, and none of them had to do even with sexual harassment.614

iii. Observations 

The Panel appreciates that given the absence of any in-house records of sexual abuse and the 

reluctance of any victims to come forward, Sheriff Benedict sincerely questions the validity of 

the BJS Report as it pertains to Clallam County. Nonetheless, the Panel relies on the science and 

integrity of the BJS survey and defers to the BJS to address any of Sheriff Benedict’s lingering 

concerns. As previously noted, during the reporting period of the BJS Report, there were 

instances in which an attorney, who was not an employee of Clallam County, allegedly exposed 

himself to inmates.615 Reference to these instances might have contributed, at least in part, to the 

BJS’ findings. 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations 

Based on its site visit, the Panel found that the design of Clallam County is quite dated; it uses a 

holding tank with double bunks to house most of its inmates. Clallam County is also in varying 

states of disrepair, lacking cleanliness. The facility operates in a manner that limits direct 

observation of inmates.616 While touring the facility, the Panel observed that the windows of 

every unit were covered completely with magnetic covers, which were designed to prevent 

inmates from looking outward.617 These covers, however, also prevented correctional officers 

from looking in on the inmates on a routine basis; consequently, inmates perceived that they 

were not being watched at any time other than during security tours.618 To remedy what the 

Panel identified as a safety issue, Sheriff Benedict reported that he took this observation to heart 

 

608 Id. 230:1-5. 609 Id. 271:10-11. 610 Id. 232:1-11. 611 Id. 612 Id.; id. 235:15-16. 613 Id. 232:12-13. 614 Id. 235:10-12. 615 See supra note 598. 616 Tr., W. Benedict, 237:18-20. 617 Id., G. Christensen, 236:11-15. 618 Id. 236:10-21. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

62 

and was in the process of replacing the film on the windows with a one-way coating that would 

still prevent inmates from looking outward but would allow correctional officers to see into units 

where inmates are.619 The Panel also observed that there was a lack of privacy in the boxes used 

for collecting grievance forms from inmates, and the Panel suggested that Clallam County might 

consider ways to guarantee the confidentiality of the grievance process.620 Sheriff Benedict 

noted the concern and said that he would address it.621 The Panel also observed that even though 

the facility’s telephones advised inmates about PREA, there were no posted placards that 

informed them of the jail’s policies on the prevention of sexual victimization.622 The Panel 

recommends placing in the jail posters that inmates can readily view that have information on 

reporting sexual victimization. 

b. Miami-Dade PTDC 

i. Facility Description 

The PTDC, located in Miami, Florida, and opened in 1961, is a high-rise facility, just one of six 

housing units of the MDCR.623 It was originally designed to process through its receiving area 

eighty inmates per day or 30,000 inmates per year.624 Today the PTDC processes 300 inmates 

per day or 110,000 per year.625 The PTDC houses only male inmates, and many are classified as 

among the most violent offenders in the MDCR jail system.626 

On January 1, 2008, and on January 1, 2009, the number of inmates at the PTDC at its full rated 

capacity was 1400.627 The actual number of inmates present at PTDC on January 1, 2008, was 

1556.628 The number of inmates at PTDC frequently exceeded the full rated capacity in 2008 

(e.g., on March 1, 2008, there were 1767 inmates; on June 1, 2008, there were 1570 inmates; and 

on September 1, 2008, there were 1659 inmates).629 In 2008, the total number of inmates who 

spent any time at the facility was 118,080; the average length of an inmate’s stay was just over 

twenty-two days; and the longest length of stay of any inmate was 3884 days.630 On January 1, 

2009, the actual number of inmates present at PTDC was 1365.631 Although the number of 

inmates at PTDC in 2009 at times exceeded its capacity, the inmate population was significantly 

closer to the rated capacity and at times even less (e.g., on March 1, 2009, there were 1436 

inmates; on June 1, 2009, there were 1432 inmates; and on September 1, 2009, there were 1341 

 

619 Id., W. Benedict, 237:8-15. 620 Id., G. Christensen, 260:9-17. 621 Id., W. Benedict, 260:18-20. 622 Id., G. Christensen, 263:10-11. 623 Ryan Test. 2 (Apr. 15, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_ryan.pdf. Director Ryan’s testimony also appears in 

the Transcript of Record. See Tr., T. Ryan, 284:12-301:6. 624 Ryan Test. 2. 625 Id. 626 Id. 627 PTDC Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 628 Id. 9(b). 629 Id. 9(c)-(e). 630 Id. 9(f)-(h). 631 Id. 10(b). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

63 

inmates).632 In 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the PTDC was 109,899; 

the average length of an inmate’s stay was over twenty-one days; and the longest stay of any 

inmate was 4249 days.633

In 2008, for the total number of inmates at PTDC, the racial and ethnic composition was as 

follows: 14,784 Whites; 49,800 African Americans; 53,452 Hispanics; 25 Asians; 13 Alaska 

Natives or American Indians; no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders; no inmates 

identifying as belonging to two or more races; and 6 inmates of unknown racial or ethnic 

heritage.634 In 2009, for the total number of inmates at PTDC, the racial and ethnic composition 

was as follows: 13,363 Whites; 45,943 African Americans; 50,537 Hispanics; 34 Asians; 17 

Alaska Natives or American Indians; no Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders; no inmates 

identifying as belonging to two or more races; and 5 inmates of unknown racial or ethnic 

heritage.635

In 2008, at PTDC there were no suicides, homicides, or attempted homicides; there were, 

however, six attempted suicides.636 In 2009, at PTDC there were no suicides, homicides, or 

attempted homicides; there were again, however, eight attempted suicides.637 The PTDC 

reported that the attempted suicides in 2008 and 2009 were not related to staff-on-inmate or 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.638

On January 1, 2008, the total number of authorized staff positions at PTDC was 429 (397 sworn 

and thirty-two non-sworn).639 The staffing level at PTDC on January 1, 2008, was 342 (294 

sworn and forty-eight non-sworn).640 On January 1, 2009, the total number of authorized staff 

positions at PTDC was 378 (350 sworn and twenty-eight non-sworn).641 The staffing level at 

PTDC on January 1, 2009, was 340 (296 sworn and forty-four non-sworn).642

On January 1, 2008, the ratio of sworn staff to inmates was one to sixteen; on January 1, 2009, 

the ratio of sworn staff to inmates was one to fourteen.643

In 2008 and 2009, the PTDC initiated nine investigations into inmate-on-inmate sexual 

assaults.644 The charges included rape and sexual assault.645 In each case, either the complainant 

 

632 Id. 10(c)-(e). 633 Id. 10(f)-(h). 634 Id. 11. 635 Id. 12. The PTDC reported that the total number of inmates in 2009 was 109,899, but the data it provided to the 

Panel on the racial and ethnic composition of the total inmate population accounted for only 109,865. 

636 Id. 13. 637 Id. 15. 638 Id. 14, 16. 639 Id. 23(a). 640 Id. 23(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). The numbers do not include staff members on scheduled leave. 641 Id. 24(a). 642 Id. 24(d)(i), (e)(i), (f)(i). The numbers do not include staff members on scheduled leave. 643 Id. 25(a), (e). 644 App. C (PTDC Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). Lt. Eric Garcia, Special Victims Bureau, Miami-Dade Police 

Department (MDPD), testified that his unit investigated eleven sexual assault cases in 2008 and 2009, but it is 

unclear from his testimony whether these investigations were limited to the PTDC or involved other MDCR units. 

Tr., E. Garcia, 328:17-19. Lt. Garcia testified that out of the eleven cases that his unit investigated, one resulted in 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

64 

rescinded the charge or the evidence did not support the allegation.646 In 2008 and 2009, the 

PTDC conducted three investigations into staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct.647 The charges 

included sexual misconduct and an inappropriate relationship with an inmate.648 In the first case, 

the investigation did not substantiate the underlying charge, but it found that staff members 

failed to report the matter immediately to the appropriate supervisor.649 In the second case, the 

investigation substantiated the charges against a female officer, finding that she had an 

inappropriate relationship with a male inmate and that she introduced contraband into the jail; 

PTDC terminated her employment.650 In the third case, the investigation found insufficient 

evidence to support the charge.651

 

In 2008 and 2009, based on sexual misconduct, the PTDC terminated three staff members and 

disciplined one staff member.652 

ii. Facility’s Explanation for Reported High Incidence of 

Sexual Victimization 

The MDCR did not provide an explanation for the high incidence of sexual victimization at the 

PTDC, contending that its own internal review did not support the findings of the BJS Report: 

“MDCR respectfully disputes the characterization of a high incidence of sexual victimization at 

the PTDC facility during the years 2008 and 2009. An analysis of empirical data by MDCR and 

MDPD do not corroborate such a finding.”653

Mr. Timothy P. Ryan, Director, MDCR, reminded the Panel in his testimony that few jails in the 

United States have undergone the level of scrutiny his has, which has included a recent 

investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, which resulted in 

adverse findings based on the MDCR’s noncompliance with the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 

Persons Act (CRIPA).654 

For the Panel to understand the MDCR, Mr. Ryan offered basic information about the jail system 

in Miami-Dade County.655 A sheriff does not oversee the system; instead, MDCR reports to the 

Mayor of Miami-Dade County and the Board of County Commissioners.656 The MDCR is the 

 

an arrest and prosecution; one was unfounded; and as to the remaining nine cases, either the victim chose not to 

continue with the investigation or the State Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute. Id. 330:4-16. 645 App. C (PTDC Inmate-on-Inmate Assaults). 646 Id. 647 Id. 648 Id. 649 Id. (Incident 1). 650 Id. (Incident 2). 651 Id. (Incident 3). 652 PTDC Resp. 22. 653 PTDC Resp. 46. 654 Ryan Test. 1; see also Letter of Finding from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Carlos E. Gimenez, Mayor, Miami-Dade County (Aug. 24, 2011), available 

at http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/Miami-Dade_findlet_8-24-11.pdf [hereinafter MDCR Letter of 

Finding]. 

655 Ryan Test. 1. 656 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

65 

eighth largest jail system in the United States.657 The jail system operates under Florida rules 

that require correctional certification, not law enforcement certification; this means that the 

Miami-Dade Police Department investigates criminal matters involving PREA in the jail 

system.658 Mr. Ryan stated that the MDCR is not a single jail facility, but is comprised of six 

housing units, serving at the time of the hearing 6000 inmates.659 Mr. Ryan noted that the 

current inmate population is significantly smaller than the inmate population at the time of the 

BJS survey in 2008 when the inmate population was 7400.660 He stated that the inmate 

population is 8% female and 92% male, whereas the custodial staff is 53% female and 47% 

male.661 

Mr. Ryan noted that the prison system receives arrestees from thirty-seven jurisdictions at the 

rate of one every four minutes, and one in five of these arrestees is mentally ill.662 The inmate 

population of the MDCR is 84% pre-sentence, while 16% are sentenced.663

Mr. Ryan said that to become a correctional officer at MDCR requires passing a rigorous written 

test, a background check, psychological screening, and a medical examination.664 He said that in 

his department’s last recruitment effort, there were 1700 applicants but only 150 received offers 

of employment.665 Once selected, a recruit must successfully pass a twenty-two-week academy, 

which includes training on PREA; on completion of the academy, the recruit must successfully 

pass a state-certification examination, receive thirty days of intensive orientation, and serve a 

one-year probationary period.666 All correctional officers must be recertified every four years, 

which requires retraining on such topics as PREA.667 Mr. Ryan said that NIC’s online training 

on PREA is being provided to all staff, and at the time of promotion as well as at other times, 

supervisors and managers receive in-service training, which includes information on PREA.668 

He said that at the time of the hearing 2800 MDCR staff members (95%) have completed the 

NIC’s online PREA course.669

In describing the PTDC, Mr. Ryan observed, “This facility is considered a first generation jail 

with indirect supervision as its model which means that inmates are not under constant 

observation by staff.”670 Mr. Ryan said, “Like most of the urban jails designed and built in the 

1950s and 1960s, it was not anticipated that it would incarcerate the numbers and types of 

violent inmates it has been called upon to house today.”671

 

657 Id. 658 Id. 659 Id. 660 Id. 661 Id. 2. 662 Id. 2. 663 Id. 2-3. 664 Id. 2. 665 Id. 666 Id. 667 Id. 668 Id. 669 Id. 4. 670 Id. 3 (underscoring omitted). 671 Id. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

66 

Mr. Ryan reported, “Since taking the leadership role at Miami-Dade County, I did discover that 

even though there had long been policies and procedures addressing sexual misconduct, the 

PREA initiative had not been fully embraced.”672 To remedy this situation, Mr. Ryan said that 

he took the following steps: distributing videos to the staff that conveyed the institution’s zero 

tolerance for fraternization with inmates; developing and updating the institutional policy 

addressing PREA; revising the inmate handbook to include a reference to the institution’s 

intolerance of sexual misconduct; posting PREA placards in three languages in all six housing 

units; incorporating information on PREA into annual and in-service training programs for staff; 

including information on PREA in new-employee orientation; improving intake, medical, and 

classification procedures to identify potential victims of sexual assault and predators; installing a 

rape-crisis hotline that is available from every inmate telephone; contracting with outside 

organizations (e.g., Just Detention International (JDI), The Moss Group, Inc.) to provide 

technical assistance to assess institutional needs and provide specialized training on investigating 

sexual assaults; installing surveillance cameras in housing units; and implementing wordrecognition software that will identify incident reports with sexually related language.673 Mr. 

Ryan also said that he also strongly believes in meeting national professional standards for 

correctional facilities, which has meant obtaining accreditation from the ACA for some of the 

units at the MDCR; the MDCR is in the process of obtaining ACA accreditation for its other 

units, including the PTDC.674

Mr. Ryan noted that since 2007, the incidence of inmate-on-inmate violence dropped 54%, from 

162 incidents in March 2007 to seventy-five in 2011.675 He also reported that use-of-force 

reports have dropped 78% since 2008, from fifty-four events in March 2008 to twelve events in 

March 2011.676

Mr. Ryan mentioned that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) produced a troubling 

documentary on MDCR operations that was useful in facing the “age old problem between 

policy and practice.”677 One of the problems that the BBC documentary highlighted, especially 

for female staff, is male inmates masturbating in their presence.678 Mr. Ryan said that this is an 

issue in which the MDCR is still seeking answers.679 He noted that the MDCR has been 

unsuccessful in having the State Attorney’s Office prosecute inmates for this behavior, which 

means that the only available response is administrative discipline.680 Mr. Ryan said that 

recently the MDCR has provided staff members who have encountered this situation with 

counseling services from in-house psychologists.681

 

672 Id. 673 Id. 3-4. 674 Id. 4-5. 675 Id. 5-6. 676 Id. 6. 677 Id. 5. 678 Id. 6. 679 Id. 680 Id. 681 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

67 

iii. Observations 

During the Panel’s onsite tour of the PTDC, the Panel saw that there were numerous posters 

providing information to inmates on reporting and preventing sexual victimization.682 The tour 

also raised for the Panel a number of concerns. The Panel observed black sheets enclosing the 

shower area and recognized them as a potential security risk.683 Responding to the Panel’s 

concern, Captain John W. Johnson of the MDCR said that the PTDC was in the process of 

replacing the black shower curtains with opaque ones.684 

Although the Panel commends the MDCR’s installation of additional surveillance cameras in 

housing units, the Panel found during its tour of the PTDC that staff members assigned to 

monitoring the cameras were not properly trained; they could not use the cameras to pan an area 

or focus on a particular inmate.685 Again, Captain Johnson reported that the MDCR has taken 

steps to remedy this problem; one of those steps has been issuing a post order for the monitoring 

station, which explains the responsibilities of the correctional officers assigned to this task.686

The Panel was troubled during the tour of the PTDC’s mental health unit to encounter an 

unclothed inmate.687 Dr. Eloisa C. Montoya, Mental Health Services Manager, MDCR, and Dr. 

Mercy Mary Gonzales, Interim Associate Medical Director, MDCR, explained that this was an 

unusual occurrence, as the inmate had been issued a Ferguson gown and blanket in accordance 

with standard procedures, but he disrobed just before the Panel’s visit.688

The discussion that the Panel had with Director Ryan during the hearing highlighted a number of 

broader issues that may warrant further exploration. Among the topics that might benefit the 

corrections field as a whole are the difficulties that district attorneys have in accepting for 

prosecution inmate sexual abuse cases,689 the different challenges of urban and rural jails,690 the 

impact that facility architecture has on keeping inmates safe,691 and the vulnerability that some 

female staff members have in developing inappropriate relationships with male inmates.692

The Panel concurs with Director Ryan’s assessment of the challenges in implementing PREA 

standards in a large urban jail, which include having committed leadership at the top,693 having 

in place good policies,694 and having effective, comprehensive training for all staff members.695 

The Panel also agrees with Director Ryan’s assessment of the need to advocate for cultural 

 

682 Tr., R. Wilkinson, 311:18-21. 683 Id. 304:6-9. 684 Id., J. Johnson, 304:10-15. 685 Id., R. Wilkinson, 307:10-13, 17-19. 686 Id., J. Johnson, 308:4-13. 687 Id., R. Wilkinson, 308:18-309:4. 688 Id., E. Montoya, 309:14-17, 19-22; id., M. Gonzales, 310:8-11. 689 Id., T. Ryan, 317:2-8, 322:1-323:1. 690 Id. 342:18-343:1. 691 Id. 343:2-18. 692 Id. 345:3-16. 693 Id. 319:13-14. 694 Id. 319:20-21. 695 Id. 320:4-15. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

68 

change, not only in an America in which joking about sexual assaults in prisons and jails remains 

pervasive, but also among the people who work in the field of corrections:696 

[W]e have a cultural change to make as well, to recognize that our jails and 

prisons should not have [sexual assaults] going on; that as a profession, we do not 

tolerate those things. 

And that message, I don’t think has gotten out, that we have not done a good job 

of marketing ourselves as to what we really do believe in.697 

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations 

In reviewing the section in the handbook for inmates on reporting and preventing sexual abuse, 

the Panel found that the information could be more accessible to inmates. In particular, the Panel 

found the printing was small and that some of the language was too technical (e.g., a reference to 

carnal knowledge), making the information difficult for inmates with limited education to 

understand.698 The Panel recommends reviewing this section in the inmate handbook, as well as 

other educational materials, to make sure that the information on reporting and preventing sexual 

victimization is readily accessible to inmates. 

The Panel remains troubled by the August 2011 CRIPA findings of the U.S. Department of 

Justice and encourages the MDCR to work closely with the Special Litigation Section of the 

Civil Rights Division in implementing all of the recommendations in the Letter of Finding, 

particularly those dealing with prisoner violence.699 Toward this end, the Panel also encourages 

the MDCR to continue seeking the assistance of outside advocacy and professional organizations 

to create a jail environment in which inmates are protected from sexual victimization. 

c. OPP 

i. Facility Description 

The South White Street Jail in New Orleans, Louisiana, is one of a number of housing units at 

the OPP, which also include Old Parish Prison, the House of Detention (HOD), the Tents, 

Conchetta, and Templeman V.700 In response to the Panel’s initial Data Request for the South 

White Street Jail, the OPP stated that this housing unit at its full rated capacity on January 1, 

2008, and on January 1, 2009, was 288.701 The actual number of inmates present in the facility 

on January 1, 2008, was 176.702 In 2008, the total number of inmates who spent any time at the 

South White Street Jail was 5089; the average length of stay was almost fifteen days; and the 

 

696 Id. 320:17-321:6. 697 Id. 321:3-9. 698 Id., R. Wilkinson, 323:2-22. 699 MDCR Letter of Finding 36-37. 700 Cumming Test. 1 (Apr. 15, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_cumming.pdf. Ms. Cumming’s testimony also 

appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., E. Cumming, 83:9-94:10. 701 OPP Resp. 9(a), 10(a) (on file with the Panel). 702 Id. 9(b). 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

69 

longest length of stay of any inmate was 365 days.703 The actual number of inmates present in 

the facility on January 1, 2009, was 185.704 In 2009, the total number of inmates who spent any 

time at the South White Street Jail was 5371; the average length of stay was a little over eighteen 

days; and the longest length of stay of any inmate was 364 days.705 

In 2008, for the total number of inmates at the South White Street Jail, the racial and ethnic 

composition was as follows: 1149 Whites, 3716 African Americans, 172 Hispanics, and 52 

Asians.706 In 2009, for the total number of inmates at the South White Street Jail, the racial and 

ethnic composition was as follows: 1169 Whites, 4167 African Americans, 11 Hispanics, and 24 

Asians.707 The OPP reported that in both 2008 and 2009, there were no inmates who identified 

as Alaska Native or American Indian, as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or as 

belonging to two or more races.708

In 2008, the OPP reported that at the South White Street Jail, there were no suicides, no 

attempted suicides, no homicides, and the number of attempted homicides was unknown.709 In 

2009, the OPP reported that at the South White Street Jail, there were no suicides, no homicides, 

two attempted suicides, and the number of attempted homicides was unknown.710 The OPP 

stated that neither of the attempted suicides in 2009 was related to sexual victimization or 

interactions with either staff members or other inmates.711

In response to the Panel’s Supplemental Data Request after the closure of the South White Street 

Jail, the OPP stated that the total inmate population was “3,279, [i]f you mean the female 

population, they are located in Templeman V, and the House of Detention & the Intake and 

Processing Center . . . .”712 713

The OPP explained that it hired staff for all of the OPP units, not just for the South White Street 

Jail.714 Nonetheless, the OPP provided the Panel with information on the number of staff 

assigned to the South White Street Jail for each month in 2008 and 2009.715 Based on the 

staffing pattern that the OPP supplied to the Panel, in 2008, the average number of staff members 

working each month at the facility was 34; in 2009, the average number of staff members 

working each month at the facility was 30.716 Despite this reported information, the OPP also 

stated that the total number of staff positions at the South White Street Jail, whether filled or 

vacant, at full capacity on January 1, 2008, was twenty-six, with nineteen being sworn staff 

 

703 Id. 9(f)-(h). 704 Id. 10(b). 705 Id. 10(f)-(h). 706 Id. 11(a)-(d). 707 Id. 12(a)-(d). 708 Id. 11(e)-(g), 12(e)-(g). 709 Id. 13. 710 Id. 15. 711 Id. 16. 712 OPP Supp. Resp. 4 (on file with the Panel). 713 The Panel received testimony that at the time of the hearing, the total capacity of the OPP was 3563 beds. Tr., J. 

Ursin, 190:7. 

714 OPP Resp. 20, 21. 715 Id. 716 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

70 

members.717 In response to the Panel’s request for staffing information in 2009 at the South 

White Street Jail, the OPP directed the Panel to “refer to the above question for the year 2009;” 

but the referenced question was about staffing in 2008.718 The Panel construed the OPP’s 

response to mean that the staffing levels at the South White Street Jail in 2008 and 2009 were the 

same. In 2008, the daily ratio of sworn staff to inmates at the South White Street Jail was 1 to 

5.5 (thirty-two sworn staff to 176 inmates); in 2009, the daily ratio of sworn staff to inmates was 

1 to 5.2 (thirty-five sworn staff to 185 inmates).719 

The OPP reported that in 2008 and 2009, it did not discipline or terminate any employees based 

on sexual misconduct, nor did it allow any employees to resign for similar misbehavior.720 

The OPP’s Special Operations Division (SOD) investigates all criminal matters, whereas its 

Internal Affairs Division investigates administrative violations of policies and procedures.721 

The SOD has jurisdiction over allegations of sexual abuse because “[a]ll incidents alleging 

sexual misconduct are considered criminal violations.”722 The SOD reported that it did not 

conduct any investigations involving sexual abuse at the South White Street Jail in either 2008 or 

2009.723 Moreover, SOD reported that it did not have “any incident reports pertaining to sexual 

abuse from the South White Street Facility in 2008 or 2009;”724 it did not have “any disciplinary 

records pertaining to female inmate(s) for sexual abuse in 2008 or 2009;”725 it did not have “any 

grievance(s) from any female inmate regarding alleged sexual abuse in 2008 or 2009;”726 and 

“[t]here were no reported allegations of sexual assault from the South White Street Facility in 

2008 or 2009 . . . .”727

After the Panel expanded its inquiry beyond the South White Street Jail, it received investigative 

files from OPP relating not only to the two inmates whom the Panel named in its Supplemental 

Data Request but also to fourteen inmate-on-inmate sexual assaults in calendar years 2008 and 

2009.728 Of those incidents, only two were substantiated.729 Both substantiated incidents were 

sexual assaults that occurred in 2009, one involving digital penetration and another involving a 

broomstick.730 In both instances, the perpetrators were arrested.731 In the case involving digital 

penetration, the district attorney declined to prosecute; in the case involving the broomstick, the 

 

717 Id. 23(a)-(b). 718 Id. 24; see id. 23. 719 Id. 24(a), (e). 720 Id. 22; see also id. 31. 721 OPP Supp. Resp. 10. 722 Id. 723 OPP Resp. 29. 724 Id. 30. 725 Id. 32. 726 Id. 33. 727 Id. 35. 728 OPP Supp. Resp. (rape investigations 2008 and 2009). Aside from the investigations involving the named 

inmates in the Supplemental Data Request, OPP submitted to the Panel fourteen cases with one electronic file that 

the Panel could not open. 

729 Id. 730 Id. 731 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

71 

investigative file did not have information on the outcome of the case.732 In one investigation 

into an inmate-on-inmate sexual assault, despite the inmate’s allegation of rape, the investigative 

team concluded that the sexual encounter was consensual.733 The investigative files showed that 

in more than half of the cases, the OPP provided the complainants with a medical 

examination.734

ii. Facility’s Explanation of Reported High 

Incidence of Sexual Victimization 

Elected in 2004, Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman provided the Panel with a notarized 

written statement dated September 15, 2011.735 Sheriff Gusman reminded the Panel that the 

OPSO was still recovering from the effects of Hurricane Katrina.736 As to the South White 

Street Jail, the original focus of the Panel’s inquiry, which was closed since the publication of the 

BJS Report, Sheriff Gusman reported that there were no substantiated inmate grievances in 2008 

and 2009 alleging either staff-on-inmate or inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization.737 The 

Sheriff said that according to the jail’s records there was a single inmate complaint alleging that 

a civilian maintenance worker used a sexually derogatory remark in addressing a female 

inmate.738 The OPP investigated the matter and found it to be unsubstantiated.739 Sheriff 

Gusman stated that the South White Street Jail’s physical design deterred incidents of inmate 

victimization because it was a large open dormitory with a deputy station and a surveillance 

camera focused on the housing unit.740 Sheriff Gusman noted that the OPP submitted affidavits 

to the Panel attesting that no persons working at the South White Street Jail, whether staff 

members, chaplains, medical professionals, elected officials, or volunteers, ever received a 

complaint from an inmate alleging sexual victimization.741

Sheriff Gusman stated that in 2009, female inmates were housed in other locations at OPP in 

addition to the South White Street Jail, including the HOD and the Intake and Processing Center 

(IPC).742 Sheriff Gusman faulted the BJS Report because it failed to recognize that the South 

White Street Jail was just one component of the OPP, because it unfairly selected the South 

White Street Jail as only one of two female jails surveyed, and because it wrongly compared the 

information from the South White Street Jail to predominantly male jails: 

 

732 Id. 733 Id. 734 Id. 735 Gusman Test. (Apr. 15, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/Gusman_Statement.pdf. Sheriff Gusman regretted that he was 

unable to appear at the Panel’s hearing in person as he had previously accepted an invitation for the same date to 

make a presentation at a conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association in Singapore. Sheriff 

Gusman’s testimony also appears in the Transcript of Record. See Tr., J. Ursin, 129:4-140:13. 736 Gusman Test. 1. 737 Id. 738 Id. 739 Id. 740 Id. 2. 741 Id.; see OPP Supp. Resp. (apps.). 742 Gusman Test. 2.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

72 

The survey analysis seems to treat the South White Street building as a standalone jail while it should really be viewed as part of the entire Orleans Parish 

Prison. While many female prisons were included in the study, our female 

population was only one of two female-only jails surveyed. . . . OPP’s female 

South White Street population was then compared to all the other malepredominant jails in the nation, resulting in an inappropriate comparison and 

misleading conclusions. If the entire population of the Orleans Parish Prison had 

been reported together, as done with most jails in the study, our results would 

have been more in keeping with the national average.743

Sheriff Gusman claimed that the rate of reported sexual victimization at the South White Street 

Jail was comparable to the rate at the other female-only jail that appeared in the BJS Report.

744

Sheriff Gusman further criticized the methodology of the inmate survey because it offered a 

reward for obtaining responses: “I want to emphasize that these were anonymous responses on 

computers after being promised a bag of cookies by the [technicians] for completing the 

questionnaire.”745 Based on the problems with the BJS survey, Sheriff Gusman concluded, “I 

don’t think there is a high incidence of sexual victimization at the South White Street 

building.”746 Sheriff Gusman stated, “[W]e have a strong, committed and dedicated staff as well 

as policies, procedures and protocols with management systems and employee training that 

focuses on sexual victimization.”747 He noted that OPP shows videos each day to inmates on 

how to report and prevent sexual victimization.748

Sheriff Gusman also stated that the OPP has an electronic database, the Justice Management 

System (JMS), which contains files of all inmate grievances, including formal and informal 

statements not only from staff members but also from inmates, as well as their family members 

and attorneys.749

Sheriff Gusman explained that the SOD, under the command of Major Michael Laughlin, 

investigates all allegations of sexual assault at OPP.750 According to Sheriff Gusman, when OPP 

receives notice of an incident, the detective team conducts a preliminary interview of the alleged 

victim and then OPP tends to the alleged victim’s medical needs, which includes an examination 

by the in-house medical staff, before transporting the alleged victim to University Hospital, less 

than a mile away, for evaluation by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.751 Sheriff Gusman stated 

that in the wake of an incident, the SOD follows standard procedures in gathering evidence, and 

the OPP’s medical staff intervenes only to ensure that the inmate has not sustained life-

 

743 Id. 2 (emphasis omitted). 744 Id. 745 Id. Dr. Allen Beck, the principal author of the BJS Report, testified that in some jails cookies were offered as an 

incentive to encourage inmates to participate in the survey, but the incentive was only offered when jail 

administrators agreed. Dr. Beck reported that the incentive had no impact on reported victimization, but it did 

produce a higher response rate, resulting in greater precision in those facilities that used the incentive. Tr., A. Beck, 

53:16-17. 

746 Gusman Test. 2. 747 Id. 748 Id. 2-3. 749 Id. 750 Id. 3. 751 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

73 

threatening injuries before sending the inmate to the hospital.752 According to Sheriff Gusman, 

on release of the inmate from the hospital, the OPP houses the inmate in OPP’s Acute 

Psychiatric Unit to provide both protection and mental health services.753 Sheriff Gusman wrote 

that a psychiatrist evaluates the needs of the victim, ensuring the provision of proper medical 

care and the counseling services of a social worker, if warranted.754 He said that only when the 

victim is psychiatrically stable would the victim leave the protective custody of the psychiatric 

unit.755

Sheriff Gusman wrote that every warden of a housing unit “responds immediately to all reports 

of sexual victimization and then contacts the SOD.”756 He assured the Panel, “Wardens also 

review all grievances and incident reports filed in the JMS and respond to the inmate either in 

person or in writing.”757

Acknowledging that the OPP can improve its operations, Sheriff Gusman said that the OPP plans 

to use a new checklist in the inmate-classification process that will better identify potential 

victims and predators, assign an assistant to the designated PREA coordinator to monitor 

compliance with PREA standards, and build a new direct-supervision facility.758

iii. Observations 

Four factors influenced the Panel to shift the scope of its inquiry, which began with a focus on 

the South White Street Jail, to the OPP as a whole. First, with the closing of the South White 

Street Jail, the Panel could no longer observe the operations of the housing unit at the OPP that 

exclusively served female inmates. Second, in light of the serious findings of the Special 

Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice that the OPP 

was in violation of CRIPA, the Panel recognized the need to broaden its inquiry beyond the 

South White Street Jail.759 Third, JDI, an independent, prisoner-advocacy organization, 

identified an individual who provided a compelling account of alleged sexual victimization while 

incarcerated at the OPP during the time period of the BJS survey. Finally, the OPP itself urged 

the Panel to think of the OPP as a whole rather than limiting its view to the South White Street 

Jail.760 

The Panel found the following testimony particularly useful in framing its understanding of the 

OPP: (1) testimony from Ms. Elizabeth Cumming, a New Orleans civil rights attorney; (2) 

testimony from A.A., a former inmate at OPP; (3) the OPP’s response to A.A.’s testimony; and 

 

752 Id. 753 Id. 4. 754 Id. 755 Id. 756 Id. 757 Id. 758 Id. According to the OPP, construction started on a new facility on September 1, 2011, and the completion date 

is March 2014. OPP Supp. Resp. 1. 

759 Letter of Finding from Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department 

of Justice, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO (Sept. 11, 2009), available at

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/parish_findlet.pdf [hereinafter OPP Letter of Finding]. 760 See, e.g., Gusman Test. 2. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

74 

(4) testimony from Mr. Wesley Ware, Director of BreakOUT!, an advocacy group working with 

juveniles formerly housed at the OPP who identify as being other than heterosexual. 

(a) Testimony of Civil Rights Attorney 

Ms. Cumming stated that although she is currently in private practice, she began working with 

the Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition (OPPRC) in 2006.761 She explained that the OPPRC 

was “dedicated to reducing the massive size of the jail, improving jail conditions and practices to 

make it a safer place for those who are held there and working there.”762 In her work with the 

OPPRC, Ms. Cumming said that she gathered data on the OPP’s funding, the demographics of its 

population, and the number of deaths that occurred in the jail.763 In 2008, Ms. Cumming stated 

that she received an Equal Justice Works Fellowship.764 At first, she used the fellowship to 

advocate for OPP inmates’ access to health care, especially for inmates with infectious diseases; 

however, in light of the “horrific conditions at the jail,” Ms. Cumming expanded her advocacy 

work to include access to medical care in general for all OPP inmates.765 Ms. Cumming testified 

that in the course of her work, she received hundreds of letters from people at OPP who confided 

in her that either they had been victims of sexual assault or they witnessed other inmates who 

were victims of sexual assault.766 Ms. Cumming stated that she forwarded the reports on sexual 

assaults to the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of 

Justice.767

Ms. Cumming stated that the problems at the OPP may be attributable to four contributing 

factors. First, the OPP receives funding in a way that encourages a large prison population, as 

the OPP charges the City of New Orleans for each day an inmate is held in custody.768 Ms. 

Cumming stated, “The per diem funding structure, and the enormous jail population that flows 

from it, all create the foundation for the jail’s rampant sexual assault and violence rate.”769 

According to Ms. Cumming, given the jail’s method of funding, there is an incentive for the OPP 

to keep the inmate population rate high.770 Consequently, as Ms. Cumming noted, “New Orleans 

can boast the highest per-capita jail detention rate in the country.”771

Second, Ms. Cumming wrote that despite the large inmate population, the OPP is significantly 

understaffed.772 Quoting an NIC 2008 report on the OPP, Ms. Cumming stated, “‘staffing issues 

were pervasive and most serious . . . actual staffing levels are so far below planned staffing levels 

that required and critical important duties such as inmate welfare or security rounds cannot be 

 

761 Cumming Test. 1. 762 Id. 763 Id. 764 Id. 765 Id. 766 Id. 767 Id. 768 Id. 2. 769 Id. 770 Id. 771 Id. 772 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

75 

completed in many cases.’”773 Ms. Cumming contended that nothing has changed since the 

publication of the NIC’s 2008 report.774

Third, Ms. Cumming stated that the current classification system at OPP fails to identify likely 

predators and likely victims of sexual assault.775 Ms. Cumming claimed that lack of space at 

OPP, compounded by an inadequate classification system, often lead to housing decisions that 

fail to protect vulnerable inmates: 

The current classification system fails to take into account previous convictions, 

previous histories of violence, age, residence, or body mass index. Instead, the 

classification system is reliant almost entirely on bond amount. However, even 

this rudimentary classification is often ignored because of space constraints in the 

various facilities. Inmates are placed wherever space can be found, even if it is a 

mattress on the floor of HOD.776 

Fourth, Ms. Cumming stated that the barriers to reporting sexual assault contribute to the high 

level of sexual victimization at OPP.777 She said, “OPP’s grievance system is essentially 

nonexistent.”778 She contended that “[f]ew grievances are ever even acknowledged and even 

fewer are responded to appropriately.”779 Ms. Cumming noted that when rapes do occur, “the 

failures of the grievance system and the lack of staff supervision can mean that the rape will go 

unreported for days, even when the survivor is looking for a way to report the rape or to be 

moved to protective custody.”780

Ms. Cumming offered recommendations for improving OPP based on her analysis of the 

contributing factors to sexual victimization at the jail.781 She recommended that the OPP reduce 

its inmate population. She observed, “Preventing sexual assaults in a corrections setting is 

significantly easier if fewer people are in jail.”782 She also recommended that the OPP 

implement a classification system that takes into account relevant criteria to protect vulnerable 

inmates. Finally, she recommended that the OPP adopt “appropriate staffing at levels 

commensurate with the number of people held at OPP.”783

Ms. Cumming concluded her testimony by appealing to the Justice Department to intervene in a 

corrections system that she regards as severely dysfunctional: 

OPP is in such a state of crisis that we, in New Orleans, are forced to rely on the 

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division to help us rebuild a fundamentally 

 

773 Id. (citation omitted in original). 774 Id. 775 Id. 776 Id. 777 Id. 778 Id. 779 Id. 780 Id. 781 Id. 4. 782 Id. 783 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

76 

broken system. The level of sexual assaults and violence present in the jail are 

symptoms of this system’s profound dysfunction.784

(b) Statement of Former Inmate 

JDI brought to the Panel’s attention the experience of a former inmate at OPP, A.A.,785 who at 

the time of the hearing was serving a sentence in the Mississippi Department of Corrections. 

Although he could not appear before the Panel in person, counsel for the Panel interviewed him 

prior to the hearing, and A.A. submitted a statement about his experience at OPP that a 

representative of JDI read into the record.786 Here follow excerpts from his statement, in which 

he claims that he was brutally assaulted at the OPP multiple times, and despite his seeking 

assistance through the jail’s grievance process and other avenues, he received no help: 

When I was arrested in 2008 in New Orleans, I was on a 72-hour pass from [a 

work center] in Mississippi. . . . Because I didn’t return to the Work Center within 

72-hours, I was considered an escapee and arrested on October 31, 2008. I went 

to the Central Lock-[U]p at the OPP’s House of Detention. I was thirty years old 

at the time. 

In January 2009, I was moved from Central Lock-[U]p to the general population 

at the OPP’s House of Detention (HOD). Before assigning me to the general 

population, the facility officials didn’t do a screening process. For instance, no 

one asked me if I was gay. No one asked me if I had ever been sexually assaulted 

before, either. The fact is that I had been—prior to my incarceration. Because I 

was afraid for my safety, I told them I was gay and that I wanted to be put on a 

tier for gay men. . . . When they said they didn’t have that tier anymore, I asked if 

I could just stay in Central Lock-Up. They said no and that I had to go to general 

population. 

They put me in an overcrowded cell that should have been used for ten inmates 

maximum, but had fifteen or sixteen in it when I got there. The other inmates 

were all between eighteen and twenty-one years old. From the moment I arrived, 

they were sizing me up. They asked me whether I was gay. I was scared to lie to 

them so I said “yes.” I didn’t have a bed so I took a mat to lay on. I was so 

depressed and exhausted that I put it on the floor next to the cell bars and took a 

nap. 

I woke up all of a sudden when some of my cellmates threw a chest of ice on me 

that was kept in the cell for drinks. One of the inmates told me to give him a blow 

job. This man was very scary, and I felt extremely afraid. I called for help, but 

there were no guards around and no one responded to my screams. At first, I 

 

784 Id. 785 To the extent that it is possible, the Panel protects the identities of individuals who allege to have been victims of 

sexual abuse. 

786 A.A. Test. (Apr. 15, 2011), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/AA_Statement.pdf; 

see also Tr., C. Totten, 70:16-82:14. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

77 

refused to do what the inmate was telling me to do, but then he grabbed me by my 

hair and kicked me while another inmate held a knife to my back. I decided that I 

had better do what he wanted in order to save my life—I was already bleeding 

from the knife. 

Later that night, several of these inmates tied me down to the frame of a bed in the 

cell with strips of a blue towel. I tried to fight them off at first, but a large inmate 

choked me until I passed out. When I came to, I was choked again. There were 

at least a dozen inmates around who saw what was happening. Three of the men 

said they wanted me to give them oral sex, but they were afraid that I would bite 

them, so they masturbated onto me instead. This nightmare only ended when an 

inmate kicked me off the bed I was tied to because he wanted to go to sleep. 

During my assault, there were no guards around. I quickly realized that the 

guards at OPP did not do rounds of the tiers on a regular basis, so there was no 

one to protect me. . . . And there were no cameras around, so the attacks weren’t 

recorded or seen by guards in another part of the jail. . . . 

The morning after that first night at OPP, I couldn’t go to the showers so I washed 

up as best I could using the small sink in the cell. I tried to be friendly to the 

other inmates just so I could try to keep from being attacked again. But, I was on 

the lookout for an officer who I could ask for help. The whole day passed and I 

never had a chance to talk to a guard or any other staff members. 

As the next night came, I was really anxious. I had not been able to speak with 

any jail officials, and I was so afraid that my cellmates would attack me again. 

That night, three of the inmates—all large men—anally raped me. With no one to 

help me, I laid down on the floor, bleeding from my injuries, and terrified about 

what would happen next. My cellmates continued to orally and anally gang-rape 

me . . . the whole time I was at OPP sometimes in the cell, but often in the 

showers. 

It happened so many times I lost count.787

A.A. stated that despite filing at least six grievances and trying to approach correctional officers, 

he never received a response from OPP.788 He stated that on one occasion he tried to give a 

grievance to a correctional officer, and the correctional officer allegedly responded, “‘a faggot 

raped in prison—imagine that!’”789 

A.A. also wrote that he had requested medical help from correctional officers two or three times 

a week from February to April of 2009 because he was afraid of contracting a sexually 

transmitted disease.790 He said that he must have filled out over twenty-five slips requesting 

 

787 A.A. Test. 1-2. 788 Id. 2. 789 Id. 790 Id. 3. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

78 

medical care, but he said that he never received a response.791 A.A. said that the only time he 

saw a doctor at A.A. was by accident: when he happened to pass the medical unit on the way to 

the “rec yard” he asked to see the doctor on duty.792 A.A. reported that after waiting for two 

hours, the doctor examined him and did blood work to see whether he had Hepatitis C or HIV, 

but the medical staff did not administer a rape kit.793 A.A. stated that “[t]he doctor told me that I 

had herpes, which he thinks I got from the rapes.”794 A.A. also reported that despite telling the 

doctor about the sexual assaults, the doctor took no action: “The doctor told me that he couldn’t 

do anything about the rapes and beatings, because that was a security issue, not a medical 

one.”795

A.A. claimed that while at OPP there were also no available support services to help him as a 

victim of sexual assault: “There was no one I could talk with to help me with how I was feeling 

emotionally. I don’t think OPP had a chaplain or counselor, and there were no religious services 

or any other type of support that I could find.”796 He said, “I would say without a doubt that the 

whole time I was at OPP, I had to deal with all this stuff on my own. Not one person there tried 

to help me in any way.”797 

A.A. wrote that he was not the only one at OPP who was a victim of sexual assault.798 During 

his tenure at OPP, he claimed to have witnessed between five and seven other male inmates who 

were sexually assaulted; one transgender woman was so severely beaten that she was sent to the 

hospital.799 

Appealing to the Panel, A.A. wrote, “I think that what I went through and what I saw happening 

to some of the other people at OPP could have been prevented if OPP had done something to 

keep inmates like me—guys who are gay or who are going to be targeted by other inmates—

safe.”800

(c) OPP’s Response to the Former Inmate’s 

Testimony 

Following up on the testimony from A.A., which the Panel received prior to the hearing, the 

Panel requested that OPP produce any documentation that might be related to A.A.’s 

confinement at OPP, including whether he filed any grievances and whether the OPP responded 

to the grievances.801

 

791 Id. 792 Id. 793 Id. 794 Id. 795 Id. 796 Id. 797 Id. 798 Id. 799 Id. 3-4. 800 Id. 4. 801 App. A (Letter from Michael L. Alston, Attorney Advisor, Panel, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO 3 (Aug. 

3, 2011)) [hereinafter Supp. Data Request]. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

79 

Based on the documentation that the OPP submitted to the Panel regarding the history of A.A.’s 

grievances while he was in custody, the Panel closely questioned Major Michael Laughlin, 

Commander of SOD, about OPP’s response to A.A.’s alleged sexual assaults. Major Laughlin 

testified that at the Panel’s request he undertook a review of A.A.’s grievance record at OPP and 

found that of the ten grievances that A.A. filed during his tenure at OPP, six went unanswered.802 

Among the unanswered grievances, was the first one that A.A. filed on February 3, 2009, which 

claimed that he was sexually assaulted.803 According to the record of A.A.’s grievances in the 

JMS that the OPP submitted to the Panel,804 A.A.’s February 3, 2009, grievance contained the 

following question and answer: “What is your complaint? I’m a homosexual and have been 

forced to have sex 3 times, and assaulted.”805 The standard electronic grievance form also asked 

A.A. whether the grievance was an emergency.806 A.A.’s response was “yes” because “my life’s 

in danger and I’m scared.”807

Major Laughlin explained what happened to A.A.’s first grievance: the staff picked up A.A.’s 

complaint on February 3, 2009, and entered it into the OPP’s computer system, which 

immediately sent the grievance to the electronic inbox of the warden of HOD, where it remained 

unanswered.808

Speaking for the OPP, Colonel Jerry Ursin, Commander, IPC, admitted that in regard to A.A.’s 

first grievance, “we dropped the ball on that case as an organization.”809 

The OPP does not appear to have done much better in handling the other grievances that A.A. 

filed. According to the record that OPP provided the Panel, on February 10, 2009, A.A. filed a 

second grievance in which he complained that a correctional officer removed clippers from the 

tier before A.A. had the chance to finish cutting his hair.810 In the grievance, A.A. stated that the 

officer “‘called me a faggot and cracker and told me he would beat my ass. He works up here 

every day and I fear for my life.’”811 Major Laughlin testified that after the second grievance, 

OPP transferred A.A. to another floor at the HOD, but there was no evidence that the decision to 

transfer him was in response to the grievance.812 A.A. also filed grievances on March 3, 2009 

(requesting access to clippers), and March 4, 2009 (claiming assault).813 In the March 4, 2009, 

grievance, A.A. complained, “‘I got jumped by four other inmates and I’m scared to be on this 

side.’”814 The warden of the HOD did respond to this grievance by transferring A.A. to a 

different wing,815 but there was no documentation indicating that the warden investigated A.A.’s 

 

802 Tr., M. Laughlin, 158:8. 803 Id. 155:1-3. 804 OPP Supp. Resp. (A.A.’s grievances) [hereinafter exh. B]; see Tr., G. Christensen, 153:21 (referring to exh. B). 805 Exh. B 10. 806 Id. 11. 807 Id.; see also Tr., G. Christensen, 160:14-15. 808 Id., M. Laughlin, 155:1-3, 6-12, 15-18, 156:1-3, 17. 809 Id., J. Ursin, 180:7; see also id. 149:7-8. 810 Id., M. Laughlin, 159:3, 159:20-160:1. 811 Id. 160:1-3 (citing grievance form); see also exh. B 14. 812 Tr., M. Laughlin, 161:5-8, 17-20. 813 Id. 162:1-2, 10-12, 163:6-10. 814 Id. 163:7-8 (quoting grievance form); see also exh. B 22. 815 Tr., M. Laughlin, 164:3-4, 7-8. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

80 

claim that he was assaulted by four other inmates.816 On March 10, 2009, A.A. filed another 

grievance in which he stated, “‘I am having problems with the guys here, I don’t feel safe. The 

guys are having a problem with me being a homosexual. I’m scared to live over here.’”817 

Major Laughlin testified that by the time A.A. filed the March 10, 2009, complaint, OPP already 

moved him, but the OPP did not undertake any investigation into A.A.’s allegation of sexual 

harassment.818 Given that the March 10, 2009, grievance could be a criminal offense, the Panel 

asked why the warden would not have documented an investigation.819 Colonel Ursin admitted, 

“We have no paper trail that he documented it.”820 Again, Colonel Ursin said, “[W]e dropped 

the ball on this.”821

(d) Testimony of Youth Advocate 

Mr. Wesley Ware, the director of BreakOUT!, provided testimony to the Panel on the treatment 

of young people who have served time at OPP who identify as being other than heterosexual.822

Mr. Ware explained that “BreakOUT! is a project of the Juvenile Justice Project of Louisiana 

(JJPL) that focuses on working with LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or 

questioning] young people to help reform the criminal justice system in New Orleans.”823 Prior 

to founding BreakOUT! in 2011, Mr. Ware, in his capacity as an advocate and investigator for 

the JJPL, visited youth in state and local facilities throughout Louisiana, focusing from 2007 to 

2010 on the needs of LGBTQ young people.824 

Mr. Ware stated that in the summer of 2011, youth members of BreakOUT!, most of whom are 

formerly incarcerated African American transgender women aged sixteen to twenty-four, 

conducted an informal, person-to-person survey of sixteen peers.825 All but one of the surveyed 

young people were African Americans; all were homeless or “marginally housed;” and most had 

previously engaged in sex work.826 Mr. Ware reported that of the 90% who had been detained, 

80% had experienced some form of sexual victimization at the OPP.827 Mr. Ware stated that 

“[t]he majority of the violence was considered ‘inmate versus inmate’ in areas with little staff or 

guard supervision.”828 

 

816 Id. 164:12, 16-20. 817 Id., G. Christensen, 165:3-6 (quoting grievance form); see also exh. B 26. 818 Id., M. Laughlin, 165:10-11, 15. 819 Id., G. Christensen, 167:11-13, 15-16. 820 Id., J. Ursin, 167:17-18. 821 Id. 168:3-4. 822 Ware Test. (Apr. 15, 2011), available at 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/Ware_Statement.pdf. Mr. Ware’s testimony also appears in the 

Transcript of Record. See Tr., W. Ware, 95:4-111:4. 823 Id. 1. 824 Id. 1, 2. 825 Id. 2. 826 Id. 827 Id. 828 Id.
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

81 

Citing a 2009 public letter from the American Civil Liberties Union to Sheriff Gusman, Mr. 

Ware noted that it is well known to the members of the transgender community in New Orleans 

that if they are detained at OPP, they should post bond as soon as possible or risk being raped.829 

Mr. Ware cited a number of examples of gay men and transgender women who experienced 

sexual victimization at the OPP.830 He read into the record a short statement from one young 

man, “Robert,” a “twenty-two year old gender-nonconforming, gay white male” who claimed to 

have experienced sexual victimization during his custody at OPP from December 2010 to 

February 2011.831 Robert’s statement is similar in many ways to A.A.’s: he claimed that during 

the classification process the OPP did ask him if he had any concerns for his safety; that the OPP 

housed him in HOD; that in the night, a larger inmate in the same housing unit overpowered him 

and raped him; that he screamed for help but no correctional officer responded; and that despite 

sustaining serious injuries, no correctional officer checked on him throughout the night.832 

On the morning after his alleged attack, Robert stated that he reported the assault to a 

correctional officer, and then two investigators from SOD interviewed him.833 Robert stated, 

“During the interview, one of the SOD investigators accused me of lying and called me a 

‘faggot.’ He accused me of wanting to have anal sex because I was a ‘faggot.’”834 Robert said 

that after the interview, OPP placed him in a holding cell for two to three hours and then took 

him to the hospital where a rape kit was completed.835 Robert questioned whether the rape kit 

was ever given to the Orleans Police Department.836 Robert said that when he was released from 

the hospital, the OPP placed him back in the same cell at HOD, next to the inmate who allegedly 

raped him.837

Consistent with A.A.’s account, Robert stated that the OPP did not provide any follow-up 

medical or psychological support, nor did the OPP respond to any of his written grievances: 

The OPP never provided me with any additional medical or psychological 

treatment while I was in custody. 

 

829 Id. 2-3 & n.1 (citing ACLU Seeks to End Rapes in New Orleans Parish Prison (Apr. 4, 2009), available at 

https://laaclu.org/newsArchive.php?id=330#n330; Letter from Marjorie R. Esman, Executive Director, ACLU of 

Louisiana, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO (Apr. 28, 2009), available at

https://www.laaclu.org/PDF_documents/Letter_Gusman_042809.pdf). 830 Ware Test. 3. The Panel met informally with youth members of BreakOUT! on August 22, 2011, in New 

Orleans, Louisiana, and listened to first-hand accounts from young transgender women and gay men who claimed to 

have been mistreated at the OPP. They stated that their filed grievances at the OPP received no responses. They 

said that before Hurricane Katrina there was a separate, “protective custody” unit for LGBTQ inmates, which is now 

no longer an option. They stated that there is only one social worker who serves all of the OPP; they claimed that 

they did not have access to counselors or chaplains. 

831 Id. 832 Id. 3-4. 833 Id. 4. 834 Id. 835 Id. 836 Id. 4-5. 837 Id. 5. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

82 

I filed a number of written grievances while I was at OPP, including an 

emergency grievance complaining about the rape as well as one complaining 

about being physically abuse[d] by an OPP guard. I never received a response to 

my grievances.838

Mr. Ware offered recommendations for improving the OPP based on consultations that 

BreakOUT! conducted with the local LGBTQ community, youth members of BreakOUT!, and 

criminal justice reform advocates in New Orleans.839 Echoing three of Ms. Cumming’s 

recommendations, Mr. Ware advised the OPP (1) to revamp its inmate-classification system to 

protect vulnerable inmates, noting in particular the needs of transgender inmates; (2) to 

strengthen its grievance and investigation procedures to respond more effectively to complaints 

of sexual victimization; and (3) to increase the staff-to-inmate ratio at the jail by decoupling 

funding of the jail from the size of the inmate population.840 

In addition, Mr. Ware suggested that staff at every level of the OPP should receive training on 

LGBTQ issues in consultation with national experts and local, formerly incarcerated LGBTQ 

individuals.841 Mr. Ware stated that OPP “should ensure proper medical care and follow-up for 

those in need of medical attention,” including victims of sexual assault, people with pre-existing 

conditions, and people living with HIV or AIDS.842 Mr. Ware said that OPP “should increase its 

accountability mechanisms to the community.”843 He suggested that the OPP convene regular 

meetings to listen to the concerns of community members, which may include attorneys, family 

members of inmates, and LGBTQ young people.844

Along with Ms. Cumming, Mr. Ware appealed to the Panel as a part of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, to intervene with the OPP: “It is apparent that in addition to the recommendations 

already stated, we need federal oversight of our jail to realize full reform.”845

iv. Facility-Specific Recommendations 

Based on the investigative record and the Panel’s onsite visit to the jail,846 the Panel is deeply 

disturbed by the apparent culture of violence at the OPP.847 848 During the tour of the OPP, 

 

838 Id. 839 Id. 5-6. 840 Id. 841 Id. 7. 842 Id. 843 Id. 844 Id. 845 Id. 8. 846 Although the Panel compliments the OPP in undertaking the construction of a new, direct-supervision facility, 

the Panel found that many of the deplorable conditions of the jail have not changed significantly since the issuance 

of the OPP Letter of Finding. See OPP Letter of Finding 21-22. 847 On September 22, 2011, the Panel sent a letter of concern to Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, to 

bring to his attention the OPP’s admission that it failed to respond to inmate grievances alleging sexual assault. 

Letter from Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Chairperson, Panel, to Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil 

Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Sept. 22, 2011) (on file with the Panel). In light of the absence of a 

negotiated resolution agreement between the OPP and the Justice Department, despite the issuance of the OPP Letter 

of Finding in September of 2009, the Panel wrote, “Two years is too long for the OPP to still operate as it does 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

83 

inmates approached the Panel privately, stating that their grievances went unanswered. These 

appeals are a particular cause for concern, given that the OPP admitted its failure in responding 

to A.A.’s grievances, that the Panel heard similar complaints from BreakOUT! youth members, 

and that the Panel heard testimony from both Ms. Cumming and Mr. Ware about the OPP’s 

dysfunctional grievance and investigation system.849 The Panel urges the OPP, consistent with 

the OPP Letter of Finding, to conduct a thorough review of its grievance process, making sure 

that all inmates receive a fair, timely response to every grievance, and that any investigation, no 

matter how minor, has sufficient documentation that would allow an outside organization to 

review the investigative process and understand the outcome. 

In its Letter of Finding, the Civil Rights Division concluded, “Staffing levels at OPP are 

inadequate to protect inmates from harm.”850 As a remedial measure, the Civil Rights Division 

recommended that the OPP should implement, “in accordance with generally accepted 

professional standards of correctional practice,”851 a program for safety and supervision to 

“[e]sure that correctional officer staffing and supervision levels are appropriate to adequately 

supervise inmates.”852 Noting that the testimony from Ms. Cumming and Mr. Ware support this 

assessment, the Panel concurs with the Civil Rights Division and urges the OPP to review its 

current staffing plan. 

The Panel, consistent with the recommendations of Ms. Cumming, Mr. Ware, and the Civil 

Rights Division,853 urges the OPP to implement an objective classification system that protects 

vulnerable inmates from sexual assault.854 At the hearing, Colonel Ursin agreed that the OPP 

needed to put into place an objective classification system that would better serve vulnerable 

inmates.855 The Panel encourages the OPP to improve the classification system as soon as 

possible. 

 

without court enforceable federal oversight.” Id. 2. On December 20, 2011, the chief of the Special Litigation 

Section of the Civil Rights Division responded. Letter from Jonathan M. Smith, Chief, Special Litigation Section, 

Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson, Chairperson, Panel (Dec. 20, 

2011) (on file with the Panel). Chief Smith wrote, “Attorneys from the Section are actively engaged with OPP 

leadership in settlement discussions. We continue to be hopeful that the parties will agree upon a court-enforceable 

settlement.” Id. 1. 848 Just prior to the release of this Report, the Panel read with alarm a letter that the Southern Poverty Law Center 

(SPLC) of New Orleans sent to the OPP to seek protection for a transgender woman who was allegedly raped 

multiple times in February and March of 2012 while in OPP’s custody. Letter from Katie Schwartzmann, Managing 

Attorney, SPLC, to Marlin N. Gusman, Sheriff, OPSO (Mar. 27, 2012), available at

http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/case/GusmanLetter03272012.pdf. 849 The Panel acknowledges that it did review some investigations from SOD into allegations of sexual victimization 

that appeared to be thorough. For example, the Panel found that the SOD’s investigation convincingly debunked the 

sexual assault claims of one of two named former inmates that the Panel identified in its letter to Sheriff Gusman on 

August 3, 2011. See Supp. Data Request 3. 850 OPP Letter of Finding 13. 851 Id. 23. 852 Id. 25. 853 Id. 11-12. “The classification system at OPP contributes to its deficiencies in safety and security. Generally 

accepted correctional practices for classification systems utilize a variety of objective, behavior-based factors to 

determine the appropriate level of custody.” Id. 11. 854 See id. 26. 855 Tr., J. Ursin, 186:17-20, 187:2; see also Gusman Test. 4. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

84 

In light of the Panel’s previous discussion on the importance of language in creating a 

correctional culture that has zero tolerance for sexual victimization,856 the Panel recommends 

that the OPP provide training to its staff on treating LGBTQ people with proper respect.857 The 

Panel supports Mr. Ware’s recommendation for the OPP to work with the local LGBTQ 

community in New Orleans as part of this effort. 

Although the OPP has protocols for providing victim services to inmates who may need them, 

the personal accounts from former inmates at OPP who claimed to be victims of sexual assault 

raise serious questions as to how accessible and effective the services actually are. The Panel 

strongly recommends that the OPP review the quality of the services it provides to victims of 

sexual assault, which should include collaboration with victim-service providers in the 

community.858 

3. Common Themes 

Cognizant of the inherent limitations in drawing generalizations from the data that the Panel has 

gathered on the five jails that appeared at the September 2011 hearings, the Panel has 

nonetheless identified the following recurrent themes: (1) the importance of jail design in 

deterring inmate sexual victimization, (2) the value of outside oversight, (3) the reluctance of 

prosecutors to pursue cases involving inmate sexual assault, (4) the challenges that jails 

encounter in creating safe environments with increasingly limited resources, and (5) the 

importance of employing well-trained, professional correctional staff. 

a. Acknowledging the Importance of Facility Design 

Among the jails that the Panel invited to the September hearing there was a notable correlation 

between incidence of sexual victimization and facility design. The two jails with low sexual 

victimization, Hinds County and the Moss Center, were both direct-supervision facilities, 

whereas two of the three jails with reported high sexual victimization, Clallam County and 

PTDC, were not. The single outlier was the South White Street Jail, which the OPP 

characterized as a direct-supervision facility, but as already noted, the facility closed before the 

Panel could observe its operation. For many local jurisdictions throughout the country, the Panel 

knows well that the construction of new, direct-supervision jails is a cost-prohibitive option to 

prevent the sexual victimization of inmates. Nonetheless, in communities where jail construction 

or remodeling is on the agenda, community leaders and jail administrators should consider the 

security benefits of a direct-supervision design. 

b. Appreciating the Value of Outside Oversight 

Two of the three high-incidence jails that the Panel selected to appear at the September hearings, 

the PTDC and the OPP, were also recently the subject of Justice Department investigations, 

which resulted in specific recommendations for improving facility management. The Panel 

contends that it is not a matter of coincidence that the BJS Report identified these facilities as 

 

856 See supra Part II.A.3.c. 857 See supra Part II.A.3.d. 858 See supra Part II.A.3.f. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

85 

problematic, a result that was completely independent of the Civil Rights Division’s 

investigations and findings. Although the Justice Department has a key role in holding 

correctional institutions accountable, Sheriff Glanz of TCSO and Director Ryan of MDCR 

reminded the Panel of the benefits that come from working with outside organizations in helping 

jails improve their operations. Echoing their remarks, Director Arthur Wallenstein of the 

Montgomery County, Maryland, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a jail 

administrator with significant experience in implementing PREA, also noted the importance of 

correctional institutions being open to outside oversight.859 Sheriff Glanz, Director Ryan, and 

Director Wallenstein commented on the important role that accreditation organizations have in 

holding jails to professional standards. Jail administrators should consider what may prevent 

them from welcoming the opportunity of a neutral, outside organization’s review of their 

operations. 

c. Noting the Reluctance to Prosecute Sexual 

Victimization Cases Involving Inmates 

The Panel heard the frustrated testimony of more than one jail administrator who complained 

that prosecutors are often reluctant to take criminal cases that involve sexual victimization of 

inmates. The Panel heard speculation that the reluctance may be attributable to a number of 

factors, including societal stereotypes about inmates, female staff members, and alternative 

sexual practices. 

d. Recognizing the Resource Challenges that Jails Face 

The Panel heard from jail administrators about the challenges that they face under current 

economic conditions to maintain safe correctional institutions. For smaller jails, notably in rural 

counties, it may be useful to identify off-the-shelf resources that may assist them in complying 

with the goals of PREA. The Justice Department and the PREA Resource Center may be able to 

link jails with relevant materials that are readily available, such as online staff training on PREA 

or an objective inmate-classification system. 

e. Employing Well-Trained, Professional Staff 

The Panel heard testimony from sheriffs, jail administrators, and jail officials espousing the 

importance of employing well-trained, professional security staff. Indeed, to prevent or at least 

limit the frequency of sexual assault, committed correctional professionals must work within a 

jail facility in which organizational culture does not permit language that gives the impression 

that any form of sexual impropriety is acceptable. Proper training and staff awareness of 

evidence-based policies that are designed to prevent and address sexual impropriety, as well as 

measures or practices that monitor the effectiveness of and adherence to prescribed processes, 

are essential to the realization of a correctional environment that is free of sexual victimization. 

 

859 Tr., A. Wallenstein, 19:8-22; see also Wallenstein Test. 11 (Apr. 15, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_wallenstein.pdf. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

86 

4. Topics for Further Study 

The Panel encourages academics and practitioners to conduct additional research on the 

following topics: 

a. What are the Specific Challenges of Big-City and Rural 

Jails in Preventing Inmate Sexual Victimization? 

The Panel is aware that the challenges that big-city jails face, such as the MDCR and the OPP, 

are significantly different from jails with much smaller inmate populations, staffing, and 

financial resources. The Panel would like to encourage research that would provide practical 

tools not only to large jails but also to small, rural jails in implementing the goals of PREA. 

b. What are the Best Practices in Classifying and Housing 

LGBTQ Inmates? 

The Panel is aware of the directive in the proposed national standards that in considering housing 

and programming decisions for LGBTQ inmates, correctional institutions should “make 

individualized determinations about how to ensure the safety of each inmate.”860 The Panel 

heard testimony and received studies that both supported and criticized the practice of creating 

special units for LGBTQ inmates.861 The Panel encourages further evidence-based research on 

correctional institutions’ screening and housing practices that prevent the sexual victimization of 

gay and transgender women inmates.862 

c. What Would Encourage the Prosecution of Crimes 

Involving Inmate Sexual Victimization? 

The Panel encourages the Justice Department to fund research that would identify the factors that 

discourage local and federal prosecutors from pursuing criminal charges against either staff 

members or inmates when the victim of a sexual assault is an inmate. The research might 

include convening a task force composed of prosecutors, prison administrators, and inmate 

advocacy groups to address this issue.863

d. What are the Policies and Practices that Contribute to a 

Jail Culture that Has Zero Tolerance for Sexual 

Victimization? 

Through its public hearings and the issuance of this Report, the Panel has attempted to highlight 

many of the issues that jails encounter in preventing the sexual victimization of inmates. When 

 

860 Nat’l Standards, 76 Fed. Reg. at 6281 (§ 115.42(b)). 861 Robinson Test. (Sept. 16, 2011), available at

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs_sept11/testimony_robinson.pdf; Russell K. Robinson, Masculinity as 

Prison: Sexual Identity, Race, and Incarceration, 99 CAL. L. REV. 1309 (2011); see also Susan Dolovich, Strategic 

Segregation in the Modern Prison, 48 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1 (2011). 862 See NIC, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Offenders, http://nicic.gov/LGBTI (last visited Mar. 

1, 2012). 

863 See Tr., T. Ryan, 322:1-15. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

87 

it comes to the sexual abuse of inmates, almost all jail administrators affirm that their facilities 

have a zero-tolerance policy.864 More important than stating a policy is knowing what actually 

works. Mindful of the proposed national standards, the Panel encourages evidenced-based 

research on the policies and practices that contribute to jail cultures that keep inmates safe from 

sexual victimization. 

 

e. What are the Best Practices for Monitoring Compliance 

with a Jail’s Zero-Tolerance Policy for Sexual 

Victimization? 

The Panel has often found that the written policies on preventing sexual victimization in highand low-incidence correctional facilities may not differ significantly. One of the distinguishing 

characteristics, however, between high- and low-incidence facilities is that the low-incidence 

facilities are often able to evaluate whether their practice complies with their stated policy. To 

help jails with the process of self-evaluation when it comes to preventing and responding to the 

sexual abuse of inmates, the Panel encourages the development of effective tools, based on best 

practices, that jails can readily access that will assist them to identify their shortcomings and then 

take appropriate corrective actions. 

f. What are the Best Practices for Reliably Reporting 

Sexual Abuse in Jails? 

In reviewing correctional facilities’ investigative files, the Panel has found that some facilities 

still have significant problems when it comes to receiving, answering, and recording inmate 

complaints alleging sexual victimization; responding appropriately to a reported incident of 

sexual assault; conducting a well-documented investigation; taking warranted remedial actions; 

and providing proper medical and emotional support to victims. The Panel encourages the 

development of technical assistance materials for jails that would assist them in reliably tracking 

inmate complaints alleging sexual victimization and responding to them based on best practices 

from the field. In designing the materials, researchers should consider the needs of all jails, 

whether large or small, urban or rural. 

 

III. Conclusion 

The Panel takes the issues of sexual misconduct and sexual safety in correctional environments 

seriously. We recognize that when a person is sexually abused, that person becomes the victim 

of a violent crime. Our mission, especially in preparing for and during the hearings, is to help 

corrections practitioners and allied professionals achieve the spirit of PREA. While we believe 

that jails, juvenile institutions, and prisons are making significant advancements to abate sexual 

victimization, much more can be done to prevent sexual assaults and to punish sexual predators. 

Through our hearings we have come to know and consequently document that many correctional 

jurisdictions deserve praise for their hard work. Creating a corrections culture that seeks to 

eliminate sexual abuse takes considerable energy on the part of many in leadership. We 

 

864 See, e.g., id., J. Ursin, 130:6-9; id., W. Benedict, 235:15-19; id., T. Ryan, 284:19-285:4. 
Review Panel on Prison Rape 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails 

88 

congratulate them on their efforts and thank them for their contributions to the continued 

professionalization of the corrections field. 

We realize that all correctional agencies want to reduce institutional assaults. Unfortunately, the 

attention given to eliminating sexual abuse is not the same throughout the nation. We know that 

sexual assaults can be reduced by changing attitudes toward potentially vulnerable populations, 

including female, LGBTQ, and physically frail inmates; paying close attention to institutional 

design and surveillance; providing offender education and staff training; improving operational 

policies and post orders; and monitoring adherence to established policies. Moreover, a reliable 

inmate-classification system; improved efforts on the part of first responders, investigators, and 

prosecutors; and timely victim assistance and healthcare services will help an agency reduce, if 

not eliminate, inmate sexual victimization. 

With the goal of ending sexual violence in prisons and jails, we will continue to gather 

information that we hope will be helpful to correctional policymakers, administrators, line staff, 

and allied professionals.865 Our mission is nothing less than to assist correctional institutions to 

become safer and more humane. 

 

865 In 2013, the BJS anticipates issuing the next surveys of sexual victimization in prisons, jails, and juvenile 

facilities based on inmate interviews. The Panel will schedule hearings related to the surveys shortly after their 

publication.