U.S. Department of Justice

Offi ce of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexual Victimization Reported 

by Former State Prisoners, 2008

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.

BJS Statistician

Candace Johnson, Ph.D.

Principal Research Scientist, NORC 

May 2012, NCJ 237363

BJS

Parole/community supervision oces

National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 2

Bureau of Justice Statistics

James P. Lynch

Director

BJS Website:

www.bjs.gov

askbjs@usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the 

statistics agency of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. James P. Lynch is director.

This compendium was written by Allen J. 

Beck, BJS Statistician, and Candace Johnson, 

NORC Research Scientist. Jessica Rexroat, 

BJS intern, verified the report.

BJS statisticians Christopher J. Mumola and 

Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision 

of Allen J. Beck, were project managers 

for the National Former Prisoner Survey. 

NORC, under a cooperative agreement and 

in collaboration with BJS staff, developed 

the survey and collected, processed, and 

analyzed the data. Candace Johnson with 

Pam Loose directed the project; Kirk 

Wolter and Ken Copeland guided sampling, 

weighting, and other statistical support 

services; Kris Talley and Patt Maugherman 

led field operations; Angela Herrmann 

directed telephone center activities; Mike 

Cooke managed TACASI development and 

IT support; Marissa Kiss, Stephanie Poland, 

Mehera Baugher, and Emily Frizzell assisted 

throughout the project; and Lynda Okeke 

and Fang Wang prepared statistical tables. 

Vanessa Curto and Jill Thomas edited the 

report, and Barbara Quinn and Tina Dorsey 

designed and produced the report, under the 

supervision of Doris J. James.

May 2012, NCJ 237363
BJS

Sexual Victimization Reported 

by Former State Prisoners, 2008

Allen J Beck, Ph D 

BJS Statistician

Candace Johnson, Ph D 

Principal Research Scientist, NORC 

May 2012, NCJ 237363

National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 4

Contents

Highlights 5

Incidents of sexual victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Type of coercion and physical injury 12

Circumstances surrounding victimization 14

Variations by sex of former inmates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Variations by other individual-level characteristics 16

Variations by selected facility-level characteristics 20

Prison placements and individual-level risk factors 25

Reporting of sexual victimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Post-release responses to victimization 32

HIV testing and results 33

Methodology 35

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Appendix B 41

Appendix C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix D 44

Appendix E 45

List of tables

Table 1. Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization 

during most recent period of incarceration, by type of 

victimization and facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2. Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization 

in a community-based correctional facility 10

Table 3. Criminal history and supervision status of persons 

under active parole supervision, by sex of former inmate 11

Table 4. Type of coercion and physical injury of former state 

prisoners who reported sexual victimization, by type of 

incident 12

Table 5. Circumstances surrounding sexual victimization of 

former state prisoners, by type of incident 14

Table 6. Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization, 

by sex of inmate 15

Table 7. Staff sexual misconduct and type of activity, by sex of 

victim and sex of staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

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

and former prisoner demographic characteristics . . . . . . . 16

Table 9. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident 

and former prisoner criminal justice status and history 17

Table 10. Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident, former prisoner demographic 

characteristics, and former prisoner criminal justice status and 

history 19

Table 11. Prison facilities entered and prison placements, by 

former state prisoners 20

Table 12. Sequence of reported sexual victimization in prison, 

by sex of victim and type of incident 21

Table 13. Prevalence of sexual victimization during prison 

placement, by sex of inmate, type of incident, and facility-level 

characteristics 23

Table 14. Prevalence of sexual victimization during each prison 

placement, comparing the National Former Prisoner Survey, 

2008, and National Inmate Survey, 2008–09 25

Table 15. Prevalence of sexual victimization among male and 

female placements, by type of incident and former prisoner 

characteristics 26

Table 16. Final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual 

victimization among male and female placements, by type of 

incident and former prisoner and facility characteristics . . . 28

Table 17. Reporting of sexual victimization, by type of incident 

and persons to whom the incident was reported 30

Table 18. Reasons for not reporting sexual victimization to 

facility staff, by type of victimization 31

Table 19. Facility responses to the reporting of sexual 

victimization to staff, by type of incident 31

Table 20. Post-release responses of victims to sexual 

victimization, by type of incident 32

Table 21. HIV testing and results for former state prisoners, by 

type of victim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Table 22. Current employment, housing, and living 

arrangements of former inmates under active parole 

supervision, by victimization status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 5

Highlights

Prevalence of sexual victimization

 An estimated 9.6% of former state prisoners reported one 

or more incidents of sexual victimization during the most 

recent period of incarceration in jail, prison, and postrelease community-treatment facility.

 Among all former state prisoners, 1.8% reported 

experiencing one or more incidents while in a local jail, 

7.5% while in a state prison, and 0.1% while in a postrelease community-treatment facility. 

 About 5.4% of former state prisoners reported an 

incident that involved another inmate. An estimated 3.7% 

of former prisoners said they were forced or pressured to 

have nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including 

manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.

 About 5.3% of former state prisoners reported an 

incident that involved facility staff. An estimated 1.2% of 

former prisoners reported that they unwillingly had sex 

or sexual contact with facility staff, and 4.6% reported 

that they “willingly” had sex or sexual contact with staff.

 Although the rate of sexual victimization in state prison 

reported by former inmates (7.5%) was higher than the 

rate reported by inmates in previous BJS surveys (4.8% 

in 2008-09), the difference may reflect longer exposure 

periods (39.4 months and 7.9 months, respectively).

Coercion and physical injury 

 Among victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, a 

quarter had been physically held down or restrained, and 

a quarter had been physically harmed or injured.

 Half of all victims of staff sexual misconduct said they had 

been offered favors or special privileges; a third said they 

had been persuaded or talked into it.

 Approximately 16% of victims of unwilling sexual activity 

with staff, compared to 2% of victims of “willing” sexual 

activity, reported being physically injured by staff. 

Individual risk factors

 The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was 

at least 3 times higher for females (13.7%) than males 

(4.2%).

 The rate of “willing” sexual activity with staff was higher 

among males (4.8%) than females (2.6%), and the rate 

of unwilling sexual activity was higher among females 

(2.5%) than males (1.1%).

 Among heterosexual males, an estimated 3.5% reported 

being sexually victimized by another inmate. In comparison, 

among males who were bisexual, 34% reported being 

sexually victimized by another inmate. Among males who 

were homosexual or gay, 39% reported being victimized by 

another inmate.

 Female heterosexual inmates reported lower rates of 

inmate-on-inmate victimization (13%) and staff sexual 

misconduct (4%) than female bisexual inmates (18% and 

8%, respectively).

 Among female homosexual or lesbian inmates, the rate 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization was similar to 

that for female heterosexual inmates (13%), while the rate 

of staff sexual victimization was at least double (8%) that 

for female heterosexual inmates (4%).

 The rate of imate-on-inmate sexual victimization for 

males was higher among non-Hispanic white inmates 

(5.9%) and inmates of two or more races (9.5%) than nonHispanic black inmates (2.9%).

List of appendix tables

Appendix table 1. Standard errors for table 4: Type of coercion 

and physical injury of former state prisoners who reported 

sexual victimization, by type of incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Appendix table 2. Standard errors for table 5: Circumstances 

surrounding sexual victimization of former state prisoners, by 

type of incident 47

Appendix table 3. Wald-F statistics for former prisoner 

characteristics in the final multivariate logistic regression 

models of sexual victimization, by type of incident 48

Appendix table 4. Wald-F statistics for former state prisoner 

and facility characteristics in the final multivariate logistic 

regression models of sexual victimization among male and 

female placements, by type of incident 49

Appendix table 5. Standard errors for table 17: Reporting of 

sexual victimization, by type of incident and persons to whom 

the incident was reported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Appendix table 6. Standard errors for table 19: Facility 

responses to the reporting of sexual victimization to staff, by 

type of incident 50

Appendix table 7. Standard errors for table 20: Post-release 

responses of victims to sexual victimization, by type of 

incident 51
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 6

 Among male former state prisoners, the rates of staff 

sexual misconduct were higher for those of two or more 

races (11.3%) and black non-Hispanics (6.5%) than for 

white non-Hispanics (4.5%) and Hispanics (4.0%).

 The rate of staff sexual misconduct was higher for male 

inmates ages 20 to 24 (7.9%) than for male inmates ages 

25 to 34 (5.2%), ages 35 to 44 (3.5%), and age 45 or older 

(2.0%).

 Among female former state prisoners, rates of staff sexual 

misconduct were lower for those ages 35 to 44 (3.1%) and 

age 45 or older (1.6%), compared to those ages 20 to 24 

(6.7%).

 Most victims of staff sexual misconduct (87%) reported 

only perpetrators of the opposite sex.

 Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, 79% were 

males reporting sexual activity with female staff. An 

additional 5% were males reporting sexual activity with 

both female and male staff.

Facility characteristics

 Rates of sexual victimization did not vary among 

commonly cited characteristics of facilities, including size 

of facility, facility age, crowding, inmate-to-staff ratios, or 

gender composition of staff.

 Among male former inmates, inmate-on-inmate and 

staff-on-inmate victimization rates were higher in 

facilities under a court order or consent decree, higher in 

facilities reporting a major disturbance in the 12 months 

prior to the most recent facility census, higher in facilities 

with medium or greater security levels, and higher in 

facilities with a primary function of housing general 

population than in facilities without these characteristics.

 Among female former inmates, rates of inmateon-inmate victimization were lower in community 

corrections centers, in facilities that permitted 50% or 

more of their inmates to leave unaccompanied during 

the day, in minimum or low security facilities, and in 

privately operated facilities than in facilities without these 

characteristics.

 After controlling for multiple individual-level 

characteristics—

f Inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate victimization 

rates among males were lower in reception and 

diagnostic centers than in facilities that housed 

general population, and lower in minimum security 

facilities than in facilities with higher security levels.

f Inmate-on-inmate victimization rates among females 

were lower in facilities that permitted 50% or more of 

their inmates to leave unaccompanied during the day 

than in other confinement facilities, lower in medium 

security facilities than in maximum or high security 

facilities, and higher in facilities that had a major 

disturbance in the census year than in facilities that 

did not.

Sexual victimization and its consequences

 Following their release from prison, 72% of victims of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization indicated they felt 

shame or humiliation, and 56% said they felt guilt.

 The majority of victims of staff sexual misconduct 

involving unwilling activity said they felt shame or 

humiliation (79%) and guilt (72%) following their release 

from prison. More than half (54%) reported having 

difficulty feeling close to friends or family members as a 

result of the sexual victimization.

 Although the vast majority of victims of staff sexual 

misconduct (86%) reported at least one incident that 

they considered “willing,” approximately a quarter said 

they felt guilt (27%) or shame and humiliation (23%) after 

their release from prison.

 Among former inmates who had been tested for HIV 

(90%), those who had been sexually victimized by other 

inmates or by staff had significantly higher percentages 

for HIV positive (6.5% and 4.6%, respectively) than those 

who had not been victimized (2.6%).

 Among former inmates under parole supervision, 

victims and nonvictims did not differ in their current 

employment (64% employed) or housing arrangements 

(92% in house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home); 

however, victims (18%) were somewhat more likely than 

nonvictims (14%) to be living alone.

Highlights (continued))
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 7

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the 

first-ever National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) 

between January 2008 and October 2008. NORC at 

the University of Chicago, under a cooperative agreement 

with BJS, collected the data. A total of 317 parole offices 

in 40 states were randomly included in the survey sample. 

A total of 17,738 former state prisoners who were under 

active supervision (i.e., required to contact a supervisory 

parole authority regularly in person, by mail, or by telephone) participated in the national survey. Interviews from 

an additional 788 former prisoners were included from the 

survey test sites. These former inmates had been randomly 

selected from 16 offices sampled. Based on 18,526 completed interviews, the survey achieved a 61% response rate. (See 

Methodology for further details.)

The NFPS is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics 

Program, which collects both administrative records 

of reported sexual violence and allegations of sexual 

victimization directly from victims. BJS has collected 

administrative records annually since 2004. We collected 

victim reports through surveys of adult inmates in prisons 

and jails in the National Inmate Survey in 2007 (NIS-1) 

and in 2008-09 (NIS-2) and through surveys of youth held 

in juvenile correctional facilities in the National Survey of 

Youth in Custody in 2008-09 (NSYC-1). 

The NFPS collects data on the totality of the prior term of 

incarceration, including any time in a local jail, state prison, 

or community correctional facility prior to final discharge. 

Because the survey is based on a sample of parole offices 

and not a sample of prisons, the NFPS is not conducive 

to providing facility estimates or rankings. The NFPS is 

designed to encourage a fuller reporting of victimization, 

by surveying only former inmates, who are not subject to 

the immediate risk of retaliation from perpetrators or a 

code of silence while in prison. The NFPS may elicit reports 

of incidents that were unreported in the previous NIS-1 

and NIS-2 surveys of prisoners; however, some reports may 

be untrue. At the same time, some former inmates may 

remain silent about sexual victimization experienced while 

incarcerated, despite efforts to assure victims that their 

responses will be kept confidential. 

Sexual Victimization Reported by 

Former State Prisoners, 2008

Other PREA data collections

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108-

79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry 

out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical 

review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison 

rape. The act further specifies that the review and analysis 

shall be based on a random sample or other scientifically 

appropriate sample of not less than 10% of all federal, 

state, and county prisons and a representative sample of 

municipal prisons. It requires BJS to use surveys and other 

statistical studies of current and former inmates. To fully 

meet these requirements, BJS has developed a multiple 

measure, multi-mode data collection strategy, in which the 

NFPS is one component.

National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) provides 

facility-level estimates of youth reporting sexual 

victimization in juvenile facilities, as required under PREA.

The first NSYC (NSYC-1) was conducted in 2008-09; the 

second (NSYC-2) is underway and will be completed by 

September 2012. NSYC-2 will provide estimates for large 

facilities that house adjudicated youth and for each of the 50 

state systems and the District of Columbia.

National Inmate Survey (NIS) gathers data on the 

incidence of sexual assault in adult prisons and local jail 

facilities, as reported by inmates. The first NIS (NIS-1) was 

conducted in 2007, the second (NIS-2) was conducted 

in 2008-09, and the third (NIS-3) is underway and will be 

completed by May 2012. Based on inmate allegations, the 

NIS provides facility-level estimates used to rank facilities 

as required under PREA.

Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) collects data annually 

on the incidence of sexual violence in adult and juvenile 

correctional facilities. Based on administrative data only, the 

SSV is limited to incidents reported to correctional officials. 

Begun in 2004, the SSV provides detailed information on 

incidents that have been substantiated upon investigation.

Clinical Indicators of Sexual Violence in Custody (CISVC) In 

2010–11, in collaboration with the National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC), BJS conducted a feasibility study using medical 

indicators and medical surveillance methodologies. As part 

of routine medical practice, medical staff in 19 prisons and 11 

jails completed a surveillance form for adult males who either 

made an allegation of sexual violence or displayed clinical 

conditions consistent with sexual victimization. Results of the 

12-month pilot study are expected in 2012.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 8

Incidents of sexual victimization

9.6% of former state prisoners reported one or more 

incidents of sexual victimization during the most 

recent period of incarceration in jail, prison, or a postrelease community-treatment facility

Among the 18,526 former state inmates participating in 

the NFPS survey, 2,096 reported experiencing one or more 

incidents of sexual victimization during their most recent 

period of incarceration, including the combined time 

in local jails, state prisons, or post-release communitytreatment facilities. Because the NFPS is a sample survey, 

weights were applied to the sampled offices and offenders 

under their supervision to produce national-level 

estimates. The estimated number of former state prisoners 

experiencing sexual victimization totaled 49,000, or 9.6% 

of all former state prisoners under active supervision at 

midyear 2008 (table 1).

Among all former state prisoners, 1.8% reported 

experiencing one or more incidents while in a local jail, 

7.5% while in a state prison, and 0.1% while in a postrelease community-treatment facility. An estimated 1.4% 

reported an incident in a facility for which the type could 

not be determined. 

5.4% of former inmates reported an incident with 

another inmate; 5.3% reported an incident with staff

Among former state prisoners, 5.4% (or an estimated 

27,300 prisoners nationwide at midyear 2008) reported an 

incident that involved another inmate, and 5.3% (27,100) 

reported an incident that involved facility staff. Some 

inmates (1.1%) reported sexual victimization by both 

another inmate and facility staff.

An estimated 3.7% of former prisoners said they had 

nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including 

manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. 

An additional 1.6% of former prisoners said they had 

experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only with 

another inmate, including unwanted touching of the inmate’s 

buttocks, thigh, penis, breast, or vagina in a sexual way.

An estimated 1.2% of former prisoners reported that they 

unwillingly had sex or sexual contact with facility staff. 

An estimated 4.6% said they “willingly” had sex or sexual 

contact with staff. 

Table 1

Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization during most recent period of incarceration, by type of victimization 

and facility

Estimated number

of victims

Percent of former prisonersa Standard errorsb

Type of incident Allc Prison Jail All Prison Jail

Total 49,000 9.6% 7.5% 1.8% 0.29% 0.26% 0.14%

Inmate-on-inmate 27,300 5.4% 3.7% 1.0% 0.24% 0.19% 0.09%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 18,700 3.7 2.6 0.6 0.17 0.14 0.06

Abusive sexual contacts only 7,900 1.6 0.9 0.2 0.13 0.09 0.04

Staff sexual misconduct 27,100 5.3% 4.7% 1.0% 0.22% 0.22% 0.10%

Unwilling activity 6,300 1.2% 1.0% 0.2% 0.11% 0.11% 0.03%

Excluding touching 5,100 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.10 0.10 0.02

Touching only 1,100 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.05 0.04 0.02

Willing activity 23,300 4.6% 4.0% 0.7% 0.21% 0.21% 0.08%

Excluding touching 22,200 4.3 3.4 0.3 0.21 0.21 0.06

Touching only 1,100 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.04 0.04 0.01

Note: Former prison inmates include only persons who were under active community supervision following a period of incarceration in state prison. See Methodology for 

sample description. Detail may not sum to total because former inmates may have reported more than one type of victimization or victimization in more than one type of 

facility.

aBased on the most recent period of incarceration, which may include time spent in local jail prior to admission to state prison and time spent in a post-release community 

treatment facility following release from prison.

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

cIncludes former inmates victimized in a post-release community-treatment facility (0.1%) and in facilities for which type was not reported (1.4%).

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 9

National Former Prisoner Survey Protocol

Active post-custody supervision

Only people who had served time in a state prison, were 

age 18 or older at the time of the survey, and under 

active post-release supervision were eligible to be part 

of the NFPS. The survey includes some people who were 

under age 18 at the time of their incarceration. These 

people were sentenced as adults and served time in adult 

facilities.

In 2008, approximately 85% of all persons under some 

form of post-custody supervision were considered to be 

under active supervision. Individuals who were ineligible 

for the survey included those who had absconded, were 

re-incarcerated, were in a halfway house or communitybased treatment center, had a warrant issued for their 

arrest, were in violator status, or had been transferred to 

another parole office. Persons under supervision in small 

offices (under 40 parolees) in remote areas or in specialty 

offices (e.g., sex offender supervision or treatment 

facilities) were also excluded from the survey. Overall, the 

NFPS is a representative sample of approximately 510,800 

former state prisoners under supervision at midyear 2008.

(See Methodology for sampling information.)

Audio computer-assisted self-interview

The NFPS interviews, which averaged 23 minutes in 

length, were conducted using computer-assisted 

personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted 

self-interviewing (ACASI) data collection methods. Survey 

interviewers initiated the personal interview using CAPI to 

obtain demographic and criminal history information. For 

the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted 

with a computer-administered questionnaire using 

a touch-screen and synchronized audio instructions 

delivered via headphones. Respondents completed 

the survey in private at the parole office (or satellite 

office), with the interviewer in the room but unable to 

see the computer screen. (See Methodology for further 

description of the survey protocol.)

Voluntary participation with incentives

Before the interview, respondents were informed verbally 

and in writing that participation was voluntary and that 

all information provided would be held in confidence. 

They were also informed that if they agreed to participate, 

they would receive $50 as a token of appreciation for 

participating in the survey. A second automated consent 

protocol was administered at the beginning of the ACASI 

portion of the interview to confirm that the respondent 

had been properly informed that participating in the 

survey was voluntary and that they were “ready to 

continue with the interview.”

Measuring sexual victimization

The NFPS first screened for inmate-on-inmate sexual 

touching “when they didn’t want this to happen” and 

sexual activity “in which they did not want to participate.” 

Respondents were then asked about the specific sexual 

activity, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, 

and about the specific contact, including touching of 

buttocks, thighs, breasts, penis, or vagina in an attempt 

to hurt or arouse the victim or the perpetrator. (See 

appendix A and B for specific survey questions.) Reports 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were classified 

as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual 

contacts.

The NFPS also asked about staff sexual activity, 

including staff sexually harrassing the inmate, staring 

inappropriately at the inmate, and forcing the inmate 

to undress or brushing private parts when “it was 

not required by their job.” Former inmates were then 

screened for sexual contact with staff, “whether it was 

willing or not,” or “whether you wanted to have it or not.” 

These contacts may have included oral, anal, or vaginal 

penetration and other forms of sexual stimulation 

through rubbing the penis and touching other private 

parts. (See appendix C and D for specific survey 

questions.) 

Reports of staff sexual misconduct involving physical force, 

threat of force, fear of bodily injury, and being pressured or 

made to feel they had no choice were classified as “unwilling.” 

Other reports of staff sexual misconduct in which former 

inmates reported willingly having sex or sexual contact 

with staff were classified as “willing” even though any sex 

or sexual contact between inmates and staff is illegal. (See 

Definition of terms onpage 13.)
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 10

Former prisoners reported a wide variety of other sexual 

experiences with staff that were inappropriate:

 An estimated 8.9% reported that staff had hassled or 

harassed them in a sexual way.

 27.9% said that staff had stared or watched them at 

inappropriate times (e.g., while the inmate was dressing 

or taking a shower). 

 13.5% said that staff had forced them to undress in their 

presence or had brushed against their private parts 

when “they did not think it was an accident or it was not 

required by their job.”

Nearly a third (32.4%) of all former inmates reported one 

or more of these types of experiences. While inappropriate, 

these lesser forms of staff sexual misconduct were not 

included in the analysis unless combined with reports of 

“willingly” or unwillingly having sex or sexual contact with 

staff. (See appendix D for survey items related to staff-oninmate sexual victimization.)

Few former inmates reported experiencing sexual 

victimization while in a community-based correctional 

facility

Correctional facilities are typically classified as communitybased if 50% or more of the residents are regularly 

permitted to leave unaccompanied by facility staff to work 

or study in the community. Community-based facilities 

include entities such as halfway houses, residential 

treatment centers, restitution centers, and pre-release 

centers. Although community-based correctional facilities 

are covered by the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), 

little data have been available on the rate of sexual 

victimization in these facilities. Despite the large number of 

such facilities (529 of the 1,719 state correctional facilities 

in 2005), they hold few inmates on any single day (54,233 

inmates at yearend 2005, or approximately 4% of all state 

inmates held nationwide) (See Census of State and Federal 

Correctional Facilities, 2005, October 2008, BJS Web, NCJ 

222182, appendix tables 2 and 10.) As a result of their 

small size (an average of 102 inmates per facility) and the 

relatively short length of stay for most inmates while in 

community-based facilities, inmates held in these facilities 

have been excluded from previous PREA-related inmate 

surveys.

The NFPS provides the first systematic data available on 

sexual victimization in community-based facilities. An 

estimated 66,400 former state prisoners (13%) said they had 

served some time in a community-based treatment facility 

or halfway house after release from prison. Among those 

inmates who had served time in such a facility, 0.9% reported 

experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization 

while in the facility (table 2). Among all former state 

prisoners, 0.1% said they had been sexually victimized while 

in a post-release community-treatment facility.

Approximately 65,500 former inmates (13%) reported 

spending time in a community-based facility before their 

release from prison. During the time they had been placed 

in such a facility, 2.0% reported experiencing one or more 

incidents of sexual victimization: 0.7% reported inmate-oninmate sexual victimization, while 1.4% reported staff-oninmate victimization.

Sexual victimization rates differed from those 

previously reported in the NIS-1 and NIS-2 

The rate of sexual victimization reported by former state 

prisoners (9.6%) was substantially higher than the rates 

reported in the previous BJS National Inmate Surveys 

which were based on confined state and federal inmates 

(e.g., 4.5% in the NIS-1 conducted in 2007 and 4.4% in 

the NIS-2 conducted in 2008-09). The differences may 

largely reflect longer average exposure time among former 

inmates. 

Unlike NFPS, the NIS-1 and NIS-2 provide facility-specific 

estimates of the prevalence of sexual victimization. As 

required under the PREA of 2003, these surveys are designed 

to provide a list of prisons and jails ranked by the prevalence 

of sexual victimization. To eliminate experiences that may 

have occurred in other facilities or in the distant past and to 

control for the varying length of stay, the NIS-1 and NIS-2 

asked inmates to provide the most recent date of admission 

to the current facility. To provide comparative rates, if the 

date of admission was at least 12 months prior to the date of 

the interview, inmates were asked questions related to their 

experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission date 

was less than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were 

asked about their experiences since they arrived at the facility. 

As a consequence, the average exposure period among 

state prisoners participating in the NIS-2 was 7.9 months, 

compared to the average of 39.4 months that the former 

inmates in the NFPS had served in state prisons prior to 

their release (excluding time served in a local jail or postrelease community-treatment facility). (See Methodology

for differences in coverage between NFPS and NIS.)

Table 2

Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization in a 

community-based correctional facility

Percent of former inmates who served 

time in a community-based facility

Type of incident Before releasea After releaseb

Number of former inmates 65,500 66,400

Total 2.0% 0.9%

Inmate-on-inmate 0.7 0.4

Staff sexual misconduct 1.4 0.5 aIncludes pre-release community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, residential 

treatment centers, restitution centers, and other pre-release centers.

bIncludes post-release community-based treatment facilities only.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 11

Criminal history and 

supervision profile of former 

inmates

In addition to collecting data on the 

sexual experiences of former state 

inmates during their most recent period 

of confinement, the NFPS gathered 

information on their criminal histories and 

their current supervision (table 3). Results 

from the survey include the following:

 Among former state inmates under 

active supervision, 47% had been on 

parole or community supervision for 

less than 12 months, 24% for 12 to 23 

months, 12% for 24 to 35 months, and 

17% for 36 months or more.

 About a third of the former inmates 

under active parole supervision had 

served time for a violent offense (33%) 

or a drug offense (30%), a quarter for a 

property offense (25%), and an eighth 

for a public-order offense (12%).

 Nearly 21% of the former inmates under 

active supervision had served time for 

a probation violation; 21% for a parole 

violation.

 Nineteen percent of the former state 

prison inmates had served less than 

12 months in prison or jail before their 

release from prison; 25% had served 12 

to 23 months; 16%, 24 to 35 months; 

17%, 36 to 59 months; and 23%, 60 

months or more.

 More than half of those under 

supervision (56%) had been released as 

a result of a parole board decision.

 As a condition of their release, more 

than 90% of the parolees were required 

to submit to drug testing; 78% were 

required to be employed.

 Participation in a treatment or 

counseling program was also required 

of 53% of the parolees for drugs; 39% 

for alcohol; and 26% for issues other 

than drugs or alcohol.

 Nearly 80% of parolees said they had a 

face-to-face meeting in the last month 

with their parole officer in the parole 

office; 57% said they had a face-toface meeting outside of the office (at 

home, at work, or elsewhere); and 48% 

said they had been contacted by mail, 

e-mail, or telephone.

Table 3

Criminal history and supervision status of persons under active parole 

supervision, by sex of former inmate

Alla Male Female

Number under supervison 510,800 449,700 60,700

Time on parole/community supervision

Less than 12 months 47.2% 47.1% 48.3%

12–23 24.0 23.9 25.1

24–35 11.6 11.7 11.5

36–59 8.2 8.3 7.6

60 months or longer 8.8 9.0 7.5

Most serious offense

Violent 33.3% 35.0% 20.7%

Property 25.2 23.8 35.2

Drug 29.7 29.0 35.2

Public order 11.5 11.9 8.5

Other 0.3 0.3 0.5

Probation/parole violator

No 58.8% 59.2% 55.8%

Yesb 41.2 40.8 44.2

Probation 20.7 19.7 28.5

Parole 21.0 21.7 16.3

Total time served

Less than 12 months 19.0% 17.8% 27.6%

12–23 25.3 24.6 30.5

24–35 16.1 16.2 15.7

36–59 16.8 17.1 14.7

60–119 14.6 15.4 8.8

120 months or more 8.2 9.0 2.7

Release type

Parole board decision 56.0% 56.4% 53.3%

Other release 43.0 42.6 45.4

Don’t knowc 1.0 1.0 1.3

Requirements of supervision

Be employed 77.5% 78.9% 66.6%

Submit to drug testing 90.9 91.3 88.5

Participate in drug treatment or counseling 53.3 53.2 54.3

Participate in alcohol treatment or counseling 38.6 39.3 32.9

See counselor/therapist for issues other than 

drugs/alcohol 25.6 25.4 26.7

Contacts with parole officer in last month

Face-to-face in office

None 20.6% 19.9% 26.2%

1 50.5 50.4 51.5

2–3 19.9 20.4 16.3

4 or more 8.9 9.3 6.0

Face-to-face outside of office

None 43.2% 42.4% 49.4%

1 39.5 39.8 37.4

2–3 13.7 14.1 10.4

4 or more 3.6 3.7 2.8

Contact by mail, e-mail, or telephone

None 51.9% 52.2% 49.4%

1 23.1 23.0 23.9

2–3 17.8 17.8 18.0

4 or more 7.2 7.0 8.7 aIncludes persons who said they were transgendered.

bDetail may not sum to total because some former inmates had violated both probation and parole.

cFormer inmates said they did not know if they had been released through a parole board decision.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 12

Type of coercion and physical injury

Among victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence, 

a quarter had been physically held down or restrained 

and a quarter had been physically harmed or injured

Incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization involved 

a wide array of acts with differing levels of coercion and force 

to get the victim to participate. Although many of the victims 

were not raped, all of the victims had been sexually abused. 

Force or threat of force or harm was reported by 59% of 

victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization—about 

3.2% of former state prisoners overall (not shown in table). 

An estimated 53% said they had been threatened with 

harm or a weapon; 28% had been physically held down or 

restrained, and 25% had been physically harmed or injured. 

(table 4).

The most common form of coercion other than force or 

threat of force was being “persuaded or being talked into it” 

(34%) against their will. A quarter of victims (26%) said the 

inmate perpetrator had given them a bribe or blackmailed 

them, and a quarter (24%) said they had been offered or 

given protection from other inmates. In addition, some 

victims had been given drugs or alcohol to get them drunk 

or high (9%), and some had sexual contact to pay off or 

settle a debt that they owed (8%). Overall, 52% of victims 

reported one or more of these types of coercion.

Among victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 

the most common injuries were anal or vaginal tearing, 

severe pain or bleeding (12%) and chipped or lost teeth 

(12%). Although 29% of all victims reported bruises, black 

eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts from one or 

more incidents involving another inmate, nearly a quarter 

(23%) also reported more serious injuries.

Table 4

Type of coercion and physical injury of former state prisoners who reported sexual victimization, by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Totala Nonconsensual 

sexual acts Total

Willing 

activityb Unwilling activityb

Number of victims 27,300 18,700 27,100 23,300 6,300

Type of coercionc

Force/threat 58.6% 65.6% 12.3% 5.4% 48.2%

Threatened with harm or a weapon 53.1 59.7 11.0 5.2 43.9

Physically held down or restrained 28.1 34.2 4.9 1.5 19.2

Physically harmed/injured 24.8 30.0 4.1 1.6 15.2

Coercion other than force/threat 51.7% 63.0% 62.4% 61.6% 87.0%

Persuaded/talked into it 34.3 45.4 35.2 33.9 71.9

Offered/given protection from other inmates 24.4 29.4 6.5 5.0 16.5

Given bribe/blackmailed 25.6 31.3 27.2 24.3 60.4

Given drugs/alcohol 9.0 12.0 18.6 19.9 21.0

Pay off debtd 8.2 10.8 3.1 2.7 6.5

Offered/given protection from another correctional officerd ~ ~ 13.3 10.3 34.2

Offered favors or special privileges ~ ~ 49.6 49.1 72.0

Physically injuredc 29.7% 35.3% 4.1% 2.1% 16.5%

Excluding minor injuries 22.9 28.4 3.2 1.6 13.0

Knife/stab wounds 4.4 5.1 0.6 0.2 2.6

Broken bones 4.3 5.5 0.5 0.5 1.9

Anal/vaginal tearing, severe pain, or bleeding 11.7 17.0 2.1 1.0 8.8

Teeth chipped/knocked out 11.5 13.9 1.6 0.6 6.3

Internal injuries 6.3 7.4 1.2 0.5 4.9

Knocked unconscious 8.4 10.5 0.6 0.4 2.5

Bruises, a black eye, sprains, cuts, scratches,

 swelling, or welts 28.6 33.8 2.9 1.0 11.8

Note: See appendix table 1 for estimated standard errors.

~Not applicable.

aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.

bIncludes touching only.

cDetail may not sum to total because multiple responses were allowed for this item.

dNot included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of the merged pretest and full survey data files.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 13

Half of victims of staff sexual misconduct said they had 

been offered favors or special privileges; a third had 

been persuaded or talked into it; a quarter had been 

bribed or blackmailed

Most victims of staff sexual misconduct said they “willingly” 

had sex or sexual contact with staff; however, many of 

these victims also reported sexual contact or activity with 

staff that involved some form of coercion. Among the 

estimated 23,300 former prisoners who reported some type 

of “willing” activity with staff, 11% (2,500) also reported 

unwilling sexual activity with staff. The most common form 

of coercion reported by the 23,300 “willing” victims was 

offers of favors or special privileges by staff (49%), followed 

by being persuaded or talked into it by staff (34%) and being 

given a bribe or blackmailed (24%). Overall, 62% of inmates 

who had engaged in “willing” sex or sexual activity with staff 

reported some type of coercion or offer of favors, special 

privileges, or protection by staff.

An estimated 6,300 former state prisoners (1.2%) reported 

unwilling sexual activity with staff during their most recent 

period of incarceration. These unwilling victims (48%) were 

more likely than “willing” victims of staff sexual misconduct 

(5%) to report having been physically forced or threatened 

by staff. An estimated 44% of unwilling victims said they 

had been threatened with harm or a weapon, 19% said they 

had been physically held down, and 15% said they had been 

physically harmed or injured. 

Nearly 7 of every 8 inmates who reported unwilling sexual 

activity with staff said that staff had employed other forms 

of coercion to engage them in sexual activities or have 

sexual contact. In specific, 72% of the victims were offered 

favors or special privileges, 72% were persuaded or talked 

into it, 60% were given bribes or blackmailed, 34% were 

offered protection from other staff, and 21% were given 

drugs or alcohol.

These reports suggest that these former inmates 

experienced a wide array of pressures from staff to have 

sexual contact against their will. More than 80% of victims 

who reported force and threat of force also reported one or 

more of these other forms of coercion (not shown in table). 

Four percent of victims of staff sexual misconduct 

reported that they were physically injured

Approximately 16% of victims of unwilling sexual activity 

with staff, compared to 2% of victims of “willing” sexual 

activity, reported being physically injured by staff. Among 

victims of unwilling activity, the most commonly reported 

injuries were bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, 

swelling or welts (11.8%). Most of these victims of unwilling 

sexual activity also reported more serious injuries, including 

anal or vaginal tearing (8.8%), loss or chipping of teeth 

(6.3%), and receiving internal injuries (4.9%). Though few 

victims of “willing” sexual activity with staff reported being 

injured, some (1.6%) reported a serious injury.

Definition of terms 

Sexual victimization—all types of unwanted sexual 

activity with other inmates (e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal 

penetration, hand jobs, or touching of the inmate’s 

buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way), 

abusive sexual contacts with other inmates, and both 

willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contact with 

another inmate or any contact with staff that involved 

oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other 

sexual acts.

Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contact 

with another inmate or any contact with staff that 

involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, 

penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way.

Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual 

contact with another inmate or staff.

Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts 

with staff. These contacts are characterized by the 

reporting inmates as willing; however, all sexual 

contacts between inmates and staff are legally 

nonconsensual.

Staff sexual misconduct—all incidents of willing 

and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff, and all 

incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal or 

vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts 

with facility staff.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 14

Table 5

Circumstances surrounding sexual victimization of former state prisoners, by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance Totala Nonconsensual sexual acts Total

Willing 

activityb Unwilling activityb

Number of victimsc 27,300 18,700 27,100 23,300 6,300

Time of dayd

6 a.m. to noon 30.4% 30.3% 41.7% 41.7% 44.5%

Noon to 6 p.m.35.5 34.0 37.6 37.7 35.6

6 p.m. to midnight 52.2 56.6 46.4 46.6 50.9

Midnight to 6 a.m.41.3 52.8 54.5 56.5 51.3

Where occurredd

Victim’s cell/room/sleeping area 61.9% 71.3% 42.8% 43.8% 45.9%

Another inmate’s cell/room 24.3 31.5 9.0 9.9 8.5

Shower/bathroom 36.7 38.4 35.0 36.5 33.8

Yard/recreation area 21.8 19.2 10.8 10.2 11.8

Workplace 17.9 19.8 54.5 55.8 57.4

Closet, office, or other locked room 13.1 17.2 69.8 71.7 67.0

Classroom/library 9.6 11.3 33.8 34.5 33.6

Elsewhere in facility 11.3 11.6 13.3 13.7 12.1

Off facility groundse 5.4 5.9 9.9 9.9 14.4

Number of perpetrators

1 53.8% 48.1% 52.8% 52.0% 53.6%

2 25.4 28.0 27.0 27.5 22.0

3 or more 20.8 23.9 20.3 20.5 24.4

Number of times

1 42.4% 36.4% 14.2% 13.2% 11.0%

2 26.2 26.5 22.3 22.2 19.3

3 or more 31.3 37.1 63.5 64.6 69.7

Note: See appendix table 2 for estimated standard errors.

aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.

bIncludes touching only.

cDetail may not sum to total because respondents may have reported more than one type of victimization.

dDetail may sum to total because multiple responses were allowed for this item.

eIncludes incidents that occurred in a temporary holding facility, on work release, in a medical facility, in a vehicle, or at a courthouse.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Circumstances surrounding victimization

Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in 

the victim’s cell; staff-on-inmate victimization occurred 

most often in a closet, office, or other locked room

In the NFPS victims were asked to provide additional 

information about the circumstances surrounding their 

victimization, including the number of times it had 

happened, the number of different perpetrators, when each 

incident occurred, and where it occurred in each facility.

Data provided by inmates who reported sexual 

victimization by another inmate revealed that—

 Victimization was more common in the evening 

(between 6 p.m. and midnight) (52%) than at any other 

time (table 5).

 Almost two-thirds (62%) of the victims said at least one 

incident took place in their cell or room, and a quarter 

said an incident took place in another inmate’s cell or 

room (24%).

 An estimated 46% of inmate-on-inmate victims had 

been victimized by more than one perpetrator.

 About 42% had been victimized once; 31% had been 

victimized 3 or more times.

Most victims (86%) of staff sexual misconduct reported 

more than one incident; 47% reported more than one 

perpetrator

Data provided by inmates who had been sexually 

victimized by facility staff also revealed that—

 Reports of staff sexual misconduct were more common 

between midnight and 6 a.m. (54%) than at any other 

time.

 More than two-thirds (70%) of the victims said at least 

one incident had occurred in a closet, office, or other 

locked room; half (54%) of the victims said an incident 

had occurred in a work area; and a third (35%) in a 

shower or bathroom.

 Reports of when and where incidents had occurred were 

similar among willing and unwilling victims.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 15

Table 6

Former state prisoners reporting sexual victimization, by 

sex of inmate

Percent of former prisoners

Type of incident All Male* Female

Totala 9.6% 8.7% 16.1%**

Inmate-on-inmate 5.4% 4.2% 13.7%**

Nonconsensual sexual acts 3.7 2.7 10.5**

Abusive sexual contacts only 1.6 1.3 3.1**

Staff sexual misconduct 5.3% 5.4% 4.4%

Unwilling activity 1.2% 1.1% 2.5%**

Excluding touching 1.0 0.9 1.7**

Touching only 0.2 0.2 0.7**

Willing activity 4.6% 4.8% 2.6%**

Excluding touching 4.3 4.6 2.2**

Touching only 0.2 0.2 0.4

*Comparison group.

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

aDetail may not sum to total because former inmates may report more than one 

type of victimization. 

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Table 7

Staff sexual misconduct and type of activity, by sex of victim 

and sex of staff

All staff sexual 

misconduct

Willing 

activity

Unwilling 

activity

Total 100% 100% 100%

Male victims

Female staff only 78.7% 86.0% 42.2%

Male staff only 6.8 4.4 23.1

Both male and female staff 4.6 2.7 10.9

Female victims

Female staff only 1.3% 1.1% 2.8%

Male staff only 8.1 5.5 19.2

Both male and female staff 0.5 0.3 1.8

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Variations by sex of former inmates

Past BJS surveys of confined prison inmates have 

consistently found higher rates of inmate-on-inmate 

victimization among females than males. In the National 

Inmate Survey, 2008-09, 4.7% of the surveyed female 

inmates and 1.9% of the male inmates reported being 

sexually victimized by another inmate. This difference 

was found to be statistically independent and largely 

unexplained by covariation with other demographic 

characteristics (e.g., an inmate’s race or Hispanic origin, 

age, education, marital status, and weight). (See Sexual 

Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 

2008-09, tables 6 and 7.) The reports of former prisoners 

confirm the large and statistically significant difference 

between male and female rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization (table 6). 

The rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

among former state prisoners was 3 times higher 

among females (13.7%) than males (4.2%)

When the rate of sexual victimization was limited to 

nonconsensual sexual acts including only incidents of 

manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, 

the difference between females and males was large. An 

estimated 10.5% of females reported such incidents with 

other inmates, compared to 2.7% of males. 

The rate of “willing” sexual activity with staff was 

higher among males (4.8%) than females (2.6%), and 

the rate of unwilling sexual activity was higher among 

females (2.5%) than males (1.1%)

Most victims of staff sexual misconduct (87%) reported 

only perpetrators of the opposite sex (table 7). Same-sex 

victimization was more likely to be reported by victims 

of unwilling staff sexual misconduct than by victims 

of “willing.” Approximately a quarter of the reports of 

unwilling sexual activity with staff involved male inmates 

with male staff only (23%) and female inmates with female 

staff only (3%).
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 16

Table 8

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and former prisoner demographic characteristics

Percent of male former prisoners 

reporting sexual victimization

Percent of female former prisoners 

reporting sexual victimization

Demographic characteristic

Number of male 

former prisoners

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of female 

former prisoners

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitea 173,200 5.9%** 4.5%** 29,300 13.2% 4.5%

Black/African Americana* 171,000 2.9 6.5 17,400 15.2 4.2

Hispanic/Latino 80,500 2.7 4.0** 10,100 12.2 3.8

Othera,b 13,500 4.1 6.0 1,800 7.2 2.3

Two or more racesa 11,100 9.5** 11.3** 1,800 23.9 11.9**

Age at admission

Under 18 10,200 8.4% 18.6% 800 14.8% 14.9%

18–19 27,000 4.3 9.1 1,700 22.9 10.4

20–24* 91,000 5.3 7.9 8,300 17.1 6.7

25–34 146,600 4.1 5.2** 20,300 14.8 5.1

35–44 107,300 3.7 3.5** 20,100 12.0 3.1**

45 or older 61,500 3.5 2.0** 9,000 10.9 1.6**

Educationc

Less than high schoold* 267,100 4.0% 5.5% 33,200 13.0% 4.5%

High school graduate 89,800 3.2 4.0** 11,300 12.2 2.8

Some college 78,100 5.8 7.0 13,400 16.4 4.8

College degree or more 14,100 5.2 5.2 2,600 15.3 8.1

Marital statusc

Married* 90,700 4.8% 6.4% 10,600 12.4% 4.3%

Widowed, divorced, or separated 132,400 4.1 4.5** 25,100 15.4 4.3

Never married 225,500 4.0 5.6 24,900 12.7 4.6

Weightc,e

1st quartile* 121,200 4.9% 4.5% 16,700 14.3% 5.0%

2nd quartile 108,400 4.1 5.3 13,300 12.6 3.5

3rd quartile 118,800 4.0 5.7 15,000 14.1 4.7

4th quartile 101,200 3.8 6.4** 14,900 13.8 4.1

Sexual orientationc

Straight/heterosexual* 435,600 3.5% 5.2% 49,800 13.1% 3.7%

Bisexual 5,500 33.7** 17.5** 7,300 18.1** 7.5**

Lesbian/gay/homosexual 4,200 38.6** 11.8** 3,300 12.8 8.0**

*Comparison group.

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

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

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

cAs reported at time of interview.

dIncludes former prisoners who received a GED while incarcerated.

eWeight quartiles are defined by sex: Men—1st quartile (86 to 170 lbs.), 2nd quartile (171 to 190 lbs.), 3rd quartile (191 to 220 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 220 lbs.). Women—

1st quartile (78 to 145 lbs.), 2nd quartile (146 to 169 lbs.), 3rd quartile (170 to 198 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 198 lbs.).

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Variations by other individual-level characteristics

Large differences in sexual victimization were 

found among former inmates based on their sexual 

orientation

An estimated 3.5% of male heterosexual former inmates 

reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, 

and 5.2% reported being victimized by staff (table 8). 

In comparison, 34% of male inmates who were bisexual 

reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and 

18% reported being sexually victimized by staff. Thirtynine percent of male inmates who were homosexual or gay 

indicated they had been victimized by another inmate and 

12% by staff.

 Bisexual female former inmates reported a higher rate of 

inmate-on-inmate victimization (18%) than heterosexual 

inmates (13%) and lesbian inmates (13%).

 Lesbian inmates and bisexual female former inmates had 

rates of staff sexual misconduct that were at least double 

(8%) the rate among heterosexual female former inmates.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 17

Table 9

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and former prisoner criminal justice status and history

Percent of male former prisoners 

reporting sexual victimization

Percent of female former prisoners 

reporting sexual victimization

Criminal justice status and history

Number of male 

former prisoners

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of female 

former prisoners

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Prior incarcerations

No prior incarceration* 79,700 6.6% 5.7% 14,200 11.9% 4.4%

1 or more prior incarcerations 370,300 3.7** 5.4 46,500 14.3 4.4

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 28,500 13.7% 6.5% 500 17.2% 10.4%

Other violent 125,500 4.9** 8.6 11,700 15.5 7.0

Property 104,900 4.4** 5.8 20,900 14.4 4.2

Drug 127,500 2.0** 3.0** 20,900 12.5 3.5

Public order 52,400 2.6** 2.3** 5,100 10.4 2.9

Other 1,500 5.6 7.3 300 8.0 0.0

Total time serveda

Less than 12 months* 80,100 1.8% 2.0% 16,800 9.3% 1.3%

12–23 110,500 3.1 3.1 18,500 13.8 3.7**

24–35 72,900 3.6** 3.6** 9,500 13.9 2.2

36–59 76,800 2.8 5.3** 8,900 16.9** 6.2**

60–119 69,000 6.4** 8.3** 5,300 20.9** 11.3**

120 months or longer 40,300 12.3** 17.2** 1,600 16.4 25.4**

Number of facilitiesb

1* 25,200 2.4% 2.6% 5,100 9.0% 2.2%

2 91,900 3.4 3.9 20,100 13.5 3.6

3 127,000 3.9 4.0 19,800 13.6 3.8

4 92,400 4.3 5.4** 9,800 16.5** 4.4

5 52,400 4.5 6.7** 3,900 14.6 7.7**

6 or more 61,000 6.5** 10.7** 2,000 13.6 17.7**

*Comparison group.

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

aIncludes time served in jail, all prison facilities, and post-release community treatment facilities.

bIncludes all facilities in which the former inmates were held during the most recent period of incarceration.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among 

males varied by race and Hispanic origin. Rates of inmateon-inmate victimization for males were higher among white 

non-Hispanic inmates (5.9%) and multi-racial inmates (9.5%) 

than among black non-Hispanic inmates (2.9%). Among 

females, rates of inmate-on-inmate victimization did not vary 

significantly across other demographic characteristics.

Patterns of staff sexual misconduct among male 

former prisoners varied among multiple demographic 

characteristics. Rates of staff sexual misconduct were higher 

for those of two or more races (11.3%) and lower for white 

non-Hispanic inmates (4.5%) and Hispanic inmates (4.0%), 

when compared to black non-Hispanic inmates (6.5%). 

Rates of staff sexual misconduct were also higher among 

younger male inmates (under age 25) than among older 

male inmates; higher among those with less than a high 

school education than those who completed high school; 

and higher for those who were married than those who 

were widowed, divorced, separated, or never married. 

Among female former prisoners, rates of staff sexual 

misconduct were significantly lower among those ages 35 

to 44 (3.1%) and age 45 or older (1.6%), compared to those 

ages 20 to 24 (6.7%). The only other statistically significant 

difference among female inmates was that 11.9% of multiracial inmates reported staff sexual misconduct, which 

was approximately 2 to 3 times the rate of victimization 

reported by white non-Hispanic inmates (4.5%), black nonHispanic inmates (4.2%), and Hispanic inmates (3.8%).

Violent, male sex offenders reported high rates of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (13.7%)

Consistent with findings in previous BJS data collections 

based on inmates held in prisons and local jails, male 

former state prisoners whose most serious offense was a 

violent sex offense reported significantly higher rates of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than other inmates 

(table 9). The rate among male sex offenders (13.7%) 

was more than twice the rate among other violent male 

offenders (4.9%), 3 times the rate of property offenders 

(4.4%), 5 times the rate of public-order offenders (2.6%), 

and 6 times the rate of drug offenders (2.0%). Among 

female former inmates, no differences were found in rates 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization by type of offense 

for which they had been sentenced.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 18

BJS used multivariate logistic regression models 

to determine which inmate characteristics were 

significant predictors of whether the inmate 

would be sexually victimized in prison

Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling 

technique used to determine what characteristics are 

statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous 

outcome (e.g., an inmate is victimized or not victimized) 

while controlling for all the other characteristics in the 

model.

BJS used this technique to determine which 

inmate characteristics were statistically significant 

for predicting sexual victimization. Based on four 

separate models, each representing the type of 

sexual victimization and sex of the former inmate, 

the variations in rates of sexual victimization by 

demographic characteristic, sexual orientation, 

and criminal justice status were found to be largely 

statistically independent of one another. 

Estimates are displayed in terms of the conditional 

marginal probabilities, which represent the probability 

that a former male or female inmate with a particular 

characteristic has experienced a specific sexual 

victimization outcome conditional on the former 

inmate having the mean value for all other predictors 

in the model. For example, based on models with 

demographic and criminal justice status characteristics 

only, a white male former inmate had a 4.0% chance 

of having been sexually victimized by another inmate, 

and a female former inmate had a 12.2% chance 

(conditional on the inmate having the mean value 

on all of the other characteristics in the model). For 

characteristics that are categorical, which is the case for 

every variable in these logistic regression models, the 

mean value is a weighted value of the joint distribution 

of all other characteristics in the respective model. (See 

Methodology for a discussion of logistic regression.)

Rates of sexual victimization increased with the length 

of time that former inmates had served

Rates of sexual victimization by other inmates and staff 

increased with the length of time the former inmate had 

served during the most recent incarceration in jail, prison, 

or post-release community-treatment facility. Among 

males, rates for former inmates who had served 5 years 

or more were at least 3 times higher than for those who 

had served less than a year. Among males who had served 

10 years or longer, 12% reported having been sexually 

victimized by other inmates and 17% by staff. Among 

females who had served 5 to 10 years before their release, 

21% reported having been sexually victimized by other 

inmates and 11% by staff. A quarter of the females who had 

served 10 years or more reported experiencing staff sexual 

misconduct.

Male inmates with no prior incarceration experience 

had a higher rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization (6.6%) compared to those with one or 

more prior incarcerations (3.7%). Rates of staff sexual 

victimization for males and rates for both inmate and 

staff sexual victimization for females did not vary by prior 

incarceration history. 

 Former state prisoners who had served time in 5 or 

more facilities during their most recent confinement 

reported the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct 

Staff sexual misconduct rates varied by the number of 

facilities in which male and female inmates had served 

time during their most recent period of incarceration. 

Approximately 25% of the male former state prisoners and 

10% of the female state prisoners had served time in five or 

more facilities before their release. These inmates reported 

significantly higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (6.7% 

or more among males and 7.7% or more among females) 

than those who had served in three or fewer facilities (4.0% 

or less among males and females). 

These differences are consistent with the practice of 

transferring victims to other facilities in response to 

substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct. In 

2006, based on reports by correctional authorities of all 

substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, nearly 

a third of the victims of staff sexual misconduct were 

transferred to another facility—19% of victims in prisons 

and 48% of victims in jails. (For further details, see Sexual 

Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006, April 

2007, BJS Web, NCJ 218914, table 12.) The increase in 

sexual victimization rates by number of facilities may also 

reflect covariation with total time served, with inmates who 

serve longer sentences being placed in more facilities.

Difference in findings after BJS performed multivariate 

logistic regressions

Among male former prisoners, after controlling for the 

effects of other individual-level factors—

 Inmate-on-inmate victimization was higher for white 

non-Hispanic inmates, persons of two or more races, 

those age 24 or younger, non-heterosexuals, sex 

offenders, and those who served 5 years or more than for 

inmates with other characteristics (table 10).
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 19

Table 10

Multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization, by type of incident, former prisoner demographic 

characteristics, and former prisoner criminal justice status and history

Predicted percent of male former 

prisoners reporting sexual victimization

Predicted percent of female former 

prisoners reporting sexual victimization

Former prisoner characteristic Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct 

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitea 4.0%** 3.4%** 12.2%** 3.2%**

Black/African Americana* 2.0 4.4 15.0 2.2

Hispanic/Latino 2.1 3.2** 11.6** 2.6

Othera,b 3.0 4.9 4.8** 1.7

Two or more racesa 6.0** 8.3** 24.5** 9.3**

Age at admission

Under 18 4.9% 11.0%** 14.1% 5.8%

18–19 3.0 6.2 24.4 6.4

20–24* 3.8 6.1 18.6 4.5

25–34 2.6** 4.0** 14.2 3.6

35–44 2.4** 2.9** 10.4** 2.2**

45 or older 2.1** 1.9** 9.3** 1.3**

Educationc

Less than high schoold* ~ ~ 11.7% ~

High school graduate ~ ~ 12.1 ~

Some college ~ ~ 15.8** ~

College degree or more ~ ~ 15.8 ~

Marital statusc

Married* ~ ~ 11.8% ~

Widowed, divorced, or separated ~ ~ 15.8** ~

Never married ~ ~ 10.6 ~

Weightc,e

1st quartile* ~ 3.3% ~ ~

2nd quartile ~ 3.8 ~ ~

3rd quartile ~ 3.9 ~ ~

4th quartile ~ 4.6** ~ ~

Sexual orientationc

Straight/heterosexual* 2.6% 3.7% ~ ~

Bisexual 28.1** 15.6** ~ ~

Lesbian/gay/homosexual 31.8** 10.4** ~ ~

Prior incarcerations

No prior incarceration* ~ 2.8% 9.5% 1.9%

1 or more prior incarcerations ~ 4.1** 14.0** 3.2**

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 6.8% 4.0% ~ ~

Other violent 2.5** 4.4 ~ ~

Property 3.2** 5.1 ~ ~

Drug 2.1** 3.0 ~ ~

Public order 2.9** 3.0 ~ ~

Other 4.0 5.3 ~ ~

Total time served

Less than 12 months* 1.5% 1.9% 8.9% 1.1%

12–23 2.3 2.8** 13.3** 3.2**

24–35 2.8** 3.3** 13.7** 1.9

36–59 2.0 4.5** 15.8** 5.3**

60–119 4.9** 6.5** 19.2** 10.3**

120 months or longer 9.5** 12.1** 14.4 24.0**

Note: See appendix table 3 for Wald-F statistics for each model.

~Characteristics deleted from model when Wald statistic for each categorical variable was not significant at the 95%-confidence level.

*Comparison group.

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

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

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

cAs reported at time of interview.

dIncludes former prisoners who received a GED while incarcerated.

eWeight quartiles are defined by sex: Men—1st quartile (86 to 170 lbs.), 2nd quartile (171 to 190 lbs.), 3rd quartile (191 to 220 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 220 lbs.). Women—

1st quartile (78 to 145 lbs.), 2nd quartile (146 to 169 lbs.), 3rd quartile (170 to 198 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 198 lbs.).

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 20

Table 11

Prison facilities entered and prison placements, by former 

state prisoners

State prisons entered/

order of placement

Percent of 

former inmatesa Percent of prison placementsb

Total 100% 100%

1 24.4 37.6

2 32.5 28.5

3 21.4 16.2

4 10.0 8.2

5 5.8 4.4

6 or more 6.0 5.0

Number 500,400 1,329,700

Note: Respondents were asked to identify the names of the facilities in which they 

had been placed. Among those who entered a prison, the number of prisons ranged 

from 1 to 15. Facilities were ordered from the first to last by date of entry.

aExcludes an estimated 10,400 former prisoners who served time in local jail only.

bBased on separate records for each state prison entered during the period of 

incarceration. Excludes placements in jails and post-release community treatment 

facilities.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

 Staff sexual misconduct was higher for black nonHispanic inmates, persons of two or more races, those 

age 24 or younger, non-heterosexuals, those with one 

or more prior incarcerations, and those who served 

12 months or more than for inmates with other 

characteristics.

Among female former prisoners, after controlling for the 

effects of other individual-level factors—

 Inmate-on-inmate victimization was higher for inmates 

of two or more races, those age 24 or younger, those 

with some college education, those with one or more 

prior incarcerations, and those who had served a year or 

more but less than 10 years than for inmates with other 

characteristics.

 Staff sexual misconduct was higher for white nonHispanic inmates, inmates of two or more races, 

those age 24 or younger, those with one or more prior 

incarcerations, and those who served 3 years or more 

than for inmates with other characteristics.

 Sexual victimization either by other inmates or by staff 

was unrelated to sexual orientation.

For both male and female former prisoners, the number of 

facilities in which the inmate had served time was no longer 

related to reports of staff sexual misconduct. For male 

former inmates, education levels and marital status were no 

longer correlated with reports of staff sexual victimization. 

Variations by selected facility-level characteristics 

To understand more fully the correlates of sexual 

victimization and circumstances surrounding that 

victimization, BJS included survey questions to identify 

each of the state facilities in which the inmates had served 

time during their most recent period of incarceration and 

asked if the inmates had been sexually victimized (by type 

of victimization) within each facility. (See appendix E for 

specific survey questions.) Data collected in prior BJS 

censuses of state prison facilities (conducted in 1990, 1995, 

2000 and 2005) were linked to these reports to determine 

whether any facility characteristics were associated with 

variations in rates of sexual victimization. Although data on 

local jails and post-release community-treatment facilities 

were also collected, they have been excluded from this 

analysis. (See Methodology for details on linkage of prison 

census data.)

Three-quarters of former inmates had served time in 

more than one prison facility; nearly 1 in 8 had served 

time in 5 or more prison facilities before their release 

During their period of incarceration, inmates typically 

served time in more than one facility. Covering only the 

last continuous period of incarceration, the 18,526 former 

prisoners interviewed in NFPS reported 63,813 separate 

placements. Of these, 16,073 involved jail placements 

(either prior to prison, as an interim stop or as the only 

placement for some). In addition, 2,422 placements were to 

post-release local facilities, and 1,525 were to out-of-state 

facilities. When weighted by the inverse of the probability 

of selection, the eligible prison-only placements represented 

more than 1.3 million separate placements (table 11).

Overall, an estimated 500,400 former prisoners (98%) had 

served time in a prison facility in the state in which they 

were currently under parole or post-custody supervision, 

excluding 10,400 prisoners who had served time only in a 

local jail. Approximately three-quarters of these inmates 

had served time in more than one prison facility; nearly an 

eighth had served time in five or more prison facilities.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 21

Table 12

Sequence of reported sexual victimization in prison, by sex of victim and type of incident

Sequence Total Male* Female Inmate-on-inmate* Staff sexual misconduct

Number victimized in state prisona 38,500 31,900 6,600 18,800 23,800

Victimized in first prison entered 49.0% 43.7% 74.5%** 57.1% 41.8%**

Victimized in first prison and subsequent prison(s) 17.0 17.3 16.0 18.8 14.2

Victimized in subsequent prison(s) only 47.6% 52.7% 22.7%** 37.6% 56.3%**

Unable to place victimization 3.4% 3.6% 2.7% 5.3% 1.9%**

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

*Comparison group.

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

aExcludes former state prisoners victimized in local jails only.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Nearly 44% of male victims and 74% of female victims 

reported that sexual victimization had occurred in the 

first prison facility they had entered 

Based on the self reports of victims in the NFPS, sexual 

victimization frequently occurred in the first facility to 

which the inmates had been admitted. Among victims, 

nearly half (49%) said they were victimized in the first prison 

they had entered (table 12). Female victims (74%) were 

much more likely than male victims (44%) to report having 

been victimized in the first prison entered. This difference 

in victimization may be partially explained by differences 

among males and females in the likelihood of serving time in 

more than one facility. An estimated 78% of males, compared 

to 57% of females, had served time in two or more prison 

facilities before their release; nearly 25% of males, compared 

to 7% of females, had served time in four or more prison 

facilities (not shown in table).

Among victims, sexual victimization by other inmates 

was more likely than sexual victimization by staff to have 

occurred in the first facility the inmates had entered. More 

than half (57%) of the estimated 18,800 prisoners who 

reported sexual victimization by another inmate indicated 

that it occurred in the first prison facility they entered. 

Fewer than half (42%) of the 23,800 victims of staff sexual 

misconduct indicated it occurred in the first facility. 
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 22

Reports of sexual violence did not vary by size of 

facility, facility age, crowding, inmate-to-staff ratios, or 

sex composition of staff

Further analysis of prison placements provided a detailed 

risk profile of facility-level characteristics in conjunction 

with reported sexual victimization. Overall, few measurable 

differences at the 95% level of statistical confidence 

emerged among commonly cited facility risk factors 

(table 13). Sexual victimization rates (defined by type of 

victimization and sex of inmate) did not increase with—

 increased size of the facility (based on the average daily 

population during the 12 months prior to the census 

closest in time to the inmate’s placement)

 increased age of the facility (based on year of original 

construction)

 facility overcrowding (based on the ratio of the number 

of inmates the facility actually held to the official rated 

capacity)

 increased inmate-to-staff ratios in the facility (based 

on the number of inmates held to the total number of 

payroll, non-payroll, and contract staff)

 decreased proportion of female to male staff.

Sexual victimization rates varied by type and primary 

function of the facility and by indicators of facility 

disorder

Among male former state prisoners, inmate-on-inmate 

and staff-on-inmate victimization rates were higher in 

facilities—

 under a court order or consent decree (to limit the 

number of inmates, to address crowding, or in response 

to the totality of conditions at the time of the census) 

than in other facilities

 reporting a major disturbance (involving five or 

more inmates and which resulted in serious injury or 

significant property damage) in the 12 months prior to 

the census than in other facilities

 with medium or greater security levels than in facilities 

with minimum or low security levels

 with a primary function of housing general population 

than in facilities with specialized functions (e.g., 

reception or diagnostic centers, community corrections 

centers, medical treatment, and alcohol or drug 

treatment).

Among female former state prisoners, reports of inmateon-inmate victimization were lower in community 

corrections centers (1.3%) and facilities that permitted 50% 

or more of their inmates to leave unaccompanied during 

the day (1.3%), than in facilities holding general population 

(5.3%) or in general confinement facilities (5.0%). Inmateon-inmate sexual victimization rates were also lower in 

minimum or low security facilities (3.0%) than in medium 

security facilities (5.6%) and lower in privately operated 

facilities (2.0%) than in state facilities (5.0%). 

Reports of staff sexual misconduct among female former 

state prisoners did not vary significantly across facility 

characteristics, except for being lower in minimum or low 

security facilities (1.0%) than in medium security facilities 

(3.0%) and higher in facilities under a court order (6.3%) 

than in other facilities (2.0%). 

Whether a facility was publicly operated or privately 

operated was an inconsistent predictor of victimization. 

While reports by male former state prisoners of staff sexual 

misconduct were higher in privately operated facilities 

(4.6%) than in state facilities (2.5%), reports by female 

former prisoners did not differ statistically between state 

and privately operated facilities. Rates of inmate-on-inmate 

victimization among women, but not among men, were 

lower in privately operated facilities than in state facilities.

When an inmate had been placed in the facility was a 

strong predictor of sexual victimization among male former 

prisoners. As measured by the census year closest to the 

time of placement, male former state inmates were nearly 4 

times more likely to report victimization by another inmate 

and 3 times more likely to report victimization by staff if 

they had entered the facility around the 1990 census than if 

they had entered around the 2005 census. Female inmates 

who entered the prison facility around 1990 were nearly 8 

times more likely to report staff sexual misconduct (12.5%) 

than if they had entered around 2005 (1.6%). However, 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among 

females did not differ by year of placement.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 23

Table 13

Prevalence of sexual victimization during prison placement, by sex of inmate, type of incident, and facility-level characteristics

Percent of male inmates 

reporting sexual victimization 

during placement

Percent of female inmates 

reporting sexual victimization 

during placement

Facility-level characteristica Number of male placementsb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of female 

placementsb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Average daily populationc

860 or less 287,300 1.0% 2.1% 45,100 3.6% 2.1%

861 to 1,350* 287,500 1.5 2.8 22,800 4.9 2.9

1,351 to 2,200 289,000 1.9 2.8 16,700 5.6 2.9

More than 2,200 288,800 1.9 2.5 17,900 6.9 2.2

Type of facility

General population* 825,500 1.9% 3.1% 89,900 5.3% 2.6%

Reception/diagnostic 162,400 0.9** 1.1** 1,100 4.5 6.0

Community corrections center 66,200 0.6** 1.3** 5,700 1.3** 1.2

Returned to custodyd 34,700 0.8 1.2** 900 3.1 4.3

Othere 52,300 0.9** 1.5** 3,900 0.4** 0.3**

Percent of inmates leaving facility during the day

Less than 50%* 1,084,800 1.6% 2.6% 96,600 5.0% 2.5%

50% or more 67,700 0.6** 1.2** 5,900 1.3** 1.0

Security levelf

Maximum/close/high 394,800 2.1% 3.0% 39,300 5.2% 2.8%

Medium* 488,900 1.6 2.7 38,100 5.6 3.0

Minimum/low 268,800 0.7** 1.7** 25,000 3.0** 1.0**

Who operates facility

State* 1,087,400 1.6% 2.5% 96,400 5.0% 2.5%

Private 50,800 0.8 4.6** 5,900 2.0** 1.1

Otherg 14,300 1.4 1.3** : : :

Year builth

Before 1951 277,500 1.8% 2.4% 22,800 4.7% 3.4%

1951–1985* 325,200 1.6 2.7 29,200 3.8 2.7

1986–1990 187,300 1.6 3.0 14,100 5.5 2.4

1991 or after 339,600 1.4 2.4 34,400 5.6 1.6

Facility over capacityi

No* 706,700 1.6% 2.8% 65,100 4.4% 2.4%

Yes 444,200 1.5 2.1 37,400 5.5 2.4

Inmate-to-staff ratioj

Less than 4.0 306,300 1.4% 2.5% 32,000 4.3% 3.3%

4.0–4.9* 200,900 2.0 2.9 19,500 3.9 1.6

5.0–5.9 216,700 1.8 3.3 14,900 5.5 2.3

6.0 or more 279,600 1.6 2.5 18,300 4.2 2.1

Under a court orderk

No* 1,001,500 1.4% 2.2% 92,600 4.6% 2.0%

Yes 138,800 3.0** 4.9** 9,800 6.7 6.3**

Major disturbance in census yearl

No* 941,800 1.4% 2.4% 90,400 4.5% 2.5%

Yes 171,600 2.4** 3.9** 5,800 8.0 3.2

Percent female staffm

Low 328,000 1.6% 2.1% 18,900 3.8% 3.7%

Medium* 239,800 1.6 2.8 21,900 4.5 1.9

High 261,900 1.7 2.7 20,700 5.1 2.1

Highest 173,800 1.9 4.2 23,300 4.2 2.3

Census year closest to time of placementn

1990 47,600 4.2%** 6.8%** 2,200 4.2% 12.5%**

1995 85,700 2.2** 4.5** 4,700 5.0 6.7**

2000 257,100 2.4** 3.4** 14,600 5.6 4.3**

2005* 762,100 1.0 1.8 80,900 4.6 1.6

Continued on next page
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 24

Placement order of facilityo

1st* 413,400 1.5% 1.9% 55,200 5.5% 2.6%

2nd 325,700 1.9 2.6** 30,400 4.8 1.9

3rd or higher 413,400 1.4 3.2** 16,900 2.4** 2.8

Note: Based on a separate record for each prison placement for the 18,256 former prison inmates interviewed nationwide. Facility-level data from BJS prison censuses 

(conducted in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005) were merged with each placement record based on the census year closest to the prison placement. After weighting, the number of 

placements with valid data totaled 1,254,998. (See Methodology for further description.)

:Not calculated.

*Comparison group.

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

aCharacteristic of the facility is based on the prison census year closest to the time of placement.

bDetail may not sum to total because of missing data on facility characteristics in each census year.

cBased on the number of inmates for each day during the 12 months prior to the census divided by 365.

dIncludes facilities whose primary function is to house persons returned to custody (e.g., parole violators).

eIncludes facilities whose primary function is boot camp, medical treatment/hospitalization confinement, mental health/psychiatric confinement, alcohol/drug treatment 

confinement, housing youthful offenders, and geriatric care.

f

The physical security level that best describes the facility.

gIncludes facilities under joint state and local authority.

hBased on year of original construction. If more than one building, based on the oldest building used to house inmates.

i

Based on the ratio of the number of inmates housed on the day of census to the rated capacity.

j

Based on the ratio of the inmate population on the day of census divided by the number of payroll and non-payroll, full-time, part-time, and contract staff, excluding volunteers.

kIncludes state or federal court order or consent decree to limit the number of inmates, crowding, and totality of conditions at time of the census.

l

Represents facilities that reported one or more major disturbances in the 12 months prior to the census. Major disturbances are incidents involving five or more inmates which 

result in serious injury or significant property damage.

mCategories are specific to sex: For males, low is less than 15%, medium is 15% to 21%, high is 22% to 34%, and highest is 35% or more. For females, low is less than 35%, 

medium is 35% to 49%, high is 50% to 69%, and highest is 70% or more.

nPrison census year closest to the time of placement.

oPlacement order of the facility during the period of incarceration: 1st placement, 2nd placement, and 3rd placement or higher.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Table 13 (continued)

Prevalence of sexual victimization during prison placement, by sex of inmate, type of incident, and facility-level characteristics

Percent of male inmates 

reporting sexual victimization 

during placement

Percent of female inmates 

reporting sexual victimization 

during placement

Facility-level characteristica Number of male 

placementsb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of female 

placementsb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 25

Table 14

Prevalence of sexual victimization, comparing results from 

the National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008, and National 

Inmate Survey, 2008–09

Sex of inmate and type 

of incident

Percent of inmates reporting 

sexual victimization

Among all prison 

placementsa Among all inmates at time of surveyb

Total 4.0% 4.8%

Male inmates

Inmate-on-inmate 1.6 2.0

Staff sexual misconduct 2.6 3.2

Female inmates

Inmate-on-inmate 4.8 5.1

Staff sexual misconduct 2.4 2.3 aBased on the experience reported by former state prisoners during each prison 

placement while incarcerated in NFPS.

bBased on the experience reported by state prisoners in the last 12 months, or since 

admission to the facility, if shorter in NIS-2.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008, and National Inmate Survey, 

2008–09.

Prison placements and individual-level risk factors

While individual-level factors related to sexual 

victimization have been examined by type of victimization 

and sex of inmate for the entire period of incarceration, 

they may also be examined for each prison placement. 

Such a placement-based examination takes into account 

the risk of victimization related to individual-level factors, 

regardless of the duration of time served during a specific 

prison placement, and permits analysis of the independent 

contribution of individual-level and facility-level factors. 

Unlike the earlier analysis based on individuals (510,800 

former inmates nationwide), the placement analysis is 

based on prison placements (more than 1.25 million prison 

placements). Individuals are represented multiple times, 

based on their number of separate prison placements (up to 

a maximum of 15 times per inmate). 

An incident of sexual victimization was reported in 

4.0% of prison placements

Among the estimated 1.15 million placements of male 

inmates, 1.6% involved inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization and 2.6% involved staff-on-inmate 

victimization (table 14). Among the estimated 102,500 

placements of female inmates, 4.8% involved sexual 

victimization by another inmate and 2.4% involved sexual 

victimization by staff. Overall, in 4.0% of the more than 

1.25 million prison placements, former prisoners reported 

at least one experience of sexual victimization by another 

inmate or facility staff.

These rates of victimization among all prison placements 

are similar to those reported by inmates in NIS-2 based 

on the current facility (during the last 12 months or 

since admission, if shorter). Based on the NIS-2, 2.0% 

of currently confined male inmates reported sexual 

victimization by another inmate and 3.2% by staff; 5.1% 

of currently confined female inmates reported sexual 

victimization by another inmate and 2.3% by staff. 

Patterns of sexual victimization based on prison placements 

also resembled those observed for individuals based on 

their entire period of incarceration in NFPS, except that 

the rates were somewhat lower across categories defined by 

demographic and criminal justice characteristics:

 Large differences in sexual victimization during prison 

placement were found among inmates based on their 

sexual orientation (table 15).

 Among male former inmates, reports of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization during prison placement 

varied by race and Hispanic origin. Reports were higher 

among white non-Hispanic inmates (2.4%) and multiracial inmates (4.0%) than among black non-Hispanic 

inmates (0.9%). 

 Among male inmates, violent sex offenders reported 

higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

(5.9%) than other violent offenders (1.4%), property 

offenders (1.7%), public-order offenders (1.0%), and 

drug offenders (0.8%).

 Among male former inmates, those with a prior 

incarceration (1.4%) were less likely to be victims of 

other inmates than those with no prior incarceration 

(2.5%).

 Among female former inmates, rates of inmate-oninmate victimization during prison placement did not 

significantly vary across demographic characteristics, 

except among inmates of two or more races.

 Among placements of male former prisoners, reports 

of staff sexual misconduct were higher among black 

non-Hispanic inmates (3.3%) than among white nonHispanic inmates (2.0%) and Hispanic inmates (1.7%). 

The rates were also higher among younger male inmates 

(under age 25) than among older male inmates (age 35 

or older). 

 Among placements of female former prisoners, rates of 

staff sexual misconduct were significantly lower among 

those ages 35 to 44 (1.5%) and age 45 or older (1.1%), 

compared to those ages 20 to 24 (4.0%). 

 The only other statistically significant difference among 

placements of female former inmates was that 8.1% of 

multi-racial inmates reported staff sexual misconduct, 

compared to 2.4% or lower among inmates who were 

white, black, or Hispanic.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 26

Table 15

Prevalence of sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident and former prisoner 

characteristics

Former prisoner characteristic

Number of male 

placements

Percent of male inmates 

reporting sexual victimization 

during placement

Number of female 

placements

Percent of female inmates 

reporting sexual victimization 

during placement

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitea 433,700 2.4%** 2.0%** 48,700 4.9% 2.4%

Black/African Americana* 449,900 0.9 3.3 30,400 3.5 2.3

Hispanic/Latino 203,200 0.8 1.7** 17,400 5.9 2.1

Othera,b 31,900 1.2 2.3 2,900 2.1 1.1

Two or more racesa 31,300 4.0** 5.1 2,800 12.0** 8.1**

Age at admission

Under 18 39,900 2.0% 5.7% 1,700 5.9% 4.1%

18–19 84,200 1.4 3.5 2,700 6.8 6.5

20–24* 253,600 1.8 3.6 14,300 6.0 4.0

25–34 374,300 1.6 2.6 34,900 4.9 2.8

35–44 258,600 1.3 1.7** 34,000 4.5 1.5**

45 or older 128,900 1.4 0.8** 14,300 3.8 1.1**

Educationc

Less than high schoold* 693,300 1.5% 2.4% 55,200 4.7% 2.3%

High school graduate 210,500 1.3 1.8 18,200 4.1 1.3

Some college 209,000 2.1 3.8** 23,800 5.3 2.9

College degree or more 37,600 1.9 2.1 5,100 6.2 5.7

Marital statusc

Married* 237,900 2.0% 3.1% 18,400 4.4% 2.1%

Widowed, divorced, or separated 325,600 1.4 2.2 41,100 5.9 2.4

Never married 584,900 1.5 2.5 43,000 3.9 2.6

Weightc,e

1st quartile* 303,300 1.7% 2.2% 28,000 5.8% 3.1%

2nd quartile 279,100 1.7 2.4 22,300 3.6 1.9

3rd quartile 309,800 1.4 2.6 26,100 5.1 2.8

4th quartile 259,100 1.4 3.0 24,600 4.4 1.6

Sexual orientationc

Straight/heterosexual* 1,118,200 1.2% 2.5% 84,200 4.3% 2.0%

Bisexual 13,100 18.1** 9.2** 11,900 7.8 4.2**

Lesbian/gay/homosexual 9,600 19.3** 5.6** 5,700 5.4 5.5**

Prior incarcerations

No prior incarceration* 211,400 2.5% 2.5% 25,200 3.3% 2.4%

1 or more prior incarcerations 941,100 1.4** 2.6 77,300 5.3 2.4

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 78,300 5.9% 2.9% 900 6.2% 5.3%

Violent 385,200 1.4** 3.8 22,300 3.7 3.7

Property 259,600 1.7** 2.5 34,300 6.0 2.3

Drug 297,300 0.8** 1.5 35,000 4.4 2.0

Public order 112,500 1.0** 0.9** 8,000 4.0 1.6

Other 3,200 1.7 3.3 300 2.0 0.0

Total time served

Less than 12 months* 129,000 0.9% 1.2% 22,200 3.6% 0.8%

12–23 233,700 0.9 1.1 30,000 4.6 1.6

24–35 177,100 1.4 1.8 16,900 4.5 1.2

36–59 215,000 0.8 2.0 17,500 6.0 2.9**

60–119 226,800 1.9** 2.9** 11,700 6.2 5.4**

120 months or longer 170,500 3.5** 6.6** 4,200 5.6 11.8**

*Comparison group.

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

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

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

cAs reported at time of interview.

dIncludes former prisoners who received a GED while incarcerated.

eWeight quartiles are defined by sex: Men—1st quartile (86 to 170 lbs.), 2nd quartile (171 to 190 lbs.), 3rd quartile (191 to 220 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 220 lbs.). Women—1st quartile (78 to 145 

lbs.), 2nd quartile (146 to 169 lbs.), 3rd quartile (170 to 198 lbs.), 4th quartile (more than 198 lbs.).

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 27

Independent contributions of individual-level and 

facility-level factors to victimization

Variations in rates of sexual victimization among groups of 

inmates based on the characteristics of facilities in which 

they were placed overlap somewhat with variations based 

on individual risk factors. Multivariate regression models 

were developed to incorporate selected individual-level 

and facility-level factors. Models for each type of sexual 

victimization were developed separately for male and 

female former prisoners based on prison placements 

(table 16). 

In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional 

probabilities represent the probability that a former inmate 

during a prison placement with a particular individual or 

facility characteristic experienced sexual victimization, 

conditional on the inmate having the mean value for all 

other predictors in the model. For example, based on the 

final multivariate model, a male former state prisoner who 

served time for a violent sex offense had a 2.2% chance of 

having been sexually victimized by another inmate during a 

prison placement, given that he was at the mean of the joint 

distribution of other individual characteristics (i.e., race or 

Hispanic origin, marital status, sexual orientation, and time 

served) and facility characteristics (i.e., type, security level, 

census year closest to placement, and placement order).

Variations in sexual victimization rates were strongly 

related to sexual orientation after controlling for other 

factors

An inmate’s sexual orientation remained an important 

correlate of victimization, except for staff sexual 

misconduct reported by females. Male inmates who 

identified themselves as bisexual were at least 13 times 

more likely to report being sexually victimized by another 

inmate and 4 times more likely to report being sexually 

victimized by staff than male inmates who identified 

themselves as straight or heterosexual. 

After controlling for other factors, an inmate’s race or 

Hispanic origin remained an important predicator of 

sexual victimization. Based on the multivariate placement 

models for male former inmates—

 White non-Hispanic inmates (1.4%) and inmates of 

two or more races (2.0%) had higher rates of inmateon-inmate victimization than black non-Hispanic and 

Hispanic inmates (each 0.6%).

 Black non-Hispanic inmates (2.0%) had higher rates of 

staff-on-inmate victimization than white non-Hispanic 

(1.4%) and Hispanic inmates (1.2%).

Based on the multivariate placement models for female 

former inmates—

 Inmate-on-inmate victimization rates were lower for 

black non-Hispanic inmates (2.8%) than for white nonHispanic inmates (3.9%), Hispanic inmates (4.6%) and 

inmates of two or more races (8.7%)

 Staff-on-inmate victimization rates were higher for 

inmates of two or more races (6.1%) than for white 

non-Hispanic (1.7%), black non-Hispanic (1.1%) and 

Hispanic inmates (1.1%).

Facitily-level factors remained significant after 

controlling for inmate characteristics 

 Among male former inmates, inmate-on-inmate and 

staff-on-inmate victimization rates were lower in 

reception or diagnostic centers than in facilities that 

housed general population. For inmate-on-inmate 

victimizations, rates were lower in minimum security 

facilities than in facilities with higher security levels. 

 Among female former inmates, the inmate-on-inmate 

victimization rate was lower in facilities that permitted 

50% or more of their inmates to leave unaccompanied 

during the day (than in other confinement facilities), 

lower in medium security facilities (than in facilities 

with maximum, close, or high security levels), higher in 

facilities that had been built before 1951 or after 1985 

(than in facilities built between 1951 and 1985), and 

higher in facilities that had a major disturbance in the 

census year (than in those that did not).

 Among female former inmates, few facility-level factors 

were linked to staff sexual misconduct. Rates were lower 

in minimum or low security facilities than in medium 

security facilities, and lower in facilities built between 

1951 and 1985 than in facilities built before 1951.

The final regression models confirm that the best predictor 

of staff sexual misconduct among female former inmates 

was length of time served, with the rate of staff sexual 

misconduct during prison placements generally increasing 

with total time served. 
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 28

Continued on next page

Table 16

Final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident 

and former prisoner and facility characteristics

Former prisoner/facility characteristic

Predicted percent of male placements 

in which sexual victimization was reported

Predicted percent of female placements 

in which sexual victimization was reported

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitea 1.4%** 1.4%** 3.9%** 1.7%

Black/African Americana* 0.6 2.0 2.8 1.1

Hispanic 0.6 1.2** 4.6** 1.1

Othera,b 0.6 1.6 1.8 0.8

Two or more racesa 2.0** 3.3 8.7** 6.1**

Age at admission

Under 18 ~ 3.1% ~ 1.4%

18–19 ~ 2.3 ~ 3.4

20–24* ~ 2.5 ~ 2.2

25–34 ~ 1.7** ~ 1.8

35–44 ~ 1.3** ~ 1.0

45 or older ~ 0.6** ~ 0.8

Educationc

Less than high schoold* ~ 1.5% ~ ~

High school graduate ~ 1.4 ~ ~

Some college ~ 2.6** ~ ~

College degree or more ~ 1.4 ~ ~

Marital statusc

Married* 1.1% ~ 3.5% ~

Widowed, divorced, or separated 0.6** ~ 4.4 ~

Never married 0.9 ~ 3.0 ~

Sexual orientationc

Straight/heterosexual* 0.8% 1.6% 3.4% ~

Bisexual 10.6** 7.2** 5.6** ~

Gay/homosexual 9.6** 3.8 4.0 ~

Prior incarcerations

No prior incarceration* ~ 1.2% 2.5% ~

1 or more prior incarcerations ~ 1.7** 4.1** ~

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 2.2% 1.7% ~ ~

Other violent 0.7** 1.8 ~ ~

Property 1.1** 1.9 ~ ~

Drug 0.8** 1.3 ~ ~

Public order 0.8** 1.2 ~ ~

Other 0.9 2.6 ~ ~

Total time served

Less than 12 months* 0.7% 1.1% 2.1% 0.6%

12–23 0.7 1.0 3.3 1.4**

24–35 0.9 1.6 3.5 1.0

36–59 0.5 1.6 5.2** 2.2**

60–119 1.0 2.0** 6.1** 3.4**

120 months or longer 1.9** 3.6** 7.1 6.1**

Type of facility

General population* 1.0% 2.0% 4.0% ~

Reception/diagnostic 0.4** 0.8** 2.7 ~

Community corrections center 0.6 0.8** 3.9 ~

Returned to custodye 0.8 1.6 2.0 ~

Otherf 0.7 1.2 0.4** ~
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 29

Table 16 (continued)

Final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident 

and former prisoner and facility characteristics

Former prisoner/facility characteristic

Predicted percent of male placements 

in which sexual victimization was reported

Predicted percent of female placements 

in which sexual victimization was reported

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Percent of inmates leaving the facility 

during the dayg

Less than 50%* ~ ~ 3.8% ~

50% or more ~ ~ 1.7** ~

Security levelh

Maximum/close/high 1.1% ~ 4.6%** 1.6%

Medium* 0.9 ~ 3.1 2.0

Minimum 0.5** ~ 3.2 0.6**

Who operates facility

State* ~ 1.6% ~ ~

Private ~ 3.2** ~ ~

Other ~ 1.4 ~ ~

Year builti

Before 1951 ~ 1.5%** 4.4%** 2.2%**

1951–1985* ~ 1.8 2.6 1.1

1986–1990 ~ 2.0 3.4** 1.6

1991 or after ~ 1.5** 4.4** 1.1

Inmate-to-staff ratioj

Less than 4.0 ~ ~ 3.1% ~

4.0–4.9* ~ ~ 2.7 ~

5.0–5.9 ~ ~ 3.7 ~

6.0 or more ~ ~ 3.4 ~

Under court orderk

No* ~ 1.6% ~ ~

Yes ~ 1.9 ~ ~

Major disturbance in census yearl

No* ~ ~ 3.4% ~

Yes ~ ~ 7.6** ~

Percent female staffm

0% to less than 15% ~ 1.2%** ~ ~

15% to less than 22%* ~ 1.6 ~ ~

22% to less than 35% ~ 1.7 ~ ~

35% or more ~ 3.1** ~ ~

Census year closest to time of placementn

1990 1.3% ~ ~ ~

1995 0.8 ~ ~ ~

2000 1.2** ~ ~ ~

2005* 0.7 ~ ~ ~

Placement order of facilityo

1st* 0.8% ~ 3.9% ~

2nd 1.1** ~ 4.2 ~

3rd or higher 0.7 ~ 2.1** ~

Note: See appendix table 4 for Wald-F statistics for each model. See table 15 for footnotes a–d. For the remaining footnotes describing facility characteristics, see table 13.

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

*Comparison group.

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

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 30

Reporting of sexual victimization 

In addition to identifying key individual-level and facilitylevel risk factors associated with variations in sexual 

victimization rates, the former inmate survey provided 

data on the responses of victims and the impact on victims 

while they were still in prison and after their release from 

prison. The survey included questions about reporting 

victimization to facility staff and persons other than facility 

staff, reasons for not reporting and what happened if they 

did report to facility staff, and the continued impact on the 

victims following their release from prison.

Two-thirds of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization said they reported at least one incident 

to facility staff or someone else

Detailed data suggest that victims of inmate-on-inmate 

victimization were most likely to have reported at least one 

incident to another inmate (49%), followed by having reported 

to a family member or friend outside the facility (28%) and to 

correctional officers (24%). Few victims (1.4%) had reported 

their experience on a telephone hotline (table 17). 

An estimated 37% of victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization reported at least one incident to facility 

staff—58% of those injured, compared to 29% of those not 

injured (not shown in table). Reporting to medical and 

healthcare staff was even less common (14% of the victims 

said they reported an incident to medical personnel). 

Among those physically injured by another inmate, a third 

(33%) said they reported to medical staff (not shown in 

table).

22% of unwilling victims of sexual activity with staff, 

compared to 3% of “willing” victims, said they had 

reported an incident to facility staff or someone else

“Willing” sexual activity with staff was rarely reported 

to any facility staff (2%) or to other persons (2%). When 

sexual activity with staff was reported, it was typically 

unwilling and divided nearly equally between reporting to 

staff (21%) and someone other than staff (20%). 

Table 17

Reporting of sexual victimization, by type of incident and persons to whom the incident was reported

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Totala Nonconsensual sexual acts Total

Willing 

activityb Unwilling activityb

Number of victims 27,300 18,700 27,100 23,300 6,300

Percent of victims reporting at least one incident of sexual victimization 65.9% 66.6% 6.8% 3.3% 22.1%

Percent reporting to any facility staffc 37.4% 38.2% 5.8% 2.5% 20.7%

Correctional officer 24.0 24.2 2.7 0.9 10.1

Administrative staff 16.5 16.2 4.8 1.8 18.0

Medical/healthcare staff 13.5 15.1 2.1 0.9 7.5

Instructor/teacher 4.3 5.3 1.4 0.6 5.1

Counselor/case manager 12.1 12.8 2.9 1.2 10.4

Chaplain/other religious leader 8.0 9.4 1.4 0.6 5.1

Volunteer 4.0 3.3 1.3 0.3 4.7

Someone else at the facilityd 13.5 13.7 3.1 1.2 11.3

Percent reporting to someone other than facility staffc 60.0% 60.6% 5.2% 2.1% 19.7%

Telephone hotline 1.4 1.6 0.5 0.2 2.3

Another inmate 49.0 48.2 3.6 1.3 14.6

Family/friend outside the facility 28.1 28.8 4.5 1.4 17.3

Someone else outside the facility 14.6 17.3 ~ ~ ~

Note: See appendix table 5 for estimated standard errors.

~Category not included in the survey.

aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.

bIncludes touching only.

cDetail may not sum to total because victim may have reported to more than one person inside or outside the facility.

dCategory not included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of merged data files.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 31

Most common reasons for not reporting sexual 

victimization by other inmates linked to embarrassment, 

shame, and not wanting others to know

Victims who never reported their experience of sexual 

victimization to anyone at the facility were asked their 

reasons for not reporting. The most common reason for 

victims not reporting sexual victimization by another 

inmate was that they “didn’t want anyone else to know 

about it” (70%), followed by feeling “embarrassed or 

ashamed that it happened” (68%) (table 18). The most 

common reasons for not reporting staff sexual misconduct 

were that they “had the sex or sexual contact willingly” 

(80%) and they “didn’t want the staff person to get in 

trouble” (71%). Almost 40% of victims of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct 

said they were afraid of being punished by staff. Nearly a 

quarter of inmates victimized by another inmate or by staff 

said they were afraid of being charged with making a false 

report.

37% of victims who reported being victimized by other 

inmates said facility staff did not respond

Among victims who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization to authorities—

 34% were moved to administrative segregation or 

protective housing, 24% were confined to their cell, 14% 

were assigned a higher level of custody, and 11% were 

placed in a medical unit or hospital.

 18% were offered a transfer to another facility.

 More than a quarter (29%) said they were written up; 

and 28% said they spoke to an investigator (table 19).

Though few in number, 86% of the victims who reported 

staff sexual misconduct to authorities said the facility 

responded: more than half (54%) of the victims spoke to 

an investigator, and nearly half (46%) said that they were 

“written up” for the incident. More than 40% said they were 

moved to administrative segregation or protective housing.

Table 18

Reasons for not reporting sexual victimization to facility 

staff, by type of victimization

Reason for not reporting

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of victims not reporting 

victimization to staff* 16,870 25,200

Afraid/scared of perpetrator 51.6% ~%

Afraid of being punished by staff 40.7 38.3

Afraid of being charged with making 

 a false report 24.9 25.4

Didn’t want anyone to know 70.1 ~

Embarassed/ashamed 68.5 14.6

Thought staff would not investigate 43.3 21.9

Thought perpetrator would not be 

 punished 40.6 ~

Didn’t want staff to get in trouble ~ 70.5

Had sex or sexual contact willingly ~ 79.8

~Not asked of victims.

*Represents the item with largest number of valid responses.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Table 19

Facility responses to the reporting of sexual victimization 

to staff, by type of incident

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of victims reporting to 

 facility staff 10,200 1,600

Facility response to reported sexual 

 victimizationa 63.0% 85.5%

Moved victim to administrative 

 segregation/protective housing 34.3 41.2

Placed victim in medical unit/ward/

 hospital 10.9 12.2

Confined victim to cell 24.3 35.2

Assigned victim to higher level of

 custody to victim 14.3 26.6

Offered victim a transfer 17.6 39.1

Victim written up 28.5 46.3

Victim spoke to investigatorb 28.3 53.9

Perpetrator punished/segregated 28.6 ~

No facility response reported by victim 37.0% 14.5%

Note: An additional 200 victims of inmate-on-inmate victimization reported that 

someone else reported his/her victimization to staff. See appendix table 6 for 

estimated standard errors.

~Not asked of victims of staff sexual misconduct.

aDetail may not sum to total because multiple responses were allowed for this item.

bCategory not included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed 

discussion of merged data files.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 32

Post-release responses to victimization

Following their release from prison, victims of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization—

 had feelings of shame or humiliation (72%) and guilt 

(56%) (table 20)

 discussed their victimization with intimate partners 

(27%) or friends (26%)

 saw a therapist or counselor (15%), participated in a 

self-help group for emotional or mental health problems 

(14%), or enrolled in a treatment program other than 

counseling (8%).

Victims of staff sexual misconduct that involved unwilling 

activity reported many similar feelings or thoughts about 

their victimization following their release from prison:

 79% said they felt shame or humiliation.

 72% said they felt guilt.

 54% reported having difficulty feeling close to friends or 

family members.

Although the vast majority of victims (86%) of staff sexual 

misconduct said they had at least one incident that they 

considered “willing,” more than a quarter (27%) said they 

felt guilt and 23% said they felt shame or humiliation after 

their release from prison.

Table 20

Post-release responses of victims to sexual victimization, by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

All victims Totala Nonconsensual sexual acts Total

Willing 

activityb Unwilling activityb

Number of victimsc,d 47,000 26,200 18,000 26,100 22,500 5,900

Discussed victimization with at least one individuald 51.4% 43.7% 44.6% 56.8% 60.1% 35.9%

Husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other partner 30.9 26.9 27.0 33.7 35.0 25.8

Children 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.4 3.5

Parents 14.7 13.0 10.7 15.6 15.5 12.9

Other family member 26.3 15.5 14.8 34.9 38.2 16.1

Friends 38.4 26.0 26.7 47.8 52.4 20.2

Minister or other religious leader 5.6 7.7 7.7 3.4 2.7 9.4

Therapist or treatment professional 11.7 16.1 17.3 7.1 6.6 12.9

Parole officer 3.5 4.9 5.9 2.0 1.4 4.1

Another inmate 29.6 22.7 22.4 34.5 37.0 17.0

Had feelings or thoughts about victimizationd

Guilt 40.5% 55.7% 67.2% 31.3% 26.9% 72.2%

Shame or humiliation 47.9 71.9 79.8 29.6 22.6 79.1

Revenge against someone victim was angry with 15.3 23.2 24.9 9.5 6.8 27.6

Difficulty feeling close to friends/family members 24.9 37.0 44.7 17.9 13.1 54.1

Participated in treatment to deal with victimizationd 13.3% 20.5% 23.5% 7.8% 6.6% 16.6%

Saw therapist or counselor 9.7 15.4 17.3 5.8 5.1 12.1

Participated in self-help group for emotional/mental health 

problems 9.6 14.5 16.2 6.1 4.9 14.2

Enrolled in treatment program (other than counseling) for 

emotional/mental health problems 5.4 8.5 10.5 3.4 2.7 7.4

Took medication to treat emotional/mental health problems 6.9 10.5 12.2 4.1 2.7 12.3

Hospitalized for emotional/mental health problems 2.7 4.1 4.9 1.4 1.2 3.0

Note: See appendix table 7 for estimated standard errors.

aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.

bIncludes touching only.

cDetail may not sum to total because respondents may report more than one type of victimization.

dInterviews conducted in the pretest were excluded due to changes in the questionnaire design. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of merged data files.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 33

HIV testing and results

The former inmate survey also provided self-report data on 

HIV testing and outcomes for victims of inmate-on-inmate 

and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.

 Among former inmates tested for HIV, a significantly 

higher percentage of those who had been sexually 

victimized by other inmates (6.5%) or by staff (4.6%) 

were HIV-positive, compared to those who had not been 

victimized (2.6%) (table 21).

 Among all victims tested for HIV, 5.1% of males and 

3.9% of females were HIV-positive (not shown in table). 

 Among all victims tested for HIV, 15.5% of nonheterosexual inmates were HIV-positive, compared to 

3.8% of heterosexual victims (not shown in table). 

Although the rates of HIV infection are high among former 

prisoners, when these inmates contracted HIV is unknown. 

Inmates were not asked if they became HIV-positive while 

incarcerated. 

Through the National Prisoner Statistics program, BJS has 

collected data on the number of inmates HIV-positive and 

the number with confirmed acquired immune deficiency 

syndrome (AIDS) since 1991. At yearend 2008, 20,499 

inmates in state prisons (or 1.6% of all inmates in custody) 

were known to be HIV-positive or had confirmed AIDS. 

(See HIV in Prisons, 2007-08, NCJ 228307, BJS Web, 

December 2009.) Data are not available on the percentage 

of inmates who were HIV-positive when they were 

admitted to prison.

Table 21

HIV testing and results for former state prisoners, by type of victim

All former state prisoners Nonvictims Inmate-on-inmate victims Staff-on-inmate victims

Number 510,800 461,800 27,300 27,100

Tested for HIV

Percent 89.9% 89.5% 93.0% 95.0%

Standard error 0.39% 0.43% 0.92% 0.89%

Tested positive for HIV

Percent 2.8% 2.6% 6.5% 4.6%

Standard error 0.16% 0.16% 0.93% 0.88%

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 34

Current employment, housing, and living 

arrangements of former inmates

Following their release from prison, victims and 

nonvictims did not differ in their employment and 

housing arrangements, but victims were more likely 

than nonvictims to be living alone 

The NFPS asked former prisoners about their current 

employment status, housing, and living arrangements while 

on post-release supervision. Except for a slightly higher 

percent of victims living alone (18%) than nonvictims 

(14%), few differences were reported in their current 

employment status or housing arrangements:

 Two-thirds of both victims and nonvictims were 

employed; at least half of each group were employed 

full-time.

 A quarter of victims and nonvictims were looking for 

work.

 More than 90% of victims and nonvictims were 

currently living in a house, apartment, trailer or mobile 

home.

 An estimated 2% of victims and nonvictims said they 

were in a shelter, homeless, or on the street (table 22).

Table 22

Current employment, housing, and living arrangements of former inmates under active parole supervision, by victimization 

status

All Victims Nonvictims*

Number under supervisona 510,800 49,000 461,800

Current employment status

Employedb 64.4% 63.6% 64.5%

Full-time 52.1 52.9 52.0

Part-time 8.8 7.2 8.9

Occasional 3.5 3.4 3.5

Not employedb 35.6% 36.4% 35.5%

Looking for work 24.5 22.9 24.7

Not looking 11.0 13.2 10.7

Current housing 

In house, apartment, trailer, or mobile home 92.1% 92.1% 92.1%

In rooming house, hotel, or motel 3.6 3.4 3.7

In hospital/treatment center 0.9 0.6 0.9

In a shelter/homeless 2.0 2.0 2.0

Other 1.4 1.9 1.4

Current living arrangements

Alone 14.9% 18.0%** 14.5%

With othersc 85.1% 82.0%** 85.5%

Spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend 41.7 45.0** 41.3

Children 27.6 25.8 27.8

Parents 25.2 20.3** 25.7

Other family members 22.5 16.8** 23.1

Friends 11.3 10.5 11.4

*Comparison group.

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

aNumber of victims and nonvictims were rounded to the nearest 100.

bDetail may not sum to total because of missing data.

cDetail sums to more than total because the former inmates may be living with more than one person.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 35

Methodology

The National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS) was 

conducted between January 2008 and October 2008. The 

data were collected by the NORC at the University of 

Chicago under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics. A total of 317 total parole offices in 40 

states were included in the survey sample. Within each of 

the sampled offices, respondents were selected at random 

from rosters of eligible former prisoners. A total of 17,738 

former state prisoners under active supervision participated 

in the survey. An additional 788 former prisoners were 

included from survey test offices. These former inmates had 

been randomly selected from 16 sampled offices. Based on 

18,526 completed interviews, the survey achieved a 61% 

response rate.

The interviews, which averaged 23 minutes in length, were 

conducted using computer-assisted personal interviewing 

(CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing 

(ACASI) data collection methods. Survey interviewers 

initiated the personal interview using CAPI to obtain 

demographic and criminal history information. For the 

remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with 

a computer-administered questionnaire using a touchscreen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via 

headphones. Respondents completed the survey in private 

at the parole office (or satellite office), with the interviewer 

in the room but unable to see the computer screen.

The interviews were completed in 13 rounds of data 

collection. The survey was typically scheduled for 2 weeks 

at each parole office. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks before 

each round of interviews, sampled respondents were 

contacted by mail. The respondents were introduced to 

the survey, provided an approximate data collection date, 

informed of the nature of the survey, and given a toll-free 

number to set up an appointment. Two weeks prior to 

the interview period, NORC appointment setters called 

respondents to set up interview appointments with those 

respondents who had not used the toll-free number. 

Before the interview, respondents were informed verbally 

and in writing that participation was voluntary and that 

all information provided would be held in confidence. 

They were also informed that if they agreed to participate, 

they would receive $50 as a token of appreciation for 

participation in the survey. A second automated consent 

protocol was administered at the beginning of the ACASI 

portion of the interview to confirm that the respondent had 

been properly informed that participation in the survey was 

voluntary and that they were “ready to continue with the 

interview.”

Interviews were conducted in either English (99.4%) or 

Spanish (0.6%). Twenty interviews (0.1%) were lost because 

the sample parolee could not speak English or Spanish.

Sample design 

The NFPS used a multistage stratified sample design with 

probabilities of selection proportionate-to-size (PPS). The 

sampling frame was developed based on the 2006 Census 

of State Parole Supervising Agencies, conducted by the U.S. 

Census Bureau on behalf of BJS. The original sampling frame 

consisted of two subframes: a field office group (FOG) level 

frame of 800 field office groups and a district level frame of 

101 districts. Each of these subframes was sampled separately 

to produce the sampled offices. A two-stage stratified sample 

design was used for selection from the office subframe, while a 

three-stage design was used for the district subframe. 

Sampling from the field office subframe

Prior to selection of offices, the field office sampling frame 

was modified:

 40 offices were considered ineligible and deleted, 

including administrative offices not actively supervising 

parolees; specialty offices, such as those supervising sex 

offenders only; and offices supervising only individuals 

committed to treatment or other confinement facilities.

 8 offices in the District of Columbia were deleted, as 

most parolees had served time in federal facilities; 10 

offices in Alaska and 4 offices in Hawaii, except for the 

largest in each state, were deleted.

 34 offices, with a parolee population under 40 and that 

had no other in-state office within 75 miles, were deleted.

 27 offices included in the sample frame for the NFPS 

pretest were excluded. (See page 36 for details on the 

inclusion of pretest sample data in the final survey.)

 Offices with a parolee population under 40 were 

combined with another office within 75 miles for 

sampling purposes to form FOGs. 

Field offices and FOGs were selected from the remaining 

frame of 800 offices using a PPS sampling procedure: 

 34 FOGs were selected with certainty, due to their large 

size, and allocated a sample size of 260 parolees.

 117 FOGs were selected with non-certainty and allocated 

a sample size of 130 for offices with populations of 130 

or greater, or the actual population sizes for offices with 

populations of less than 130.

 37 additional FOGs were selected as reserve offices and 

activated in order of selection as needed to offset office 

refusals and potential ineligible offices on the frame.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 36

A total of 151 FOGs (including 7 involving combined 

offices) were selected. Data collection was completed in 157 

FOGs (after exclusion of 4 ineligible administrative offices 

and inclusion of 10 reserve sample offices.) All eligible 

sampled offices agreed to participate.

Sampling from the district office sub-frame

The 2006 census provided data only at the district or 

regional office in 19 states. A total of 50 districts were 

selected from the list of 101 offices using PPS sampling 

procedures (including 35 certainty and 15 non-certainty 

districts). An additional 20 reserve districts were selected 

to offset potential refusals and ineligible listings. Eleven of 

the districts on the reserve list were activated. All sampled 

state offices granted approval to participate in the survey; 

however, one sampled district was excluded due to lateness 

of the request.

Following selection of district offices, field offices and 

population sizes within each selected district were 

enumerated. The same grouping and elimination criteria as 

listed above for parole offices were used for FOGs within 

each district, except that the distance cutoff was increased 

to 120 miles. Offices with fewer than 40 parolees were only 

eliminated if there was no other office with 120 miles for 

grouping. Three offices were deleted due to the distance and 

size criteria. Access to one office was denied by the district 

and was replaced by another randomly selected office 

within that district.

The remaining eligible FOGs within each sampled district 

were selected using PPS sampling procedures. A total of 

81 FOGs were selected (including 21 with combined field 

offices). 

Parolee selection

After approvals from states and offices were received, a 

roster was requested of eligible former prisoners under 

active supervision by the parole office. Only persons 

who had served time in a state prison and were age 18 

or older were eligible. Individuals who had absconded, 

were reincarcerated or committed, were in a halfway 

house or community treatment center, had a warrant 

issued for their arrest, were in violator status, or had been 

transferred to another parole office were ineligible.

Prior to sample selection, each roster was sorted by sex. 

Males and females were then randomly selected for 

inclusion in the survey. The target sample size was 260 (196 

males and 64 females) in large field offices and 130 (98 

males and 32 females) in smaller offices. Female former 

prisoners were sampled at a higher rate than males to 

ensure that sufficient numbers were included to provide 

reliable national estimates. For offices with 130 or fewer 

eligible parolees, all former prisoners were selected. In total, 

34,782 former prisoners were selected.

Response rates

Of the total number of former prisoners selected for the 

national survey, 17,738 eligible and available respondents 

completed the CAPI and ACASI portions of the interview: 

 4,318 (12.4%) refused to participate in the survey for 

reasons such as work, no transportation to the office, 

unwillingness to discuss prison experiences, wanting to 

avoid the parole office, dissatisfaction with the system, in 

trouble, health issues, and other unknown reasons.

 5,664 (16.3%) could not be reached due to absence 

of working phone numbers, wrong phone numbers, 

failure to return phone messages, or lack of interest 

communicated by the parole officer or another person.

 3,338 (9.6%) were found to be ineligible for reasons such 

as death; deportation; under age 18; not on parole; under 

warrant or absconder status; transferred to another 

office; incarcerated at time of sample selection; or under 

warrant, violator or absconder status after sample 

selection.

 2,151 (6.2%) were unavailable due to change in status 

after sample selection, primarily due to incarceration, 

transfer, or completion of parole supervision.

 1,571 (4.5%) did not participate for other reasons, 

primarily due to missing scheduled appointments.

Overall, 60.6% of eligible and available sampled former 

prisoners participated in the survey.

Inclusion of pretest sample sites and respondents

Due to the extensive and burdensome nature of the pretest, 

and the similarities in the pretest and national survey 

design and content, data from the pretest were included 

in the final survey results. PPS sampling methods were 

employed: 

 16 offices from a list of 29 offices responsible for 

supervision of post-release offenders were selected using 

PPS sampling methods. 

 The initial protocol called for randomly sampling 75 

cases from each office, with a goal of obtaining 50 

completed interviews per office.

 A reserve sample of 50 former prisoners per office was 

drawn for activation in case of high numbers of ineligible 

cases and non-response.

 After interviewing in 8 offices, the initial sample sizes 

were increased to 100 to address the large numbers of 

ineligible cases on the office rosters.

 Sample sizes varied from 100 to 135 across 15 of the 

sampled offices. One office, with a population of 67, had 

a sample size equal to its population.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 37

In total, 1,745 former prisoners were selected in the pretest. 

Interviews were completed by 788 parolees (representing 

64.5% of the 1,222 eligible sampled cases).

Weighting and non-response adjustments

Responses from interviewed former prisoners were 

weighted to provide national-level estimates. The 

construction of parolee base weights took into account the 

probability of selection at each stage, reflecting two stages 

in the field office subframe and three stages in the district 

subframe: 

 Within the district sample, selection probabilities were 

adjusted at the district and office levels for non-response. 

 Within the field office sample, all selected FOGs 

participated.

 Probabilities of selection from each subframe took 

into account the impact of certainty and non-certainty 

districts and offices. 

 Within selected FOGs in both subframes, males and 

females were selected at different rates; consequently, the 

probabilities of selection were computed separately.

 The final parolee base weights in the district sample 

represent the inverse of the product of the non-response 

adjusted probabilities from the district and FOG stages 

times the probability of selection of male and female 

parolees within field offices. The base weights in the 

field office subframe represent the inverse of the product 

of the probability of selection at the FOG and parolee 

stages.

A series of adjustments were applied to the initial base 

weights to compensate for non-response among sampled 

parolees. To produce final weights, the initial weights given 

to sampled parolees who did not respond to the survey 

were distributed to responding cases. A response propensity 

model was constructed and used to form adjustment cells 

within which these weights were reallocated: 

 Variables used in the non-response adjustments were 

race, age, years in prison, years since release, and 

required number of office visits per month.

 Predicted probabilities obtained from the model were 

used to construct five non-response groupings, based on 

the quintiles of the probability distribution.

 Subsequent weight adjustment was done within each 

group, so that the weights of nonresponding individuals 

within a range of propensities were allocated to like 

individuals. 

Following procedures to address undesirably large weights, 

final post-stratification was introduced to adjust the weights 

to known control totals. All states in the sample frame were 

divided into seven strata, and control totals for each stratum 

were produced based on the midyear 2008 parolee counts.

The final weights in the national survey (including pretest 

offices) averaged 27.57, resulting in a national estimate of 

approximately 510,800.

Standard errors and confidence intervals

As with any survey estimates, the NFPS estimates are 

subject to error arising from the fact that they are based 

on a sample rather than a complete enumeration. A 

common way to express this sampling error is to construct 

a 95%-confidence interval around each survey estimate. 

Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then 

adding or subtracting the result from the estimate produces 

the confidence interval. This interval expresses the range of 

values that could result among 95% of the different samples 

that could be drawn. 

To facilitate the analysis, rather than provide the detailed 

estimates for every standard error, differences in the 

estimates of sexual victimization for subgroups in these 

tables have been tested and notated for significance at 

the 95%-level confidence. For example, the difference in 

the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among 

female prisoners (13.7%), compared to male prisoners 

(4.2%), is statistically significant at the 95% level of 

confidence. (See table 6 on page 15.) In all tables providing 

detailed comparisons, statistically significant differences at 

the 95% level of confidence or greater have been designated 

with two asterisks (**). 

Measurement of sexual victimization

The survey of sexual victimization relied on former inmates 

reporting their direct experience, rather than reporting 

on the experience of other inmates. Questions related to 

inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately 

from questions related to staff sexual misconduct.

The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that 

screened for general unwanted sexual activities with other 

inmates. To fully measure all sexual activities, a question 

related to touching of specific body parts in a sexual way 

was followed by a general question regarding any sexual 

activity with another inmate in which the respondent did 

not want to participate. (For specific screening questions, 

see appendix A.) 

Respondents who answered “yes” to either of the sexspecific screener questions were then asked questions 

related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way and 

questions related to acts of oral, anal, and vaginal sex. 

(For survey items related to specific inmate-on-inmate 

victimization categories, see appendix B.) The nature of 

coercion (including physical force, pressure, and other 

forms of coercion) was measured for each type of reported 

sexual activity.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 38

ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were 

asked somewhat differently. Respondents were first asked if 

during their confinement staff had sexually harassed them, 

watched them at an inappropriate time while dressing or 

taking a shower, or forced them to undress or touched their 

private parts in an inappropriate way. (See survey items in 

appendix C.) 

Regardless of the responses to the initial questions, all 

respondents were then asked two screener questions to 

determine if they ever “willingly” or unwillingly had sex 

or sexual contact with any facility staff. Respondents who 

answered “yes” to either of the screener questions were 

then asked questions related to “willing” and unwilling sex 

or sexual contacts, the nature of coercion, and the specific 

types of sexual contacts including oral, anal, and vaginal 

sex. (For survey items related to specific staff-on-inmate 

victimization categories, see appendix D.) 

Based on their responses to the survey items, victims were 

classified in each of four general variables: (1) inmateon-inmate nonconsensual acts, (2) inmate-on-inmate 

abusive sexual contacts only, (3) staff sexual misconduct—

unwilling; and (4) staff sexual misconduct—willing. 

The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National 

Former Prisoner Survey) is available on the BJS website at 

http://www.bjs.gov.

Prison placements

In order to assess the impact of facility factors on the 

likelihood of a former prisoner reporting inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct, a 

separate record for each prison placement was constructed. 

Overall, the 18,526 former prisoners in the survey reported 

entering separate prison facilities 45,318 times during the 

period of incarceration prior to their release from custody. 

Depending on the number of state prisons entered, each 

respondent is represented between 0 and 15 times. Facilitylevel data from BJS prison censuses conducted in 1990, 

1995, 2000, and 2005 were merged to each placement 

record, based on the census closest to the period of 

incarceration. 

Individual-level victimization variables and other 

individual-level characteristics reported in the survey 

were included with each placement. Of all 45,318 prison 

placements, 96% were matched to an appropriate census 

data file. When weighted to reflect initial probabilities 

of selection and non-response adjustments, data 

were available for 1,254,998 of the prison placements 

(approximately 94% of all placements). Local jail 

placements (prior to prison, as an interim stop, or as the 

only placement) were excluded. Placements in hospitals 

and out-of-state facilities were also excluded.

Linkage of placements to prison census data

Prison facilities were identified from an initial list provided 

by the 2000 Census of State and Federal Correctional 

Facilities. Information on these facilities was enhanced by 

the 1990 and 1995 censuses and contacts in departments 

of correction in each state. The final list was programmed 

to appear in the CAPI portion of the survey prior to the 

start of ACASI. If the respondent provided a facility name 

that could not be identified on the list after attempts to 

locate the facility by name of city, the interviewer added the 

facility to the list.

Initial rules were used to define the most appropriate 

census file for linking the facility information. Each inmate 

provided admission and release dates for the most recent 

period of incarceration, not for individual facilities. The 

following rules were applied to determine the reference year 

for linkage, either the year of admission or the average year 

(i.e., the midpoint between the admission and release date):

 If the victim was placed in only one facility, the average 

year was used.

 If the victim was in multiple facilities, the admission year 

was used for the first facility placement and the average 

year for all other placements.

If the reference year was—

 1992 or earlier, facility characteristics were drawn from 

the 1990 census

 1993-1997, facility characteristics were drawn from the 

1995 census

 1998-2002, facility characteristics were drawn from the 

2000 census

 2003 or later, facility characteristics were drawn from the 

2005 census.

All unmatched facilities from the interviewer entry list were 

identified and linked to an appropriate census file.

Logistic regression models

Multivariate logistic regression estimation is a modeling 

technique used to determine what characteristics are 

statistically significant for predicting a dichotomous 

outcome (e.g., victimized or not victimized) while 

controlling for all the other characteristics in the model. 

NFPS used this technique to determine what inmate-level 

characteristics were significant predictors of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct 

over the entire period of confinement. For each type 

of victimization, and for males and females separately, 

selected parolee characteristics were examined, including 

demographic characteristics, sexual orientation and history, 
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 39

and criminal justice status and history. For each type of 

victimization, a logistic model was iteratively run under a 

backwards selection technique until only predictors that 

were significant at the 95% level of confidence remained. 

(See table 10 on page 19.)

NFPS also used this technique to determine what facilitylevel and inmate-level characteristics were significant 

predictors of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and 

staff sexual misconduct in each of the state prisons where 

the former inmates had served time. Based on a separate 

record for each prison placement for the 18,526 former 

prison inmates interviewed, logistic regression models 

were developed to model the effects of individual and 

prison-level characteristics. For each type of victimization, 

a logistic model was developed to isolate specific individual 

and facility factors that remain significant at the 95% level 

of confidence. (See table 16 on page 28.) 

Conditional marginal probabilities

In each of the logistic regression models, the conditional 

marginal probability represents the probability that an 

inmate with a particular characteristic has experienced 

sexual victimization (by type) conditional on the inmate 

having the mean value for all other predictors in the 

model. For example, based on a combination of individual 

characteristics only, a white male former prisoner had a 4.0% 

chance of being victimized by another inmate given that 

he was at the mean of the joint distribution of age, sexual 

orientation, offense, and total time served. 

For purposes of estimating the conditional marginal 

probabilities, the overall log odds of incurring the event for 

a given level of race/Hispanic origin was calculated from 

the estimated linear model by specifying the value of the 

race/Hispanic origin variable as the level of interest and 

then specifying all other variables in the model to be the 

weighted mean in the population. For example, the simple 

logistic model for the binary variable Y (experienced sexual 

victimization or not) is

log P(Yi

=1)

1-P(Yi

=1)

= αi

+x ́ijβ ( )

where, αi is the parameter of the race/Hispanic origin 

category for the individual i ( i=1 ...n, n is the total number 

of respondents). 

To calculate the log odds for a specific race/Hispanic origin 

= r; use fixed αr and ˉx,

log Mr

1-Mr

= αr+xˉ ́β ( )

where, ∑n

i=1

wixi

∑iwi

xˉ = .

For other categorical covariates x except race/Hispanic 

origin, the mean value for each dummy variable is the 

weighted percentage of the corresponding level. 

Based on the obtained log odds, the conditional marginal 

probability was then calculated for the specific level of the 

race/Hispanic = r as

Mr = 1+eαr+ˉx ́β

eαr

+ˉx ́β

These estimates (Mr) represent the expected risk of 

victimization for a former inmate, conditional on the 

inmate belonging to a particular group (defined by each 

characteristic in the model) and having the mean value on 

all of the other characteristics in the model. The conditional 

marginal assumes that ˉx is constant, and the variance is due 

to the variances of β. 

Significance tests

For each of the regression models, variances for the 

estimates took into account the NFPS sample design. 

These variances were computed with weighted data 

in SUDAAN using the Taylor Linearization method.

Wald F-statistics were calculated to test for statistical 

significance of the effects of each individual-level and 

facility-level characteristic (appendix tables 3 and 4). The 

Wald F-statistics were used to test the null hypothesis 

that all regression coefficients are equal to zero for 

each characteristic (i.e., the probability of experiencing 

victimization is the same across all categories of the selected 

characteristic), conditional on all other inmate or facilitylevel characteristics being included in the model.

NFPS and NIS sample differences 

Findings in the NFPS are limited to persons released 

from state prison to a period of post-custody supervision 

(including parole, probation following incarceration, 

community supervised release, or other form of 

supervision). Approximately 24% of all sentenced state 

prisoners released in 2008 were released unconditionally. 

These former inmates, some of whom may have 

experienced sexual victimization while in prison, were not 

surveyed. Because these former inmates were not subject 

to post-custody supervision, and correctional authorities 

lacked their current addresses or phone numbers, they 

could not be easily contacted and interviewed after their 

release from prison. 

The NFPS findings should not be generalized to all former 

prisoners. Based on selected demographic characteristics 

reported in BJS’s National Corrections Reporting Program 

in 2008, inmates released conditionally were similar to 

those released unconditionally. Nearly the same percentage 

were male (89.2% compared to 89.4%), under age 30 

(34.9% compared to 35.2%), age 50 or older (10.1% 

compared to 10.2%), and sentenced for a violent offense 
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 40

Appendix A 

Survey items that screen for inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

C11. [MALES] During your confinement, did another 

inmate touch your butt, thighs, penis, or other private parts 

in a sexual way or did you touch theirs, when you did not 

want this to happen?

C11a. [FEMALES] During your confinement, did another 

inmate touch your butt, thighs, breasts, vagina, or other 

private parts in a sexual way or did you touch theirs, when 

you did not want this to happen?

[IF C11 NE Yes or C11a NE YES] We recognize that you 

may find questions regarding sexual activity sensitive. 

However, no one will know how you answered these 

questions. Please remember that your responses are 

confidential.

C11b. During your confinement, were you involved in any 

sexual activity with another inmate in which you did not 

want to participate?

(25.4% compared to 26.6%). However, inmates released 

unconditionally had served significantly longer in prison 

than those released conditionally. An estimated 23.2% of 

inmates released unconditionally had served more than 

3 years, compared to 15.9% of inmates released 

conditionally. In addition, 12.5% of unconditional releases 

had served fewer than 6 months, compared to 32.5% of 

conditional releases.

Caution is also recommended when comparing NFPS 

findings with NIS-1 and NIS-2 findings, due to differences 

in coverage and differences in composition among former 

and current inmates. In contrast with the NIS sample, the 

NFPS sample does not include inmates who may never be 

released. (Based on data from the 1997 Survey of Inmates 

in State Prison, approximately 5% of all inmates in state 

prison were not expected to ever be released.) In addition, 

the cross-section of former inmates is comprised of less 

serious offenders with shorter maximum sentences than the 

cross-section of inmates in the NIS sample. For example, 

33% of former inmates in NFPS had served time for a 

violent offense, compared to 56% of state inmates in NIS-2 

who were serving time for a violent offense.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 41

Appendix B 

Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization categories, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

Males Females

Nonconsensual sexual activity—oral sex

C12. Did the sexual activity ever involve oral sex or a blow 

job in which your mouth was on another inmate’s penis or 

other private parts?

C12d. Did the sexual activity ever involve oral sex in 

which your mouth was on another inmate’s vagina or other 

private parts?

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents, but that oral and anal sex did not occur. During 

the unwanted sexual incident or incidents, which of 

the following things happened? Please indicate all that 

happened. 

C15f. Another inmate put their mouth on your penis or 

other private parts.

C15g. You put your mouth on another inmate’s butt or 

thighs.

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or 

[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted 

sexual incident or incidents, which of the following 

happened? Please indicate all that happened. 

C16g. Another inmate put their mouth on your vagina or 

other private parts.

C16h. You put your mouth on another inmate’s butt or 

thighs.

Nonconsensual sexual activity—anal sex

C14. Did the sexual activity ever involve anal sex in which 

another inmate inserted their finger, penis, or an object into 

your butt?

C14a. Did the sexual activity involve anal sex in which 

another inmate inserted their finger or an object into your 

butt?

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents, but that oral and anal sex did not occur. During 

the unwanted sexual incident or incidents, which of 

the following things happened? Please indicate all that 

happened. 

C15h. You inserted your finger, penis, or an object into 

another inmate’s butt.

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or 

[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted 

sexual incident or incidents, which of the following 

happened? Please indicate all that happened. 

C16j. You inserted your finger or an object into another 

inmate’s butt.

Nonconsensual sexual activity—vaginal sex

C13. Did the sexual activity ever involve vaginal sex in 

which another inmate inserted their finger or an object into 

your vagina?

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or 

[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted 

sexual incident or incidents, which of the following 

happened? Please indicate all that happened. 

C16i. You inserted your finger or an object into another 

inmate’s vagina.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 42

Appendix B (continued)

Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization categories, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

Males Females

Nonconsensual sexual activity—manual/hand job

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents, but that oral and anal sex did not occur. During 

the unwanted sexual incident or incidents, which of 

the following things happened? Please indicate all that 

happened. 

C15d. Another inmate rubbed your penis in an attempt to 

arouse you.

C15e. You rubbed another inmate’s penis with your hand.

C15i. You were forced to masturbate while someone 

watched.

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or 

[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted 

sexual incident or incidents, which of the following 

happened? Please indicate all that happened. 

C16e. Another inmate rubbed your breasts, butt, or vagina 

in an attempt to arouse you.

C16f. You rubbed another inmate’s breasts or vagina with 

your hand.

Abusive sexual contact only

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents, but that oral and anal sex did not occur. During 

the unwanted sexual incident or incidents, which of 

the following things happened? Please indicate all that 

happened. 

C15a. Another inmate touched your butt or thighs.

C15b. Another inmate touched your penis or scrotum.

C15c. Another inmate violently grabbed or touched your 

penis or scrotum in an attempt to hurt you.

You indicated that you were involved in unwanted sexual 

incidents but [if applicable] oral, [if applicable] vaginal, or 

[if applicable] anal sex did not occur. During the unwanted 

sexual incident or incidents, which of the following 

happened? Please indicate all that happened. 

C16a. Another inmate touched your butt or thighs.

C16b. Another inmate touched your breasts.

C16c. Another inmate touched your vagina.

C16d. Another inmate violently grabbed or touched your 

breasts or vagina in an attempt to hurt you.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 43

Appendix C 

Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

E1. During your confinement, did staff hassle or harass you 

in a sexual way?

E2. Did staff ever stare at you or watch you at inappropriate 

times (for example, while you were dressing or taking a 

shower)?

E3. [FEMALES] Did a staff member ever force you to 

undress in their presence or hit or brush against your breast 

or other private parts when you did not think it was an 

accident or it was not required by their job?

E3b. [MALES] Did a staff member ever force you to 

undress in their presence or hit or brush against your 

private parts when you did not think it was an accident or it 

was not required by their job?

E4. Did you ever willingly or unwillingly have sex or sexual 

contact with any facility staff person?

[IF E4 NE Yes] Please remember that your responses are 

confidential. Neither you nor the staff person involved will 

be identified through this survey. No one will know you 

answered these questions.

E4a. During your confinement did you have sex or any 

sexual contact with a staff person, whether it was willing or 

not?
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 44

Appendix D

Survey items related to staff-on-inmate sexual victimization categories, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008

Males Females

Nonconsensual sexual activity—oral sex

E15. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex or a blow job in 

which your mouth was on the male staff person’s penis or 

other private parts or his mouth was on your private parts?

E15b. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex in which your 

mouth was on the male staff person’s penis or other private 

parts or his mouth was on your private parts?

E15a. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex or a blow job 

in which the female staff person’s mouth was on your penis 

or other private parts or in which your mouth was on her 

private parts?

E15c. Did the sexual contact involve oral sex in which your 

mouth was on the female staff person’s breasts, vagina, or 

other private parts or her mouth was on your private parts?

Nonconsensual sexual activity—anal sex

E16. Did it involve anal sex in which the male staff person 

inserted his finger, penis, or an object into your butt or you 

inserted your finger, penis, or object into his?

E16b. Did it involve anal sex in which the male staff person 

inserted his finger, penis, or an object into your butt or you 

inserted your finger or an object into his?

E16a. Did it involve anal sex in which the female staff 

person inserted her finger or an object into your butt or you 

inserted your finger, penis, or an object into hers?

E16c. Did it involve anal sex in which the female staff 

person inserted her finger or an object into your butt or 

you inserted your finger or an object into hers?

Nonconsensual sexual activity—vaginal sex

E13. Did you have vaginal sex with a female staff person in 

which your penis, finger, or an object was inserted into her 

vagina?

E13a. Were you involved in vaginal sex in which a male 

staff person inserted his penis, finger, or an object into your 

vagina?

E13b. Were you involved in vaginal sex with a female staff 

person in which she inserted her finger or an object into 

your vagina or you inserted your finger or an object into 

hers?

Nonconsensual sexual activity—manual/hand job

E14. Did you give or receive a hand job in which a male staff 

person rubbed your penis with his hand or you rubbed his?

E14b. Did you give the male staff person a hand job in 

which you rubbed his penis with your hand?

E14a. Did you receive a hand job in which a female staff 

person rubbed your penis with her hand?

Abusive sexual contact only

E12. Did a male staff person touch your penis or other 

private parts in a sexual way or did you touch his?

E12b. Did a male staff person touch your breasts, vagina, 

or other private parts in a sexual way or did you touch his 

private parts?

E12a. Did a female staff person touch your penis or other 

private parts in a sexual way or did you touch her private 

parts?

E12c. Did a female staff person touch your breasts, vagina, 

or other private parts or did you touch hers?
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 45

Appendix E 

Survey items that identify prison placements and measure sexual victimization in each facility, National Former 

Prisoner Survey, 2008

B5. What was the name of the facility in which you were 

placed in [Month/Year]?

B6. Were you placed in any other facilities between [date of 

admission] and your release in [Month/Year]?

B5. [REPEAT, up to 25 times] What was the name of 

another facility in which you were placed?

For each type of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization

FBM12a. [MALES] You indicated you had unwanted [oral 

sex or gave a blow job because you were physically forced, 

afraid, or someone threatened to hurt you physically]. 

Where did this unwanted [oral sex or blow job occur]? 

[READ LIST OF FACILITIES]

FBM12b. [FEMALES] You indicated you had unwanted 

[oral sex because you were physically forced, afraid, or 

someone threatened to hurt you physically]. Where did this 

unwanted [oral sex] occur? [READ LIST OF FACILITIES]

For all forms of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization

E6. At which facility or facilities did you have sexual 

contact with staff? [READ LIST OF FACILITIES]
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 46

Appendix Table 1

Standard errors for table 4: Type of coercion and physical injury of former state prisoners who reported sexual victimization, 

by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Totala Nonconsensual sexual acts Total

Willing 

activityb Unwilling activityb

Type of coercion

Force/threat 1.73% 1.92% 1.49% 0.99% 4.28%

Threatened with harm or a weapon 1.76 1.86 1.43 1.00 4.84

Persuaded/talked into it 1.73 2.26 1.82 1.93 3.73

Physically held down or restrained 1.84 2.51 0.96 0.57 3.65

Physically harmed/injured 1.39 1.76 1.02 0.58 3.84

Coercion other than force/threat 1.57% 1.91% 1.78% 1.90% 2.69%

Offered/given protection from other inmates 1.67 2.07 1.13 0.95 2.84

Given bribe/blackmailed 1.74 2.30 1.68 1.75 3.51

Given drugs/alcohol 1.05 1.35 1.31 1.37 3.53

Pay off debtc 0.98 1.28 0.71 0.78 2.08

Offered/given protection from another correctional officerc ~ ~ 2.12 1.74 5.97

Offered favors or special privileges ~ ~ 1.83 1.83 4.04

Physically injured 1.62% 2.03% 0.79% 0.68% 3.00%

Excluding minor injuries 1.36 1.81 0.74 0.64 2.84

Knife/stab wounds 0.77 1.05 0.30 0.21 1.28

Broken bones 0.83 1.13 0.26 0.29 1.05

Anal/vaginal tearing, severe pain, or bleeding 1.25 1.91 0.65 0.55 2.60

Teeth chipped/knocked out 1.19 1.68 0.53 0.31 2.16

Internal injuries 0.95 1.31 0.37 0.29 1.50

Knocked unconscious 1.11 1.53 0.25 0.20 1.08

Bruises, a black eye, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts 1.60 2.04 0.62 0.39 2.48

~Not applicable.

aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.

bIncludes touching only.

cNot included in the pretest interviews. See Methodology for a detailed discussion of the merged data files.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 47

Appendix Table 2

Standard errors for table 5: Circumstances surrounding sexual victimization of former state prisoners, by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance Totala Nonconsensual 

sexual acts Total

Willing 

activityb Unwilling activityb

Time of day

6 a.m. to noon 2.01% 2.55% 2.00% 2.18% 4.25%

Noon to 6 p.m.1.72 1.93 2.08 2.20 4.60

6 p.m. to midnight 1.90 2.18 2.02 2.28 4.86

Midnight to 6 a.m.1.90 2.16 2.04 2.38 3.05

Where occurred

Victim’s cell/room/sleeping area 1.81% 2.03% 1.92% 2.24% 3.61%

Another inmate’s cell/room 1.83 2.64 1.07 1.22 2.29

Shower/bathroom 1.72 2.17 1.93 2.07 4.20

Yard/recreation area 1.50 1.65 1.12 1.20 2.55

Workplace 1.37 1.74 2.19 2.43 4.46

Closet, office, or other locked room 1.35 1.96 1.71 1.70 4.19

Classroom/library 1.17 1.49 1.89 1.97 4.35

Elsewhere in facility 1.15 1.41 1.37 1.53 2.42

Off facility groundsc 1.06 1.20 1.37 1.44 3.34

Number of perpetrators

1 2.02% 2.55% 1.62% 1.83% 3.10%

2 1.81 2.41 1.84 1.92 3.52

3 or more 1.51 1.87 1.72 1.98 3.30

Number of times

1 2.28% 2.48% 1.31% 1.32% 2.31%

2 1.59 1.99 1.75 1.83 3.62

3 or more 1.89 2.14 2.01 2.05 4.29 aIncludes abusive sexual contacts.

bIncludes touching only.

cIncludes incidents that occurred in a temporary holding facility, on work release, in a medical facility, in a vehicle, or at a courthouse.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 48

Appendix Table 3

Wald-F statistics for former prisoner characteristics in the final multivariate logistic regression models of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident

Former prisoner characteristic

Degrees of freedom

Wald-F statistics for male 

sexual victimization in prison

Wald-F statistics for female 

sexual victimization in prison

All models* Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Race/Hispanic origin 4 8.80 4.05 6.31 4.80

Age at admission 5 3.22 13.94 5.43 4.69

Education 3 ~ ~ 2.68 ~

Marital status 2 ~ ~ 6.63 ~

Weight 3 ~ 2.61 ~ ~

Sexual orientation 2 105.48 17.58 ~ ~

Prior incarcerations 1 ~ 14.02 10.22 7.02

Most serious offense 5 9.06 4.13 ~ ~

Total time served 5 20.30 26.68 4.16 21.28

Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each former state prisoner characteristic in the final models presented in table 10. For each 

characteristic, the Wald-F tests the null hypothesis that all regression coefficients are equal to zero (i.e., the probability of experiencing a victimization is the same across 

all categories of the selected characteristic), conditional on all other former state prisoner characteristics being included in the model. The Wald-F statistic is calculated by 

comparing the maximum likelihood estimate for the characteristic to an estimate of its standard error. Though varying by the number of degrees of freedom, statistics greater 

than 2.0 (for 1 degree of freedom) are statistically significant at the 95%-confidence level.

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

*For each former prisoner characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 49

Appendix Table 4

Wald-F statistics for former state prisoner and facility characteristics in the final multivariate logistic regression models of 

sexual victimization among male and female placements, by type of incident

Characteristic

Degrees of 

freedom

Wald-F statistics for sexual 

victimization among male placements 

in prison

Wald-F statistics for sexual victimization 

among female placements in prison

All 

models*

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct 

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Former prisoner characteristic

Race/Hispanic origin 4 9.11 4.48 4.75 6.82

Age at admission 5 ~ 8.98 ~ 3.24

Education 3 ~ 6.03 ~ ~

Marital status 2 3.91 ~ 3.19 ~

Weight 3 ~ ~ ~ ~

Sexual orientation 2 73.46 15.23 3.72 ~

Prior incarcerations 1 ~ 5.53 8.73 ~

Most serious offense 6 4.49 2.55 ~ ~

Total time served 5 4.94 8.75 3.75 7.54

Facility characteristicc

Type of facility 4 3.85 11.5 2.61 ~

Percent of inmates leaving facility during the day 1 ~ ~ 6.37 ~

Security level 2 7.06 ~ 3.74 12.03

Who operates facility 2 ~ 9.04 ~ ~

Year built 4 ~ 2.96 2.94 2.90

Inmate-to-staff ratio 4 ~ ~ 3.14 ~

Under court order 2 ~ 3.89 ~ ~

Major disturbance in census year 2 ~ ~ 4.06 ~

Percent of female staff 4 ~ 11.28 ~ ~

Census year closest to time of placement 3 3.73 ~ ~ 3.83

Placement order of facility 2 7.77 ~ 4.40 ~

Note: Wald-F tests were conducted to test for the statistical significance of each former state prisoner characteristic in the final models presented in table 16. For each 

characteristic, the Wald-F tests the null hypothesis that all regression coefficients are equal to zero (i.e., the probability of experiencing a victimization is the same across 

all categories of the selected characteristic), conditional on all other former state prisoner characteristics being included in the model. The Wald-F statistic is calculated by 

comparing the maximum likelihood estimate for the characteristic to an estimate of its standard error. Though varying by the number of degrees of freedom, statistics greater 

than 2.0 (for 1 degree of freedom) are statistically significant at the 95%-confidence level.

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

*For each former state prisoner characteristic, the degrees of freedom represent the number of categories minus 1.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 50

Appendix Table 5

Standard errors for table 17: Reporting of sexual victimization, by type of incident and persons to whom the incident was 

reported

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Total

Nonconsensual 

sexual acts Total

Willing 

activity

Unwilling 

activity

Percent of victims reporting at least one incident of sexual victimization 1.77% 2.11% 0.97% 0.80% 3.66%

Percent reporting to any facility staff 2.02% 2.20% 0.88% 0.61% 3.54%

Correctional officer 1.71 1.83 0.71 0.31 2.87

Administrative staff 1.41 1.65 0.84 0.52 3.42

Medical/healthcare staff 1.31 1.71 0.60 0.33 2.35

Instructor/teacher 0.74 0.99 0.54 0.26 2.15

Counselor/case manager 1.29 1.63 0.66 0.35 2.56

Chaplain/other religious leader 0.88 1.19 0.38 0.27 1.49

Volunteer 0.72 0.71 0.55 0.20 2.19

Someone else at the facilitya 1.46 1.68 0.67 0.35 2.48

Percent reporting to someone other than facility staff 1.99% 2.30% 0.97% 0.62% 3.77%

Telephone hotline 0.38 0.48 0.26 0.19 1.16

Another inmate 1.65 2.15 0.82 0.52 3.38

Family/friend outside the facility 1.94 2.10 0.88 0.45 3.45

Someone else outside the facility 1.31 2.00 ~ ~ ~

~Category not included in the survey.

aCategory not included in the pretest interviews.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.

Appendix Table 6

Standard errors for table 19: Facility responses to the reporting of sexual victimization to staff, by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Facility response to reported sexual victimization 2.95% 4.92%

Moved Victim to administrative segregation/protective housing 2.67 8.27

Placed victim in medical unit/ward/hospital 1.88 4.09

Confined victim to cell 2.57 7.85

Assigned vicctim to a higher level of custody 2.02 6.56

Offered victim a transfe 2.21 7.88

Victim written up 2.62 8.27

Victim spoke to investigatora 2.95 8.61

Perpetrator punished/segregated 2.74 ~

No facility response reported by victim 2.95% 4.92%

~Not asked of victims of staff sexual misconduct.

aCategory not included in the pretest interviews.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 | May 2012 51

Appendix Table 7

Standard errors for table 20: Post-release responses of victims to sexual victimization, by type of incident

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

All victims Total

Nonconsensual 

sexual acts Total

Willing 

activity

Unwilling 

activity

Discussed victimization with at least one individuala 1.61% 2.27% 2.27% 2.07% 2.28% 4.53%

Husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, or other partner 1.51 2.16 2.27 1.92 2.09 4.46

Children 0.42 0.63 0.50 0.49 0.53 1.27

Parents 1.09 1.32 1.43 1.50 1.57 3.01

Other family member 1.22 1.36 1.60 1.92 2.32 2.77

Friend(s) 1.47 1.61 1.74 1.98 2.10 3.35

Minister or other religious leader 0.67 1.02 1.12 0.64 0.63 2.14

Therapist or treatment professional 0.86 1.34 1.67 0.98 1.06 2.62

Parole officer 0.56 0.91 1.16 0.57 0.42 2.05

Another inmate 1.28 1.52 1.82 1.84 2.13 2.67

Had feelings or thoughts about victimizationa

Guilt 1.30% 1.86% 2.12% 1.84% 1.74% 4.39%

Shame or humiliation 1.44 1.67 1.87 1.74 1.63 3.76

Revenge against someone victim was angry with 1.01 1.52 2.07 1.22 1.15 4.06

Difficulty feeling close to friends/family members 1.22 1.89 2.00 1.60 1.41 4.63

Participated in treatment to deal with victimizationa 0.98% 1.57% 2.33% 1.06% 1.11% 3.07%

Saw therapist or counselor 0.86 1.44 2.12 1.00 1.07 2.54

Participated in self-help group for emotional/mental health 

problems 0.82 1.20 1.65 1.00 1.00 2.96

Enrolled in treatment program (other than counseling) for 

emotional/mental health problems 0.64 1.09 1.45 0.79 0.72 2.36

Took medication to treat emotional/mental health problems 0.68 1.11 1.60 0.78 0.60 2.95

Hospitalized for emotional/mental health problems 0.42 0.70 0.90 0.37 0.38 1.06 aInterviews conducted in the pretest were excluded due to changes in the questionnaire design.

Source: BJS, National Former Prisoner Survey, 2008.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ237363