Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

December 2007, NCJ 219414

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003

Sexual Victimization in State and 

Federal Prisons Reported by 

Inmates, 2007

By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D.

and Paige M. Harrison, 

BJS Statisticians

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (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. 

This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) 

of the Act to provide a listing of State and Federal prisons 

ranked according to the incidence of prison rape. 

Between April and August 2007, BJS completed the first 

National Inmate Survey (NIS) of 146 State and Federal 

prisons. The survey, conducted by RTI International 

(Research Triangle Park, NC), was restricted to adult confinement facilities, including prisons, penitentiaries, prison 

hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS 

excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway 

houses, group homes, and work release centers. The sample was designed in accordance with the requirement that 

BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10% of prison facilities. (See 

Methodology for sample description.)

Unlike previous BJS surveys of sexual violence that were 

based on administrative records, the NIS collected reports 

of sexual violence directly from inmates. The NIS survey 

consisted of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self Interview 

(ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted 

with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio 

instructions delivered via headphones. A small number of 

inmates (2% of all participants in the survey) completed a 

short paper form. These were inmates housed primarily in 

administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too 

violent to be interviewed.

Inmate self-reports provide a basis for comparing and 

ranking facilities

Past surveys of administrative records could not provide 

reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence because 

they were limited to incidents reported to correctional 

authorities. Some victims may be reluctant to report incidents to correctional authorities due to lack of trust in staff, 

fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among 

inmates, or personal embarrassment. Moreover, administrative records may vary in the way incidents and allegations are defined, reported, and recorded, which further 

complicate facility-level comparisons.

The NIS is a self-administered survey which provides anonymity to respondents and encourages fuller reporting of 

victimization. The survey employs computer-assisted technology to provide more uniform conditions under which 

inmates complete the survey. Facility-level comparisons in 

State and Federal prisoners reporting sexual 

victimization, 2007

National estimate

Type* Number Percent

Total 60,500 4.5%

Inmate-on-inmate 27,500 2.1%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 16,800 1.3

Abusive sexual contacts only 10,600 0.8

Staff sexual misconduct 38,600 2.9%

Unwilling activity 22,600 1.7%

Excluding touching 16,900 1.3

Touching only 5,700 0.4

Willing activity 22,700 1.7%

Excluding touching 20,600 1.5

Touching only 2,100 0.2

Note: Detail may not sum to total because inmates may report more 

than one type of victimization. They may also report victimization by 

both other inmates and staff.

*See Methodology for definition of terms.
2 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

the NIS are further enhanced through the application of statistical methods that ensure that the estimates reflect the 

entire population of each facility, rather than only the 

inmates who participated in the survey. (See Methodology 

for sample description and non-response adjustments.)

For purposes of calculating comparative rates, the NIS limited the reports of sexual victimization to incidents that 

occurred at the sampled facilities during the 12 months 

prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who had served 

less than 12 months were asked about their experiences 

since they had arrived at the facility. 

Despite efforts of survey staff to reassure inmates that their 

survey responses about sexual violence would be kept 

confidential, some inmates may not have felt confident to 

report experiences of sexual victimization since admission 

or in the past 12 months. At the same time, some inmates 

may have made false allegations. In 2006, about a quarter 

of the allegations brought to the attention of State and Federal correctional authorities, upon completion of an official 

investigation, were determined to have been unfounded 

(not to have occurred).1 Although the effects may 

be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting 

and false reporting in the NIS is unknown. 

An estimated 60,500 inmates experienced one 

or more incidents of sexual victimization

Among the 23,398 inmates who participated in the 

2007 survey, 1,109 reported one or more incidents 

of sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates within facilities to produce 

national-level and facility-level estimates of sexual 

violence. The estimated number of State and Federal inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled 

60,500 (or 4.5% of the Nation’s prisoners). 

Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates (27,500) 

reported an incident involving another inmate, and 

2.9% (38,600) reported an incident involving staff. 

Some inmates (0.5%) said they had been sexually 

victimized by both other inmates and staff.

The NIS screened for specific sexual activities. 

Using uniform definitions of sexual violence developed by BJS in 2004, reports of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual violence were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts 

only. Approximately 1.3% of all inmates (16,800, 

nationwide) said they had nonconsensual sex with 

another inmate, including giving or receiving sexual gratification and oral, anal or vaginal sex. An 

additional 0.8% of all inmates (10,600) said they 

had only experienced an abusive sexual contact, 

that is, unwanted touching by another inmate of 

specific body parts in a sexual way. (See Methodology for 

specific survey questions and definitions.)

Among inmates reporting experiences of sexual misconduct by staff, the number that reported they had sex or sexual contact willingly (22,700) was nearly identical to those 

who reported contact as a result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges (22,600). A 

majority of victims of staff misconduct reported activity 

beyond simple touching in a sexual way.

10 facilities had prevalence rates of 9.3% or greater; 

6 facilities had no reported incidents

Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no 

reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates; 

10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3% (table 

1). Though other measures may be considered when comparing facilities, the overall victimization rate is a measure 

of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of 

the level of coercion and type of sexual activity.

Table 1. Prison facilities with highest and lowest prevalence 

of sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Percent of inmates 

reporting sexual 

victimizationa

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsb Response 

rate

Weighted 

percentc Standard errord

U.S. total 23,398 72% 4.5% 0.3%

10 highest

Estelle Unit, TX 197 84 15.7 2.6

Clements Unit, TX 142 59 13.9 2.9

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 85 39 13.4 4.0

Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 163 73 12.1 2.7

Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 144 62 11.3 2.7

Rockville Corr. Fac., INe 169 79 10.8 2.4

Valley State Prison for Women, CAe 181 78 10.3 2.3

Allred Unit, TX 186 71 9.9 2.2

Mountain View Unit, TXe 154 80 9.5 1.9

Coffield Unit, TX 194 76 9.3 2.1

6 lowestf

Ironwood State Prison, CA 141 60% 0.0% ~

Penitentiary of New Mexico, NM 83 38 0.0 ~

Gates Corr. Ctr., NC 52 74 0.0 ~

Bennettsville-Camp, BOP 77 69 0.0 ~

Big Spring Corr. Inst., BOP 155 66 0.0 ~

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst., BOP 174 70 0.0 ~

Note: BOP refers to the Bureau of Prisons.

~Not applicable.

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving 

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

shorter.

bNumber of respondents selected for the NIS on sexual victimization. 

c

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire 

population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, 

time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for details.)

dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted 

survey estimates. For example, the 95% confidence intervals around the total percent 

is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%).

eFemale facility.

f

Facilities in which no incidents of sexual victimization were reported by inmates. 

_______

1See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 

2006, at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svcra06.htm>.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 3

Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with 

the highest prevalence rate. Since the estimates are 

based on a sample of inmates, rather than a complete 

enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. The precision of each facility-level estimate can be calculated 

based on the estimated standard error. For example, the 

victimization rate of 15.7% recorded for the Estelle Unit 

(Texas) has a precision of plus or minus 5.1% with a 95% 

level of confidence. This precision, based on the standard 

error of 2.6% multiplied by 1.96, implies that we are 95% 

confident that the true prevalence rate in the Estelle Unit is 

between 10.6% and 20.8%.

As a consequence of sampling error, the NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed tabulations of the survey results by facility and State are presented in Appendix tables 1 through 9. Facility prevalence 

rates vary by level and type of victimization, and observed 

differences between facilities will not always be statistically significant. Consequently, these measures cannot be 

used to reliably rank facilities from 1 (the highest) to 146 

(the lowest). 

Despite limitations of sampling errors, the NIS does provide the ability to statistically identify a small group of facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization. Based 

on the confidence interval around the Estelle Unit (15.7% 

plus or minus 5.1%), 6 facilities would be included in the 

interval, but these facilities also have estimated rates with 

surrounding confidence intervals. By placing a 95%-confidence interval around the difference between the Estelle 

Unit and the Coffield Unit (Texas), we can identify a group 

of 10 facilities with the highest prevalence of sexual victimization. Since the confidence interval around the observed 

difference (6.4% plus or minus 6.5%) includes zero, the 

Coffield Unit is considered statistically similar to the Estelle 

Unit. However, facilities with rates lower than the Coffield 

Unit (9.3%) would be considered statistically different 

(assuming a standard error of 2.1%). (See Methodology

for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.) 

Identification of the 3 facilities with the highest rates 

of sexual victimization depends on non-statistical 

judgments 

Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence 

rates, 3 had prevalence rates of staff sexual misconduct 

that exceeded 10% (table 2). The rate was highest in 

Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (Nebraska), in 

which 12.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents of 

staff sexual misconduct. This rate was followed by a rate 

of 11.6% in the Clements Unit (Texas) and 11.4% in the 

Charlotte Correctional Institution (Florida). Among these 3 

facilities, the Charlotte facility had the smallest standard 

error (2.6%); its 95%-confidence interval ranged from 

6.3% to 16.5%.

Table 2. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence 

of sexual victimization, by another inmate or staff, National 

Inmate Survey, 2007

Percent of inmates reporting sexual

victimizationa

Facility name Totalb

Inmate-oninmateStaff-oninmate

U.S. total 4.5% 2.1% 2.9%

Estelle Unit, TX 15.7 8.5 7.6

Clements Unit, TX 13.9 3.3 11.6

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 13.4 1.2 12.2

Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 12.1 1.1 11.4

Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 11.3 3.0 9.6

Rockville Corr. Fac., INc 10.8 10.2 2.0

Valley State Prison for Women, CAc 10.3 7.9 5.3

Allred Unit, TX 9.9 4.8 6.7

Mountain View Unit, TXc 9.5 8.7 3.4

Coffield Unit, TX 9.3 4.4 5.7

Note: Detail may add to more than total because respondents may report 

victimization by both another inmate and staff. 

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal 

penetration, handjobs, touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, 

or vagina in a sexual way, and other sexual acts. (See Methodology for survey items.) 

bPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization 

involving another inmate or facility staff in past 12 months or since admission 

to the facility, if shorter. 

cFemale facility.

Table 3. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence 

of sexual victimization, by type, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Percent of inmates reporting sexual

assaulta

Facility name

Total 

prevalencea

Nonconsensual sexual 

actsb

Abusive 

sexual 

contactsc

U.S. total 4.5% 3.3% 1.3%

Estelle Unit, TX 15.7 11.3 4.4

Clements Unit, TX 13.9 8.1 5.8

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 13.4 11.2 2.2

Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 12.1 12.1 0.0

Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 11.3 6.1 5.3

Rockville Corr. Fac., INd 10.8 6.6 4.2

Valley State Prison for Women, CAd 10.3 2.4 7.9

Allred Unit, TX 9.9 8.0 1.9

Mountain View Unit, TXd 9.5 3.4 6.2

Coffield Unit, TX 9.3 7.7 1.5

aPercent of inmates reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization 

involving another inmate or facility staff in past 12 months or since admission 

to the facility, if shorter. (See Methodology for definitions.) Weights were 

applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, 

time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for nonresponse and 

post-stratification weighting procedures.)

bIncludes allegations of oral, anal, and vaginal penetration, handjobs, and 

reports of other sexual acts. 

c

Includes allegations of unwanted touching only. 

dFemale facility.
4 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Rockville Correctional Facility (Indiana) had the highest 

reported rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; 

10.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents. Its 95%-

confidence interval ranged from 5.7% to 14.7%. Three 

other facilities had rates that exceeded 5%: Mountain View 

Unit (Texas), 8.7%; Estelle Unit (Texas), 8.5%; and Valley 

State Prison for Women (California), 7.9%. 

For more serious types of sexual victimization (e.g., nonconsensual acts among inmates and unwilling sexual contact with staff involving more than touching), 3 facilities had 

rates of 10% or higher (table 3). Charlotte Correctional 

Institution had the highest rate of nonconsensual sexual 

acts (12.1%), followed by Estelle Unit (11.3%) and Tecumseh State Correctional Institution(11.2%). The confidence 

interval for the Charlotte Correctional Institution was 6.8% 

to 17.4%.

Similar to types of sexual victimization, levels of coercion 

also varied among facilities. Among the 10 facilities with the 

highest overall prevalence of sexual victimization, 3 facilities had high levels of physical force in inmate-on-inmate 

victimization. The Mountain View Unit (Texas) had the highest percent of inmates reporting physical force by another 

inmate (7.5%), followed by the Rockville Correctional Facility (6.5%) and the Estelle Unit (5.1%). Inmates in 2 facilities 

reported high rates of physical force used by staff: Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (7.5%) and Great 

Meadow Correctional Facility (6.0%).

An estimated 0.8% of inmates nationwide reported being 

injured as a result of the sexual victimization. Approximately 0.5% of the inmates had been injured by another 

inmate, and 0.3% had been injured by staff. Injuries 

included anal or vaginal tearing, knife or stab wounds, broken bones, chipped or knocked out teeth, internal injuries, 

bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or 

welts.

Although injury rates from sexual victimization were generally low, 2 facilities among the 10 with the highest prevalence of overall victimization had rates of injury by other 

inmates that exceeded 3% (table 4). Rockville Correctional 

Facility (3.7%) and Allred Unit (3.3%) had the highest rates 

of inmate-on-inmate injury. Tecumseh State Correctional 

Institution (3.9%) and Clements Unit (3.1%) had the highest 

rates of injury resulting from staff sexual misconduct.

Using these different measures of sexual victimization, 

comparisons among the 10 facilities with the highest overall 

rates may be made. The 3 highest facilities may be 

selected based on one or more of these measures.

Table 4. Prison facilities with the highest prevalence of sexual assault, by another inmate or staff and by 

level of force and injury, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault Staff-on-inmate sexual assault

Facility name

Total 

prevalencea Physically 

forced Pressured Injuredb Physically forced Pressured

Reported 

as willing Injuredb

U.S. total 4.5% 1.3% 1.7% 0.5% 0.9% 1.5% 1.7% 0.3%

Estelle Unit, TX 15.7 5.1 7.9 2.0 0.9 4.4 5.2 0.4

Clements Unit, TX 13.9 1.7 3.3 1.0 4.1 6.8 5.6 3.1

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 13.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 7.5 11.8 5.9 3.9

Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 12.1 0.6 1.1 0.0 2.6 6.1 5.7 0.0

Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 11.3 1.0 2.8 0.0 6.0 6.3 2.8 2.0

Rockville Corr. Fac., INc 10.8 6.5 7.5 3.7 0.5 1.1 0.9 0.6

Valley State Prison for Women, CAc 10.3 4.7 5.9 1.5 1.5 3.3 3.3 0.9

Allred Unit, TX 9.9 3.6 3.2 3.3 2.8 3.2 2.3 0.9

Mountain View Unit, TXc 9.5 7.5 6.8 2.7 0.7 3.0 1.4 2.1

Coffield Unit, TX 9.3 2.1 3.9 0.0 0.4 1.4 4.3 0.0

Note: Detail may add to more than totals because victims may report more than one type of victimization, injury, and type of force. 

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

since admission to the facility, if shorter. (See Methodology for definitions.) Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately 

reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See 

Methodology for nonresponse and post-stratification weighting procedures.)

bInjuries included knife or stab wounds, broken bones, anal or rectal tearing, teeth chipped or knocked out, internal injuries, knocked unconscious, bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts. 

cFemale facility.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 5

Inmates reported an estimated 165,400 incidents of 

nonconsensual sexual acts with other inmates or staff 

In the 2007 NIS inmates were also asked the number of 

times they had experienced each type of sexual victimization. For each type, inmates were asked to select one of 

four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, or 

11 times or more. Categories containing ranges were provided, rather than more detailed categories, because of 

concerns that (1) some inmates would be unable to accurately report exact counts and (2) some inmates would be 

re-traumatized by a request to recount each incident. The 

total number of incidents by type in each facility was estimated by assigning the value 5 to the category of 3 to 10 

times and 12 to the category of 11 times or more. (See 

Methodology for additional details.)

Based on these measures, the 1,109 inmates participating 

in the NIS who reported one or more allegations of sexual 

victimization said they had experienced a total of 1,205 

incidents of nonconsensual sexual activity with another 

inmate and 1,794 incidents of unwilling sexual contact with 

staff. Taking into account weights for sampling facilities and 

inmates within facilities, the estimated number of incidents 

nationwide totaled 165,400 (65,100 nonconsensual sexual 

acts with other inmates and 100,300 incidents of unwilling 

sexual contact with staff).

Expressed as a rate, nationwide an estimated 123 incidents of sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates held in 

State and Federal prisons were reported by inmates. This 

excludes unwanted touching by other inmates and willing 

sexual contacts with staff. By type of incident, an estimated 

49 incidents of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual 

acts per 1,000 inmates and 75 incidents of unwilling sexual 

contacts with staff per 1,000 inmates were reported.

11 facilities had nonconsensual sex rates of 300 or 

more incidents per 1,000 inmates

Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 11 had 

incident rates of nonconsensual sex that exceeded 300 

incidents per 1,000 inmates (table 5). The 5 facilities 

recording the highest prevalence rates also recorded the 

highest incident rates. Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (with 928 incidents of nonconsensual sex per 1,000 

inmates) had the highest rate, followed by the Charlotte 

Correctional Institution (476 per 1,000) and the Clements 

Unit (430 per 1,000). In each of these facilities, unwilling 

sexual contact with staff was the most frequently reported 

type of sexual victimization.

An estimated 94,900 incidents nationwide involved “willing” 

sexual contacts with staff. These incidents of staff sexual 

misconduct, though reported as willing by inmates, are 

considered nonconsensual by law. A total of 71 such incidents of staff sexual misconduct per 1,000 inmates were 

reported as willing (see Appendix table 9).

Further analyses of sexual victimization and facility 

variations underway

In response to other provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, BJS will conduct further analyses of sexual victimization and facility variations. Expected to be completed by 

June 30, 2008, these analyses will examine victim characteristics and provide detailed descriptions of the circumstances surrounding reported incidents. They will include 

items on characteristics of perpetrators, reporting of incidents to staff or others, reasons for not reporting, and subsequent actions taken by administrators. In addition, BJS 

will examine characteristics of facilities that may correlate 

with sexual victimization, such as size, crowding, types of 

inmates held, security level, staff-to-inmate ratios, staff 

characteristics, and rates of assault on inmates and staff. 

Facility characteristics are based on data from the 2005 

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities 

and other items included in the 2007 NIS.

BJS is conducting a survey of sexual victimization in local 

jails, using the same sampling procedures and ACASI collection methodologies. Data collection in local jails is 

expected to be completed in January 2008. A report listing 

the 302 sampled local jail facilities ranked according to the 

incidence of sexual victimization is expected to be issued in 

April 2008. 

Table 5. Prison facilities with the highest number 

of incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts per 1,000 

inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Number of incidents per 1,000 

inmates

Facility name Total

Inmate-oninmatea Staff-oninmateb

U.S. total 123 49 75

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst., NE 928 62 866

Charlotte Corr. Inst., FL 476 18 458

Clements Unit, TX 430 118 311

Estelle Unit, TX 373 244 129

Great Meadow Corr. Fac., NY 365 31 334

Mule Creek State Prison, CA 353 251 102

Utah State Prison, UTc 346 259 87

R.J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mtn., CA 325 192 133

Dixon Corr. Inst., LA 311 211 100

Allred Unit, TX 305 115 190

Julia Tutwiler, ALd 304 189 115

aIncludes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that 

involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

bIncludes all incidents of unwilling sexual contacts with staff.

c

Facility houses both males and females.

dFemale facility.
6 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Methodology

The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 146 

State and Federal prisons between April and August 2007, 

by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised 

two questionnaires — a survey of sexual victimization and 

a survey of past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates 

were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that 

at the time of the interview the content of the survey 

remained unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers. A total of 23,398 inmates participated in the survey.

The interviews, which averaged 27 minutes in length, used 

computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio 

computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection 

methods. For approximately the first 5 minutes, survey 

interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to 

obtain background data, date of admission to the facility, 

conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of 

the interview, respondents interacted with a computeradministered questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via headphones. 

Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview 

in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or 

moving away from the computer.

A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for 

inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room. The paper form was completed by 530 inmates 

(2.3% of all interviews), housed primarily in administrative 

or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be 

interviewed.

Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in 

writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were 

conducted in either English (95%) or Spanish (5%). 

Selection of State and Federal prisons

A sample of 130 State prisons was drawn to produce a 

10% sample of the 1,267 adult State confinement facilities 

identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult 

Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete 

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

correctional authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to 

confinement facilities — institutions in which fewer than 

50% of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, 

unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such 

facilities included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, 

prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The 2007 NIS 

excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway 

houses, group homes, and work release centers. 

State confinement facilities were systematically sampled 

with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held on December 31, 

2005). Facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted by 

public or private operation, gender housed, region, and 

State. Prior to selection, the size measures for facilities 

housing female inmates were doubled to ensure a sufficient 

number of women to allow for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by gender. Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility in every State was selected. 

The remaining facilities were selected from each region 

with probabilities proportionate to size.

Overall, these procedures resulted in the selection of 114 

male facilities and 16 female facilities. Based on 2005 census data, these 130 facilities held 250,873 inmates (or 20% 

of inmates held in State confinement facilities nationwide 

on December 31, 2005).

Somewhat different sampling procedures were used to 

select Federal prisons. Facilities were selected based on 

data reported in the Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Weekly Population Report on September 28, 2006. At that time the 

Federal system had 176 BOP-operated facilities and 13 privately-managed facilities. Combined, these facilities held 

180,152 inmates. Contract juveniles, long-term boarders, 

and offenders held in halfway houses, home confinement, 

and jail/short term detention were excluded.

Facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by population 

size, region, and public or private operation. They were 

selected based on probabilities proportionate to the inmate 

count, regardless of gender of inmate housed. The sample 

resulted in the selection of 17 BOP-operated facilities and 3 

private facilities.

Of the 150 selected State and Federal facilities, 4 were 

excluded from the survey for the following reasons:

• Federal Transfer Facility (Oklahoma City, OK) – Inmates 

moved through this facility too quickly (within 24 hours) 

to permit data collection. 

• Huron Valley Complex — Women (Ypsilanti, MI) – 

Interviewing was terminated early due to concerns 

regarding data quality as many of the inmates were 

involved in a class action lawsuit against the facility.

• Taft Correctional Institute (Taft, CA) — The facility was 

selected twice, once as a State prison and once as a 

Federal facility. (It was excluded from the State sample, 

but left in the sample as a Federal facility.)

• Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (Jackson, MI) — 

The facility was scheduled to be closed prior to data collection.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 7

All other selected prison facilities participated fully in the 

survey.

Selection of inmates

The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied 

based on 5 criteria:

• an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 

4%.

• a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 

1.75%.

• a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates.

• a 10% chance among participating inmates of not 

receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire.

• size of the facility. 

A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of 

interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and 

inmates expected to be released prior to the date of data 

collection were deleted from the roster. Each eligible 

inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in 

ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to 

the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. A total of 37,362 inmates were selected. (See 

Appendix table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in 

each facility.)

Overall, 26,157 inmates participated in the survey, yielding 

a response rate of 72% (after an additional 1,017 ineligible 

inmates were excluded). Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (23,398) received the sexual assault survey.

Weighting and non-response adjustments

Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were 

weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial 

weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of 

selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize 

potential bias due to non-response and to provide national 

estimates.

Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different 

from the actual prevalence for a given facility. First, in each 

facility, bias could result if the random sample did not accurately represent the facility population. Second, bias could 

result if the non-respondents were different from the 

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

possibilities. These adjustments included:

• calibration of the weights of the responding inmates 

within each facility so that the estimates accurately 

reflected the facility’s entire population in terms of known 

characteristics. These characteristics included distributions by inmate age, gender, race, date of admission, 

and sentence length. This adjustment ensures that the 

estimates accurately reflect the entire population of the 

facility and not just the inmates who were randomly sampled.

• calibration of the weights so that the weight from a nonresponding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate 

with similar characteristics. This adjustment ensures that 

the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather 

than only the inmates who responded.

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

Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.2

Survey estimates and accuracy

Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from 

the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather 

than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the 

number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. 

Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of 

sexual victimization are presented in Appendix tables 2 

through 5 and 8. 

These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, 

percents, and rates), as well as differences in these estimates. 

For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Julia 

Tutwiler Prison (Alabama) is approximately 6.3% plus or 

minus 1.96 times 1.5% (or 3.4% to 9.2%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of the intervals would be 

expected to contain the true (but unknown) percentage. 

The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval comparing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in 

the Julia Tutwiler Prison (Alabama), 6.3%, with the Estelle 

Unit (Texas), 15.7%, may be calculated. The confidence 

interval around the difference of 9.4% is approximately 1.96 

times 3.0% (the square root of the pooled variance estimate, 9.01%). The pooled variance estimate is calculated 

by taking the square root of the sum of each standard error 

squared, e.g., the square root of (1.5)2 plus (2.6)2. Since 

the interval (3.5% to 15.3%) does not contain zero, the difference between the Tutwiler prison and the Estelle Unit is 

statistically significant.

______

2R.E. Folsom, Jr. and A.C. Singh, The Generalized Exponential Model 

for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and 

Poststratification, Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603, 2002.
8 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Exposure period

For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most 

recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of 

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

interview, inmates were asked questions related to their 

experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission 

date was less than 12 months prior to the interview, 

inmates were asked about their experiences since they had 

arrived at the facility. Overall, the average exposure period 

of inmates participating in the sexual victimization survey 

was 8.5 months. 

Measuring sexual victimization

The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of 

the direct experience of each inmate, rather than inmates 

reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions 

were asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity 

separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (See pages 9 and 10 for specific survey items.) 

The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that 

screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction, 

including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual contacts with other inmates. As a means to measure fully all 

sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body 

parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to 

explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification, and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The 

nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each 

type of reported sexual activity. 

Once the types of sexual activity and the nature of coercion 

were established, inmates were asked to report on the 

number of times they had experienced each form of sexual 

victimization. Incidents were separated into two categories: 

nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts. 

(See Definition of terms on this page.) In reporting the number of times for each type of incident, inmates could select 

one of four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 

times, and 11 times or more.

ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct 

were asked in a different order from inmate-on-inmate 

activity. Inmates were first asked about being pressured or 

being made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact 

and then asked about being physically forced. In addition, 

inmates were asked if any facility staff had offered favors or 

special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates 

were asked if they willingly had sex or sexual contact with 

staff. All reports of sex or sexual contact between an 

inmate and facility staff were included in the total sexual 

victimization classification, regardless of level of coercion. 

Inmates were also asked to report on the number of times 

they had experienced each form of staff sexual misconduct, 

willing or unwilling. The same pre-coded categories were 

provided: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, and 11 times or 

more.

The ACASI survey included additional questions related to 

both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. These questions, known as latent class measures, 

were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates 

were asked a series of general questions to determine if 

they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual 

contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See page 11 for specific survey items.) 

The entire ACASI questionnaire and the shorter paper and 

pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site 

at <http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/quest.htm#nis>.

Definition of terms

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

anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, touching of the 

inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual 

way and other sexual acts. Includes nonconsensual sexual 

acts, abusive sexual contacts, and both willing and unwilling sexual acitivity with staff.

Nonconsensual sexual acts - unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved 

oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual 

acts. 

Abusive sexual contacts only - unwanted contacts with 

another inmates or unwilling contacts with staff that 

involved touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, 

breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. 

Unwilling activity - incidents of unwanted sexual contacts 

with another inmate or staff. 

Willing activity - incidents of willing sexual contacts with 

staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting 

inmate as willing; however, all sexual contacts between 

inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual. 
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 9

Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization

Males

E16. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis 

in a sexual way?

E17. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, 

thighs, or penis in a sexual way?

E22. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you give or receive a 

handjob?

E23. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to give or receive a handjob?

E26. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you give or receive oral 

sex or a blow job?

E27. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex or a 

blow job?

E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you have anal sex?

E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have anal sex?

E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you have any type of sex 

or sexual contact other than sexual touching, 

handjobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex?

E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have any type of sex or 

sexual contact other than sexual touching, handjobs, 

oral sex or blowjobs, or anal sex?

Females

E18. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, 

or vagina in a sexual way?

E19. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, 

thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way?

E24. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you give or receive oral 

sex?

E25. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex?

E28. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you have vaginal sex?

E29. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have vaginal sex?

E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you have anal sex?

E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have anal sex?

E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate 

use physical force to make you have any type of sex 

or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, 

vaginal sex, or anal sex?

E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, 

without using physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have any type of sex or 

sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, 

vaginal sex, or anal sex?
10 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct

These next questions are about the behavior of staff at 

this facility during the last 12 months. By staff we mean the 

employees of this facility and anybody who works as a volunteer in this facility. 

G4 During the last 12 months, have any facility staff 

pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them 

have sex or sexual contact with you?

G5 During the last 12 months, have you been physically 

forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact? 

G7 During the last 12 months, have any facility staff 

offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for 

sex or sexual contact?

G2 During the last 12 months, have you willingly had 

sex or sexual contact with any facility staff?

G11 [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 = Yes] During the last 12 

months, which of the following types of sex or sexual contact did you have with a facility staff person? 

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

your body touched in a sexual way.

G11b. You gave or received a handjob.

G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blowjob.

G11d. You had vaginal sex.

G11e. You had anal sex.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 11

Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual 

activity in the screener questions for sexual activity 

with inmates: 

LCM1 During the last 12 months, did another inmate use 

physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you 

had to have any type of sex or sexual contact?

LCM2 How long has it been since another inmate in this 

facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you 

feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual 

contact?

1.  Within the past 7 days

2.  More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days

3.  More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 

months

4.  More than 12 months ago

5.  This has not happened to me at this facility 

LCM3 [If Male] During the last 12 months, did another 

inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel 

that you had to have oral or anal sex?

[If Female] During the last 12 months, did another 

inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel 

that you had to have oral, vaginal, or anal sex?

LCM4 [If Male] How long has it been since another 

inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, 

or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex?

[If Female] How long has it been since another 

inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, 

or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or 

anal sex?

LCM4a [If Male] How long has it been since another 

inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, 

or made you feel that you had to have oral or anal sex?

[If Female] How long has it been since another 

inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, 

or made you feel that you had to have oral, vaginal, or 

anal sex?

Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual 

activity in the screener questions for sexual activity 

with staff: 

LCM5 During the last 12 months, have you had any sex 

or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you 

wanted to have it or not?

LCM6 How long has it been since you had any sex or 

sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted 

to or not?

1.  Within the past 7 days

2.  More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days

3 .  More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 

months

4.  More than 12 months ago

5.  This has not happened to me at this facility 

LCM7 In the last 12 months, did you have oral, vaginal, 

or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you 

wanted to or not?

LCM8 How long has it been since you had oral, vaginal, 

or anal sex with any staff at this facility whether you 

wanted to or not? 

LCM8b How long has it been since you had oral or anal 

sex with any staff at this facility whether you wanted to or 

not?
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJS

Permit No. G-91

*NCJ~219414*

12 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

This report in portable document format and in 

ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are 

available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: 

<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/

svsfpri07.htm>.

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical 

agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey 

Sedgwick is Director. 

Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report. 

RTI International statisticians, under the direction of 

Marcus Berzofsky, produced tables in the appendix. 

Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Harrison, and RTI staff 

provided statistical review and verification. Doris J. 

James and Tina Dorsey produced and edited the 

report. Jayne Robinson prepared the report for 

publication. 

Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. 

Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate 

Survey. RTI staff, under a cooperative agreement and 

in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, 

developed the questionnaires, and monitored data 

collection and data processing: Rachel Caspar, 

Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Leader; 

Christopher Krebs, Co-Principal Investigator; Ellen 

Stutts, Co-Principal Investigator and Data Collection 

Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task 

Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Protection of Human 

Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research 

Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior 

Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Sampling and 

Statistical Analysis Task Leader. 

December 2007 NCJ 219414
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 13

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007

Number of respondents

Facility name

Number of 

inmates in 

custodya

Number of 

inmates 

sampled

Number of 

ineligible 

inmatesb Total

Sexual 

victimization 

survey

Response 

ratec

Total 264,251 37,362 1,017 26,157 23,398 72%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisond 959 251 6 228 212 93

Limestone Corr. Fac. 2,044 274 2 210 191 77

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 361 199 4 130 121 67

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 4,702 288 3 206 188 72

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 3,938 286 6 228 205 81

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 3,528 284 10 213 193 78

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 383 205 13 154 132 80

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 358 205 8 157 138 80

California

Avenal State Prison 7,510 292 9 240 210 85

California Inst. for Men 5,515 290 41 139 129 56

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 5,484 289 6 188 173 66

California Men’s Colony 6,496 291 7 211 180 74

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 3,842 285 8 209 192 75

Calipatria State Prison 4,169 286 0 162 146 57

Central California Women's Fac.d 3,211 283 8 194 170 71

Corr. Training Fac. 7,025 291 5 175 153 61

Ironwood State Prison 4,612 288 11 165 141 60

Mule Creek State Prison 3,762 285 6 219 190 78

North Kern State Prison 5,044 289 13 206 193 75

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 4,166 287 16 163 147 60

San Quentin State Prison 4,729 367 22 188 171 54

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 3,937 286 5 202 173 72

Valley State Prison for Womend 2,867 282 26 200 181 78

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 1,466 265 2 183 166 70

High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 220 161 0 90 81 56

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 1,919 273 5 220 193 82

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 1,627 310 6 256 231 84

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 2,184 279 49 143 125 62

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 1,052 254 1 184 163 73

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1,215 260 6 216 195 85

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 2,660 280 23 201 180 78

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 2,350 278 9 180 155 67

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 1,839 272 6 231 210 87

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 2,064 274 0 184 169 67

Georgia

Hays State Prison 868 247 7 201 190 84

Men's Corr. State Prison 650 233 15 198 189 91

Metro State Prisond 888 248 7 180 163 75

Walker Corr. Inst. 617 230 0 191 173 83

Wilcox State Prison 1,487 266 6 236 206 91

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 298 184 2 143 126 79

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 723 237 0 172 153 73

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 1,802 271 1 213 193 79

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 2,164 275 7 211 189 79

Logan Corr. Ctr. 1,854 272 3 228 211 85

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 1,362 267 28 157 133 66

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 1,484 266 9 184 162 72

Rockville Corr. Fac.d 1,145 258 7 198 169 79

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 1,291 261 0 163 147 62
14 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Number of respondents

Facility name

Number of 

inmates in 

custodya

Number of 

inmates 

sampled

Number of 

ineligible 

inmatesb Total

Sexual 

victimization 

survey

Response 

ratec

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 1,681 269 1 217 195 81%

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 624 234 12 112 100 50

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 1,549 267 3 208 184 79

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 629 231 7 162 146 72

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.e 690 237 8 189 173 83

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 120 123 3 66 64 55

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 2,773 280 4 177 160 64

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 1,733 270 4 207 189 78

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 932 250 3 137 119 55

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 1,746 271 6 190 170 72

Marquette Branch Prison 1,155 258 9 196 174 79

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 1,060 255 2 188 168 74

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1,388 264 5 189 163 73

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 98 99 1 87 80 89

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 1,947 273 6 236 215 88

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 1,872 272 5 246 225 92

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 1,445 265 1 191 171 72

Montana

Montana State Prison 1,447 265 3 203 189 77

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 885 245 2 94 85 39

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 618 230 3 181 160 80

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 1,579 268 7 218 203 84

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 1,498 266 2 190 173 72

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 2,775 280 4 163 148 59

South Woods State Prison 3,331 283 3 203 179 73

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.f 1,215 259 2 166 148 65

Penitentiary of New Mexico 858 246 4 92 83 38

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 923 249 8 186 168 77

Elmira Corr. Fac. 1,610 270 22 141 126 57

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 1,604 268 5 164 144 62

Greene Corr. Fac. 1,672 270 7 209 189 79

Wende Corr. Fac. 870 247 11 156 140 66

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 803 243 5 186 164 78

Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 458 214 6 144 129 69

Gates Corr. Ctr. 91 92 1 67 52 74

Harnett Corr. Inst. 866 247 3 178 163 73

Odom Corr. Inst. 381 204 9 119 103 61

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 388 205 15 137 124 72

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 2,720 280 5 195 177 71

Grafton Corr. Inst. 1,435 265 2 145 133 55

North Central Corr. Inst. 2,321 277 4 174 147 64

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 1,328 263 19 209 195 86

Oregon

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 867 247 9 200 177 84
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 15

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Number of respondents

Facility name

Number of 

inmates in 

custodya

Number of 

inmates 

sampled

Number of 

ineligible 

inmatesb Total

Sexual 

victimization 

survey 

Response 

ratec

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 995 252 2 225 208 90%

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2,031 274 2 235 215 86

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 1,977 273 5 223 196 83

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 2,848 281 11 128 117 47

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 2,037 274 3 235 204 87

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 881 247 1 150 132 61

Women's Divisiond 248 214 15 141 128 71

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 1,282 261 9 153 138 61

Lee Corr. Inst. 1,690 270 11 180 154 70

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 1,406 265 15 186 158 74

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 2,233 276 8 184 161 69

Tennessee Prison for Womend 722 238 3 169 152 72

Whiteville Corr. Fac.f

 1,477 265 2 200 179 76

Texas

Allred Unit 3,623 284 1 200 186 71

Clements Unit 3,636 285 10 161 142 59

Coffield Unit 4,085 286 1 217 194 76

Dawson State Jaile,f 2,111 275 5 188 165 70

Estelle Unit 2,760 280 14 223 197 84

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 577 227 6 184 163 83

Hilltop Unitd 624 230 1 219 197 96

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1,873 275 27 220 195 89

Lockhart Unite,f 995 252 2 160 132 64

Lopez State Jail 1,049 254 1 170 148 67

McConnell Unit 2,819 281 8 187 162 69

Mountain View Unitd 566 227 11 172 154 80

Polunsky Unit 2,848 281 1 256 236 91

Ramsey Unit #2 1,148 257 3 217 197 85

Wynne Unit 2,590 279 3 217 200 79

Utah

Utah State Prisone 3,786 285 5 228 196 81

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 167 175 25 94 82 63

Virginia

Red Onion State Prisong 257 173 1 97 87 56

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 380 200 0 75 67 38

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 1,953 273 1 147 134 54

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 249 171 1 121 106 71

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 1,499 266 13 171 157 68

Waupun Corr. Inst. 1,233 260 1 189 172 73

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 620 231 7 153 138 68
16 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of State and Federal facilities selected in the National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Number of respondents

Facility name

Number of 

inmates in 

custodya

Number of 

inmates 

sampled

Number of 

ineligible 

inmatesb Total

Sexual 

victimization 

survey Response ratec

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,390 264 1 223 199 85%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,767 271 1 219 194 81

Bennettsville-Camp 134 125 1 85 77 69

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1,410 308 9 141 125 47

Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 2,757 280 4 182 155 66

Cibola County Corr. Inst.f

 1,091 256 3 154 139 61

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 2,416 278 5 213 192 78

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 375 200 1 155 133 78

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 1,454 266 8 185 166 72

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 1,104 256 5 128 112 51

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,142 257 3 152 134 60

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,169 258 5 198 175 78

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 817 248 27 67 55 30

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,055 254 4 143 130 57

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,328 283 2 196 174 70

Taft Corr. Inst.f 1,729 270 7 251 227 95

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,006 253 8 172 153 70

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,442 265 4 133 123 51

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 1,604 268 9 217 190 84

aNumber of inmates in custody on day when the facility provided the sample roster.

bInmates were considered ineligible if (1) under age 18, (2) mentally or physically incapacitated, or (3) transferred or released after 

sample selection but before data collection period. (See Methodology for sample selection criteria.)

cResponse rate is equal to the total number of respondents divided by the number of inmates sampled minus the number of ineligible inmates times 100 percent.

dFemale facility.

eFacility houses both males and females.

f

Privately operated facility.

gExcludes inmates designated as supermax inmates. 
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 17

Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated 

standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since 

admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera

Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Total 4.8% 4.5% 0.3%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisond 6.6 6.3 1.5

Limestone Corr. Fac. 3.1 3.3 1.3

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 5.0 4.9 1.6

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 5.3 7.5 2.5

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 1.0 0.8 0.5

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 1.0 0.9 0.6

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0.8 0.9 0.7

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 2.2 3.5 1.8

California

Avenal State Prison 1.4 1.4 0.8

California Inst. for Men 3.1 2.6 1.3

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 6.9 7.2 2.0

California Men’s Colony 2.2 2.3 1.2

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 3.1 3.1 1.2

Calipatria State Prison 1.4 1.3 0.9

Central California Women's Fac.d 7.1 7.0 2.1

Corr. Training Fac. 1.3 1.1 0.9

Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mule Creek State Prison 6.3 6.8 1.9

North Kern State Prison 0.5 0.7 0.7

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 6.1 5.9 1.9

San Quentin State Prison 5.3 4.1 1.4

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 5.2 4.7 1.5

Valley State Prison for Womend 9.9 10.3 2.3

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 6.0 5.2 1.6

High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 4.9 5.9 2.7

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 2.1 1.7 0.8

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 3.0 4.1 1.6

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.8 0.4 0.4

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 10.4 12.1 2.7

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 5.1 5.5 1.6

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 5.0 5.1 1.6

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 7.7 7.0 2.1

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 5.2 5.9 1.8

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 3.0 2.7 1.2

Georgia

Hays State Prison 9.0 9.1 1.9

Men's Corr. State Prison 7.9 7.0 1.7

Metro State Prisond 7.4 8.0 2.2

Walker Corr. Inst. 1.7 2.3 1.2

Wilcox State Prison 2.9 2.8 1.1

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 1.6 1.6 0.9

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 2.0 1.8 1.0

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 1.6 1.6 0.9

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 6.9 6.7 1.9

Logan Corr. Ctr. 2.8 3.3 1.3

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 3.0 2.9 1.4

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 8.0 7.8 2.1

Rockville Corr. Fac.d 11.2 10.8 2.4
18 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated 

standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since 

admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera

Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 4.8% 4.1% 1.5%

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 5.1 5.4 1.6

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0 2.0 1.3

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 4.9 5.4 1.7

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.5 0.9

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.e 5.8 5.6 1.6

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 4.7 6.0 2.5

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 7.5 8.5 2.4

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 7.4 8.2 2.0

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 6.7 6.6 2.2

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 8.2 7.9 2.1

Marquette Branch Prison 7.5 6.8 1.7

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 4.8 4.6 1.5

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 3.1 2.2 1.0

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 1.2 0.9 0.4

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 7.9 7.9 1.7

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 4.0 3.7 1.2

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 7.0 7.1 1.9

Montana

Montana State Prison 7.4 7.9 1.9

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 11.8 13.4 4.0

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 9.4 7.7 1.8

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 4.9 5.8 1.7

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 6.4 6.2 1.7

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 4.0 3.7 1.6

South Woods State Prison 3.4 4.4 2.1

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.f 4.0 5.0 1.9

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 4.2 3.4 1.1

Elmira Corr. Fac. 4.8 5.1 2.2

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 11.8 11.3 2.7

Greene Corr. Fac. 2.1 1.9 0.9

Wende Corr. Fac. 6.4 6.2 1.9

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 3.7 3.6 1.4

Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 5.4 4.3 1.4

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 6.1 5.5 1.6

Odom Corr. Inst. 4.8 4.7 1.8

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 5.6 5.6 1.8

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 3.4 3.6 1.4

Grafton Corr. Inst. 3.8 4.8 2.0

North Central Corr. Inst. 4.8 3.8 1.4
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 19

Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated

standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since 

admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera

Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 6.2% 6.3% 1.7%

Oregon

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 5.1 4.2 1.3

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 4.3 4.4 1.3

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2.3 2.5 1.1

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 7.1 8.1 2.0

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 4.3 3.8 1.9

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 2.0 1.9 1.0

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 3.8 3.5 1.4

Women's Divisiond 8.6 7.5 1.6

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 5.1 4.7 1.7

Lee Corr. Inst. 9.1 8.7 2.2

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 7.0 7.2 2.2

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 4.4 3.5 1.4

Tennessee Prison for Womend 5.3 4.8 1.5

Whiteville Corr. Fac.f

 7.3 7.1 1.9

Texas

Allred Unit 10.2 9.9 2.2

Clements Unit 14.1 13.9 2.9

Coffield Unit 9.3 9.3 2.1

Dawson State Jaile,f 3.0 2.9 1.3

Estelle Unit 15.2 15.7 2.6

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 1.2 1.3 0.8

Hilltop Unitd 3.6 3.4 1.1

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.0 1.1 0.7

Lockhart Unite,f 5.3 7.3 2.7

Lopez State Jail 1.4 1.3 0.8

McConnell Unit 8.6 8.0 2.1

Mountain View Unitd 12.3 9.5 1.9

Polunsky Unit 5.5 5.3 1.4

Ramsey Unit #2 4.1 4.5 1.4

Wynne Unit 5.0 5.5 1.7

Utah

Utah State Prisone 8.7 7.7 1.9

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 4.9 5.3 1.8

Virginia

Red Onion State Prisong 3.4 3.6 1.7

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 4.5 4.2 2.2

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 5.2 6.5 2.6

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 4.7 4.3 1.5

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 4.5 3.8 1.4

Waupun Corr. Inst. 7.0 6.8 1.8

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 8.0 7.0 1.9
20 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and estimated 

standard error, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization since 

admission to facility or in past 12 months, if shortera

Facility name Reported Weightedb Standard errorc

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.5% 1.3% 0.7%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.6 0.9

Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 2.4 1.4

Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cibola County Corr. Inst.f 1.4 0.7 0.5

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.8 0.5

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 1.5 1.0 0.6

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 2.4 2.3 1.1

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.9 0.8 0.7

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.8 1.0

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.8 0.7

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 1.8 2.7 2.6

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 6.2 4.8 1.8

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taft Corr. Inst.f 0.4 0.3 0.3

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3 1.0 0.7

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.2 3.5 1.7

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.2 3.1 1.3

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

since admission to the facility or in last 12 months, if shorter. 

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

selected characteristics, including age, gender, race, time served, and sentence length. (See Methodology for 

weighting and nonresponse adjustments.)

cStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. For example, 

the 95% confidence intervals around the total percent is 4.5% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.3% (or 3.9% to 5.1%).

dFemale facility.

eFacility houses both males and females.

f

Privately operated facility.

gExcludes inmates designated as supermax inmates. 
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 21

Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual 

contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Total 3.3% 0.2% 1.3% 0.1%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisond 5.3 1.4 1.0 0.5

Limestone Corr. Fac. 2.6 1.2 0.7 0.7

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 4.0 1.4 0.9 0.7

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 4.7 2.3 2.8 1.2

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.8 0.6 0.4

California

Avenal State Prison 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4

California Inst. for Men 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.8

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 5.7 1.9 1.5 0.9

California Men’s Colony 2.3 1.2 0.0 0.0

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 2.7 1.2 0.4 0.4

Calipatria State Prison 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0

Central California Women's Fac.d 4.2 1.5 2.8 1.5

Corr. Training Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9

Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mule Creek State Prison 4.7 1.6 2.2 1.1

North Kern State Prison 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 4.8 1.8 1.1 0.8

San Quentin State Prison 2.8 1.1 1.3 0.8

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 4.1 1.4 0.6 0.6

Valley State Prison for Womend 2.4 1.1 7.9 2.1

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 3.2 1.3 2.0 1.0

High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 4.5 2.6 1.5 0.8

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 2.8 1.0 1.4 1.2

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 12.1 2.7 0.0 0.0

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 4.0 1.4 1.5 0.9

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 4.3 1.5 0.8 0.8

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 3.7 1.6 3.3 1.3

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 4.5 1.6 1.4 0.8

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 1.7 0.9 1.0 0.7

Georgia

Hays State Prison 5.4 1.5 3.7 1.3

Men's Corr. State Prison 4.3 1.2 2.7 1.2

Metro State Prisond 4.3 1.5 3.7 1.7

Walker Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 1.2 1.0

Wilcox State Prison 2.8 1.1 0.0 0.0

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 1.1 0.8

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 6.0 1.7 0.7 0.7

Logan Corr. Ctr. 2.2 0.9 1.0 1.0

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 2.9 1.4 0.0 0.0

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 6.4 1.9 1.4 1.0

Rockville Corr. Fac.d 6.6 2.0 4.2 1.4
22 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual 

contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 1.7% 0.9% 2.4% 1.2%

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 4.8 1.5 0.5 0.5

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.6 0.6 0.6

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.e 2.1 0.9 3.5 1.4

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 2.8 1.9 3.2 1.7

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 6.6 2.2 1.9 1.0

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 5.7 1.7 2.5 1.2

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.7 1.5 3.9 1.6

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 6.6 1.9 1.4 1.0

Marquette Branch Prison 5.7 1.6 1.1 0.7

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 3.9 1.4 0.7 0.6

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.6

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.0

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 3.8 1.3 4.1 1.3

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 3.1 1.1 0.6 0.4

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 5.8 1.7 1.4 0.9

Montana

Montana State Prison 5.3 1.7 2.6 1.1

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 11.2 3.6 2.2 2.1

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 4.4 1.3 3.2 1.3

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 2.3 1.1 3.5 1.3

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 5.3 1.6 0.9 0.8

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 2.5 1.3 1.2 0.8

South Woods State Prison 3.9 2.1 0.5 0.5

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.f 4.1 1.7 0.9 0.9

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.1 0.4 0.4

Elmira Corr. Fac. 5.1 2.2 0.0 0.0

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 6.1 2.1 5.3 1.7

Greene Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.9 0.3 0.3

Wende Corr. Fac. 3.5 1.5 2.7 1.3

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 3.0 1.2 0.6 0.5

Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 2.4 1.0 1.9 0.9

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 3.7 1.3 1.7 0.9

Odom Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.8 0.0 0.0

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 3.2 1.2 2.5 1.4
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 23

Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual 

contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 3.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

Grafton Corr. Inst. 4.8 2.0 0.0 0.0

North Central Corr. Inst. 2.1 1.0 1.6 0.9

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 3.6 1.3 2.6 1.2

Oregan

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.0 1.5 0.8

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 2.3 1.0 2.2 0.9

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.9 0.6

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 6.1 1.7 2.0 1.1

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 3.2 1.8 0.6 0.5

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 1.9 1.0 0.0 0.0

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 2.7 1.2 0.8 0.7

Women's Divisiond 5.3 1.3 2.2 0.9

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.7 0.0 0.0

Lee Corr. Inst. 7.6 2.1 1.1 0.8

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 5.2 1.8 2.1 1.3

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 2.6 1.1 0.9 0.9

Tennessee Prison for Womend 3.7 1.3 1.1 0.7

Whiteville Corr. Fac.f

 6.3 1.7 0.8 0.8

Texas

Allred Unit 8.0 2.0 1.9 1.0

Clements Unit 8.1 2.3 5.8 2.0

Coffield Unit 7.7 1.9 1.5 0.9

Dawson State Jaile,f 0.7 0.6 2.2 1.2

Estelle Unit 11.3 2.3 4.4 1.5

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

Hilltop Unitd 1.9 0.8 1.5 0.7

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0

Lockhart Unite,f 3.6 2.0 3.7 1.8

Lopez State Jail 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0

McConnell Unit 5.6 1.7 2.4 1.3

Mountain View Unitd 3.4 1.1 6.2 1.6

Polunsky Unit 3.2 1.1 2.1 0.9

Ramsey Unit #2 3.4 1.3 1.1 0.7

Wynne Unit 3.2 1.3 2.4 1.2

Utah

Utah State Prisone 5.0 1.6 2.8 1.1

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 4.0 1.6 1.3 0.9

Virginia

Red Onion State Prisong 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.0

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 4.2 2.2 0.0 0.0

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 4.6 2.3 1.9 1.3

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.0 2.6 1.1

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 3.1 1.2 0.7 0.6

Waupun Corr. Inst. 5.2 1.6 1.6 0.9

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 4.2 1.4 2.8 1.3
24 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual 

contacts only, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorc Percent victimized Standard errorc

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0

Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0

Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cibola County Corr. Inst.f

 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.0

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 1.7 0.9 0.6 0.6

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.8

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 2.7 2.6 0.0 0.0

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3 0.8 3.5 1.6

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taft Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.5 1.7 0.0 0.0

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.0 0.9 0.9

Note: Detail may not sum to total percent victimized within facility due to rounding. 

aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved oral sex, 

anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, and other sexual acts. (See Methodology for specific questions.)

bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching of 

the inmate's butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. 

c

Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

dFemale facility.

eFacility houses both males and females.

f

Privately operated facility.

gExcludes inmates designated as supermax inmates. 
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 25

Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, 

National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Total 2.1% 0.1% 2.9% 0.2%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisonc 5.0 1.4 1.7 0.8

Limestone Corr. Fac. 2.6 1.1 0.8 0.7

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 2.5 1.2 3.1 1.3

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 1.9 1.1 5.6 2.3

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.7 2.2 1.7

California

Avenal State Prison 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.7

California Inst. for Men 0.8 0.8 1.8 1.0

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 2.9 1.3 4.2 1.6

California Men’s Colony 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.1

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 1.0 0.7 2.1 1.0

Calipatria State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9

Central California Women's Fac.c 5.7 2.0 1.7 0.8

Corr. Training Fac. 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.9

Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mule Creek State Prison 5.3 1.7 2.2 1.1

North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 3.9 1.6 3.3 1.5

San Quentin State Prison 2.0 0.9 2.2 1.1

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 1.9 1.0 3.7 1.4

Valley State Prison for Womenc 7.9 2.0 5.3 1.8

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 3.6 1.3 2.2 1.1

High Plains Corr. Fac.c,e 2.2 1.2 3.8 2.5

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.7

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.d 1.4 0.7 3.8 1.6

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 11.4 2.6

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 2.0 1.1 3.5 1.2

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 3.3 1.3 2.8 1.2

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campc 5.7 1.9 1.8 0.9

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 2.4 1.2 3.5 1.4

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 0.4 0.4 2.3 1.1

Georgia

Hays State Prison 4.1 1.4 6.6 1.7

Men's Corr. State Prison 5.1 1.5 2.9 1.0

Metro State Prisonc 7.6 2.2 1.6 0.9

Walker Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.5

Wilcox State Prison 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.9

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 4.2 1.5 3.9 1.4

Logan Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.0 1.8 0.9

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 2.3 1.3

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 4.1 1.5 4.0 1.5

Rockville Corr. Fac.c 10.2 2.3 2.0 1.1
26 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, 

National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 3.4% 1.4% 0.7% 0.5%

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.8 5.4 1.6

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 3.9 1.4 3.7 1.4

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.9 0.0 0.0

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.d 4.4 1.5 1.5 0.7

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenc 6.0 2.5 0.0 0.0

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 4.2 1.8 4.2 1.6

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 3.9 1.4 5.4 1.7

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.6 3.2 1.5

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 3.1 1.3 5.2 1.8

Marquette Branch Prison 3.3 1.1 5.8 1.6

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.9 3.3 1.2

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.6

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 2.9 1.1 5.8 1.5

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 1.6 0.7

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 3.2 1.3 4.0 1.4

Montana

Montana State Prison 4.0 1.4 4.7 1.6

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 1.2 1.2 12.2 3.9

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.c 6.6 1.7 1.7 0.9

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 3.2 1.3 3.9 1.4

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 4.6 1.5 2.2 1.0

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 1.2 0.9 3.7 1.6

South Woods State Prison 0.9 0.6 3.5 2.0

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.e 0.9 0.9 4.1 1.7

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.6 2.9 1.1

Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.4 3.3 1.7

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.4 9.6 2.5

Greene Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9

Wende Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.5 4.6 1.6

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.2 2.0 0.9

Fountain Corr. Ctr.c 3.8 1.3 0.4 0.4

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 3.6 1.3 3.0 1.1

Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.8 3.7 1.6

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 1.5 1.0 4.1 1.6
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 27

Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, 

National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 2.6% 1.3% 3.6% 1.4%

Grafton Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.4

North Central Corr. Inst. 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.1

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 6.3 1.7 0.0 0.0

Oregan

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.7 2.9 1.1

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.c 4.4 1.3 0.0 0.0

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2.0 0.9 0.5 0.5

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 2.3 1.1 7.0 1.9

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 3.2 1.8

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.6

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 1.4 0.9 2.1 1.1

Women's Divisionc 4.4 1.2 3.1 1.1

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.8 3.1 1.5

Lee Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 7.7 2.1

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 2.2 1.1 5.6 2.0

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 1.3 0.9 2.2 1.0

Tennessee Prison for Womenc 1.1 0.7 4.3 1.4

Whiteville Corr. Fac.e 1.4 1.0 7.1 1.9

Texas

Allred Unit 4.8 1.5 6.7 1.9

Clements Unit 3.3 1.6 11.6 2.7

Coffield Unit 4.4 1.5 5.7 1.6

Dawson State Jaild,e 1.3 0.8 2.2 1.3

Estelle Unit 8.5 2.1 7.6 1.9

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8

Hilltop Unitc 3.0 1.0 1.5 0.7

Holliday Transfer Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lockhart Unitd,e 5.5 2.2 1.8 1.6

Lopez State Jail 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8

McConnell Unit 3.5 1.5 5.4 1.8

Mountain View Unitc 8.7 1.8 3.4 1.1

Polunsky Unit 1.2 0.7 4.2 1.2

Ramsey Unit #2 1.9 1.0 2.7 1.1

Wynne Unit 1.5 0.9 4.0 1.5

Utah

Utah State Prisond 6.6 1.8 2.4 1.0

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 2.7 1.4 2.6 1.3

Virginia

Red Onion State Prison 1.3 1.1 3.6 1.7

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.2

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 2.3 1.3 4.2 2.3

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.2 1.8 1.0

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 3.2 1.3

Waupun Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 6.3 1.8

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 1.2 0.7 6.6 1.9
28 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, 

National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff-on-inmatea

Facility name Percent victimized Standard errorb Percent victimized Standard errorb

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7

Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1.8 1.3 1.3 0.9

Big Spring Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cibola County Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.5

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.5 0.4 1.0 0.6

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.7

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 1.8 1.0

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.6

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.7 4.0 1.7

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taft Corr. Inst.e 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.1 2.7 1.5

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.7 1.1 2.2 1.0

Note: Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual 

victimization.

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, 

penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way and other sexual acts. 

bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

c

Female facility.

dFacility houses both males and females.

ePrivately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 29

Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident 

and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard errorb Percent victimizedc Standard errorb

Total 1.3% 0.1% 2.3% 0.2%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisond 4.0 1.3 1.7 0.8

Limestone Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.9 0.8 0.7

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 0.9 0.7 3.1 1.3

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 0.7 0.6 4.0 2.2

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.6 2.2 1.7

California

Avenal State Prison 0.4 0.4 1.0 0.7

California Inst. for Men 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.0

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 1.9 1.1 3.8 1.6

California Men’s Colony 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.1

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 0.6 0.6 2.1 1.0

Calipatria State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9

Central California Women's Fac.d 3.5 1.5 1.1 0.6

Corr. Training Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mule Creek State Prison 3.8 1.5 1.6 0.9

North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 2.8 1.4 2.8 1.4

San Quentin State Prison 0.7 0.5 2.1 1.0

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 0.8 0.6 3.7 1.4

Valley State Prison for Womend 1.4 0.8 1.5 0.8

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.8 1.8 1.0

High Plains Corr. Fac.d,f 1.3 1.1 3.1 2.4

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.e 0.9 0.6 2.4 1.0

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 1.1 0.7 11.4 2.6

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 0.8 0.7 3.2 1.2

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 2.5 1.1 2.8 1.2

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campd 2.4 1.5 1.8 0.9

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 1.7 1.0 2.8 1.3

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 0.4 0.4 1.3 0.9

Georgia

Hays State Prison 2.5 1.1 4.4 1.4

Men's Corr. State Prison 3.0 1.0 1.8 0.8

Metro State Prisond 3.6 1.3 1.2 0.8

Walker Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5

Wilcox State Prison 1.4 0.7 2.0 0.9

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.9

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 3.1 1.3 3.9 1.4

Logan Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.4 1.8 0.9

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 2.3 1.3
30 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident 

and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard error Percent victimizedb Standard error

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 2.7% 1.2% 3.6% 1.5%

Rockville Corr. Fac.d 4.6 1.8 2.0 1.1

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.4

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.8 4.8 1.5

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.3

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 3.9 1.4 2.4 1.2

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.e 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.6

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womend 2.8 1.9 0.0 0.0

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 3.6 1.7 3.0 1.3

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 2.1 1.0 4.3 1.5

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.4 0.6 0.6

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 2.6 1.2 4.3 1.6

Marquette Branch Prison 2.2 0.9 5.3 1.5

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.6 3.3 1.2

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.4

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 2.4 1.0 2.2 0.9

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.5

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 1.8 1.0 4.0 1.4

Montana

Montana State Prison 1.5 1.0 3.8 1.4

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 1.2 1.2 10.0 3.4

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.d 2.8 0.9 1.7 0.9

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 2.3 1.1

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 3.1 1.2 2.2 1.0

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 1.2 0.9 2.5 1.3

South Woods State Prison 0.5 0.5 3.5 2.0

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.f 0.0 0.0 4.1 1.7

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.5 2.4 1.0

Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.4 3.3 1.7

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 1.5 1.1 4.5 1.8

Greene Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.4 1.6 0.9

Wende Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.3 2.8 1.3

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 2.5 1.2 1.4 0.7

Fountain Corr. Ctr.d 1.9 1.0 0.4 0.4

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 2.0 1.0 2.5 1.0

Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.8 3.7 1.6

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 0.5 0.4 2.7 1.1
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 31

Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident 

and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard error Percent victimizedb Standard error

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 2.1% 1.2% 3.6% 1.4%

Grafton Corr. Inst. 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.4

North Central Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.5 0.5

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 3.6 1.3 0.0 0.0

Oregan

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.5 2.3 0.9

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.0

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 0.0 0.0

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.9 5.6 1.7

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.8

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.6

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 0.6 0.5 2.1 1.1

Women's Divisiond 2.2 0.8 3.1 1.1

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.8 3.1 1.5

Lee Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 6.6 2.0

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 1.8 1.0 3.9 1.6

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 0.4 0.4 2.2 1.0

Tennessee Prison for Womend 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.3

Whiteville Corr. Fac.f 1.4 1.0 6.3 1.7

Texas

Allred Unit 4.0 1.4 4.9 1.6

Clements Unit 1.6 1.1 6.5 2.0

Coffield Unit 3.3 1.3 5.3 1.5

Dawson State Jaile,f 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6

Estelle Unit 5.1 1.6 6.6 1.7

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.6

Hilltop Unitd 1.0 0.6 1.0 0.6

Holliday Transfer Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Lockhart Unite,f 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.6

Lopez State Jail 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.8

McConnell Unit 2.1 1.2 4.5 1.6

Mountain View Unitd 2.7 1.0 2.3 0.9

Polunsky Unit 0.7 0.5 2.5 1.0

Ramsey Unit #2 1.4 0.9 2.1 0.9

Wynne Unit 0.6 0.5 2.6 1.2

Utah

Utah State Prisone 4.1 1.5 1.8 0.9

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 2.7 1.4 1.3 0.9

Virginia

Red Onion State Prison 1.3 1.1 3.6 1.7

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.2

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.0 3.1 2.1

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.5 1.8 1.0

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 2.5 1.1

Waupun Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.5 4.7 1.5

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 4.2 1.4
32 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 5. Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts, by type of incident 

and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Percent victimizeda Standard error Percent victimizedb Standard error

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.7%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.7

Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1.2 1.1 1.3 0.9

Big Spring Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cibola County Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.6

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taft Corr. Inst.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.1 2.7 1.5

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.7 0.7 2.2 1.0

aIncludes only reports involving unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts by other inmates.

bStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

cIncludes all reports of staff sexual misconduct involving oral, anal ,or vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts.

dFemale facility.

eFacility houses both males and females.

f

Privately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 33

Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda Without force or 

pressureb

Total 1.3% 1.7% 0.9% 1.5% 1.7%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisonc 2.7 4.3 0.9 1.3 0.0

Limestone Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.6 0.8 0.8 0.8

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 2.5 0.9 1.5 2.2 1.5

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.5 4.5

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 2.2

California

Avenal State Prison 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.5

California Inst. for Men 0.8 0.0 1.3 1.1 1.2

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 2.4 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.8

California Men’s Colony 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.7 1.0

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 1.0 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.7

Calipatria State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0

Central California Women's Fac.c 4.1 3.9 0.8 1.3 0.4

Corr. Training Fac. 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0

Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mule Creek State Prison 2.3 5.3 1.3 1.8 0.4

North Kern State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 1.9 3.9 0.8 3.3 0.0

San Quentin State Prison 2.0 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.0

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 1.4 1.4 1.7 2.8 1.4

Valley State Prison for Womenc 4.7 5.9 1.5 3.3 3.3

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 1.2 3.6 0.6 0.5 1.2

High Plains Corr. Fac.c,e 0.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.8

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.d 1.4 1.0 1.8 1.0 3.3

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 0.6 1.1 2.6 6.1 5.7

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 1.3 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.9

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 2.0 2.9 0.0 0.5 2.3

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campc 1.5 5.7 0.3 1.0 0.5

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 1.8 1.7 0.3 1.3 2.2

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 0.4 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.7

Georgia

Hays State Prison 2.4 3.4 1.0 2.7 5.4

Men's Corr. State Prison 2.7 4.2 1.7 1.8 2.2

Metro State Prisonc 5.6 5.0 1.2 1.6 0.4

Walker Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6

Wilcox State Prison 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 2.0

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 0.0

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.1

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 3.0 3.8 1.4 2.2 1.9

Logan Corr. Ctr. 0.4 1.4 0.5 1.4 1.0

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.6 2.3

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 2.8 4.1 0.0 2.0 3.0

Rockville Corr. Fac.c 6.5 7.5 0.5 1.1 0.9
34 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda Without force or 

pressureb

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 0.7% 2.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3%

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 0.7 1.2 2.1 2.6 4.1

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 2.7 3.9 0.9 2.9 1.9

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.d 1.8 3.7 1.3 1.5 0.5

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenc 3.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 0.7 4.2 1.2 1.9 3.0

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 3.5 2.8 0.5 1.6 4.5

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.7 3.5 2.3 2.5 0.0

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 2.5 2.2 0.9 0.9 5.2

Marquette Branch Prison 3.3 2.8 1.4 2.0 2.9

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 0.6 1.3 1.1 1.9 1.4

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.8

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 2.4 2.9 1.2 3.9 2.2

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 2.1 2.1 0.7 0.6 0.9

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 2.5 2.5 1.6 1.7 4.0

Montana

Montana State Prison 2.4 3.5 0.4 1.3 4.3

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 0.0 1.2 7.5 11.8 5.9

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.c 5.6 4.7 0.4 1.7 0.0

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 3.2 0.6 1.6 2.6 2.4

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 2.1 4.2 0.5 1.1 1.1

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.6

South Woods State Prison 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 3.5

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.e 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.6 3.3

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 0.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0

Elmira Corr. Fac. 1.9 1.4 1.6 2.5 0.8

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 1.0 2.8 6.0 6.3 2.8

Greene Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 0.8

Wende Corr. Fac. 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.8 1.4

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 2.0 2.5 0.6 0.6 0.8

Fountain Corr. Ctr.c 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.0

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 2.3 3.0 1.6 1.3 0.9

Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.9 1.9 1.8 2.7

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 1.5 1.5 2.1 3.5 2.0

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 1.2 2.1 1.9 3.6 3.1

Grafton Corr. Inst. 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.8 1.3

North Central Corr. Inst. 1.0 2.2 0.6 1.7 1.1
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 35

Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda Without force or 

pressureb

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 3.8% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Oregon

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.8 2.3 2.3 1.5

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.c 2.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 1.4 2.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 1.0 2.3 2.7 3.5 4.1

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.0 1.2

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 0.8 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.8

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 0.6 0.8 0.0 1.4 0.7

Women's Divisionc 3.6 4.4 1.5 1.5 1.6

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 1.5 1.1 0.6 1.6 1.5

Lee Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.5 1.0 3.7 7.7

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 2.2 1.8 2.3 5.1 2.2

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.2 2.0

Tennessee Prison for Womenc 0.5 1.1 1.2 2.5 3.2

Whiteville Corr. Fac.e 1.4 1.4 2.9 3.3 5.4

Texas

Allred Unit 3.6 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.3

Clements Unit 1.7 3.3 4.1 6.8 5.6

Coffield Unit 2.1 3.9 0.4 1.4 4.3

Dawson State Jaild,e 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.0

Estelle Unit 5.1 7.9 0.9 4.4 5.2

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.7

Hilltop Unitc 1.4 2.0 0.0 1.1 0.5

Holliday Transfer Fac. 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

Lockhart Unitd,e 3.1 4.3 0.0 1.8 0.0

Lopez State Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3

McConnell Unit 2.4 2.1 1.6 2.5 4.5

Mountain View Unitc 7.5 6.8 0.7 3.0 1.4

Polunsky Unit 0.3 1.2 1.2 2.1 2.4

Ramsey Unit #2 1.1 1.9 1.6 1.1 1.1

Wynne Unit 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.3 2.0

Utah

Utah State Prisond 5.4 5.1 1.2 1.8 0.8

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 1.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.6

Virginia

Red Onion State Prison 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.6 2.3

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 4.2

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 1.7 2.3 1.6 1.6 2.6

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 3.3 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.8

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 0.9 2.1 1.3

Waupun Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 1.8 3.0 3.4

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.9 4.6
36 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 6. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by type of incident and level of coercion, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Physically forced Pressureda Physically forced Pressureda Without force or 

pressureb

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.5%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.4

Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6

Big Spring Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cibola County Corr. Inst.e 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.3

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.0

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 0.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.7

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.2

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.8 1.7 3.7 0.3

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taft Corr. Inst.e 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.7

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.2

Note: Detail may sum to more than totals on table 4 because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels 

of coercion.

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

(See Methodology for definitions.)

bIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate 

reported that they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff.

c

Female facility.

dFacility houses both males and females.

ePrivately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 37

Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, 

by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Victimized Injureda Victimized Injureda Victimized Injureda

Total 4.5% 0.8% 2.1% 0.5% 2.9% 0.3%

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisonb 6.3 1.1 5.0 1.1 1.7 0.0

Limestone Corr. Fac. 3.3 0.4 2.6 0.4 0.8 0.0

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 4.9 0.6 2.5 0.0 3.1 0.6

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 7.5 0.6 1.9 0.6 5.6 0.0

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 3.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0

California

Avenal State Prison 1.4 0.4 0.9 0.4 1.0 0.4

California Inst. for Men 2.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.8 0.7

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 7.2 2.8 2.9 1.3 4.2 1.5

California Men’s Colony 2.3 0.5 0.9 0.5 1.8 0.0

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 3.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.1 0.0

Calipatria State Prison 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0

Central California Women's Fac.b 7.0 0.7 5.7 0.7 1.7 0.0

Corr. Training Fac. 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.9

Ironwood State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mule Creek State Prison 6.8 1.3 5.3 1.3 2.2 0.0

North Kern State Prison 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 5.9 0.5 3.9 0.5 3.3 0.5

San Quentin State Prison 4.1 1.1 2.0 0.0 2.1 1.1

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 4.7 0.4 1.9 0.4 3.7 0.0

Valley State Prison for Womenb 10.3 2.3 7.9 1.5 5.3 0.9

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 5.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.2 0.0

High Plains Corr. Fac.b,d 5.9 0.0 2.2 0.0 3.8 0.0

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.4

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.c 4.1 0.9 1.4 0.5 3.8 0.4

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 12.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 11.4 0.0

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 5.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.5 0.0

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 5.1 2.0 3.3 1.5 2.8 0.5

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campb 7.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 1.8 0.0

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 5.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 3.5 0.0

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 2.7 0.0 0.4 0.0 2.3 0.0

Georgia

Hays State Prison 9.1 2.9 4.1 2.1 6.6 0.8

Men's Corr. State Prison 7.0 0.3 5.1 0.3 2.9 0.0

Metro State Prisonb 8.0 1.2 7.6 1.2 1.6 0.4

Walker Corr. Inst. 2.3 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.0

Wilcox State Prison 2.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 2.0 0.0

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.0

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 6.7 1.7 4.2 0.8 3.9 0.9

Logan Corr. Ctr. 3.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.8 0.0

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 2.9 0.8 0.6 0.0 2.3 0.8

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 7.8 0.9 4.1 0.9 4.0 0.0

Rockville Corr. Fac.b 10.8 3.7 10.2 3.7 2.0 0.6
38 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, 

by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont,)

All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured*

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 4.1% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 5.4 0.7 1.2 0.7 5.4 0.7

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 5.4 2.4 3.9 2.4 3.7 0.6

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.c 5.6 1.1 4.4 0.7 1.5 0.4

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womenb 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 8.5 0.5 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.5

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 8.2 1.6 3.9 1.6 5.4 0.7

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 6.6 1.1 3.5 1.1 3.2 0.0

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 7.9 1.2 3.1 1.2 5.2 0.0

Marquette Branch Prison 6.8 3.5 3.3 1.8 5.8 2.0

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 4.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.3 0.0

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 2.2 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.8 0.0

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 7.9 1.4 2.9 1.4 5.8 0.0

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 3.7 1.8 2.1 1.5 1.6 0.3

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 7.1 1.3 3.2 1.3 4.0 0.0

Montana

Montana State Prison 7.9 1.3 4.0 0.9 4.7 0.4

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 13.4 3.9 1.2 0.0 12.2 3.9

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.b 7.7 1.6 6.6 1.6 1.7 0.0

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 5.8 1.7 3.2 0.6 3.9 1.1

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 6.2 1.4 4.6 1.4 2.2 0.0

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 3.7 1.2 1.2 1.2 3.7 0.0

South Woods State Prison 4.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.5 0.0

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.d 5.0 1.7 0.9 0.9 4.1 0.8

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 3.4 0.6 1.0 0.0 2.9 0.6

Elmira Corr. Fac. 5.1 1.7 1.9 1.4 3.3 0.3

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 11.3 2.0 3.0 0.0 9.6 2.0

Greene Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.6 0.0

Wende Corr. Fac. 6.2 3.1 3.3 1.7 4.6 1.4

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 3.6 1.9 2.5 1.3 2.0 0.6

Fountain Corr. Ctr.b 4.3 0.8 3.8 0.8 0.4 0.0

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 5.5 1.1 3.6 1.1 3.0 0.0

Odom Corr. Inst. 4.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 3.7 0.0

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 5.6 0.7 1.5 0.0 4.1 0.7

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 3.6 1.2 2.6 0.7 3.6 0.5

Grafton Corr. Inst. 4.8 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.1 0.0

North Central Corr. Inst. 3.8 0.6 2.2 0.6 2.2 0.0
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 39

Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, 

by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont,)

All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured*

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 6.3% 2.9% 6.3% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0%

Oregon

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 4.2 2.4 1.7 0.8 2.9 2.0

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.b 4.4 1.0 4.4 1.0 0.0 0.0

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 2.5 0.5 2.0 0.5 0.5 0.0

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 8.1 1.6 2.3 1.1 7.0 0.5

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 3.8 0.7 0.6 0.0 3.2 0.7

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.4

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 3.5 1.4 1.4 0.0 2.1 1.4

Women's Divisionb 7.5 2.0 4.4 1.4 3.1 0.7

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 4.7 1.1 1.5 1.1 3.1 0.0

Lee Corr. Inst. 8.7 0.5 1.0 0.5 7.7 0.0

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 7.2 1.6 2.2 1.2 5.6 0.4

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 3.5 0.9 1.3 0.9 2.2 0.0

Tennessee Prison for Womenb 4.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 4.3 0.0

Whiteville Corr. Fac.d 7.1 1.9 1.4 0.0 7.1 1.9

Texas

Allred Unit 9.9 3.3 4.8 3.3 6.7 0.9

Clements Unit 13.9 4.0 3.3 1.0 11.6 3.1

Coffield Unit 9.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 5.7 0.0

Dawson State Jailc,d 2.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0

Estelle Unit 15.7 2.5 8.5 2.0 7.6 0.4

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0

Hilltop Unitb 3.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.5 0.0

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0

Lockhart Unitc,d 7.3 0.0 5.5 0.0 1.8 0.0

Lopez State Jail 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0

McConnell Unit 8.0 1.4 3.5 1.0 5.4 0.4

Mountain View Unitb 9.5 3.2 8.7 2.7 3.4 2.1

Polunsky Unit 5.3 0.8 1.2 0.5 4.2 0.3

Ramsey Unit #2 4.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 2.7 0.0

Wynne Unit 5.5 1.9 1.5 1.1 4.0 0.8

Utah

Utah State Prisonc 7.7 2.6 6.6 2.6 2.4 0.4

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 5.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.6 0.0

Virginia

Red Onion State Prison 3.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.6 0.0

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 6.4 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.2 0.0

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 4.3 0.7 3.3 0.7 1.8 0.0

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 3.8 0.4 0.5 0.0 3.2 0.4

Waupun Corr. Inst. 6.8 1.3 0.5 0.0 6.3 1.3

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 7.0 0.8 1.2 0.0 6.6 0.8
40 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 7. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization and percent injured, 

by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont,)

All incidents Inmate-on-inmate Staff-on-inmate

Facility name Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured* Victimized Injured*

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Bennettsville-Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 2.4 0.7 1.8 0.7 1.3 0.0

Big Spring Corr. Inst.d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cibola County Corr. Inst.d 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.0

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 2.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.0

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 4.8 0.3 0.8 0.0 4.0 0.3

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taft Corr. Inst.d 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.0

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.5 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.7 0.0

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 3.1 0.6 1.7 0.0 2.2 0.6

Note: Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization.

aInjuries included knife or stab wounds, broken bones, anal or rectal tearing, teeth chipped or knocked out, internal injuries, knocked 

unconscious, bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts.

bFemale facility.

c

Facility houses both males and females.

dPrivately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 41

Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Total 49 5 77 7

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisone 189 91 166 63

Limestone Corr. Fac. 166 100 108 63

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 9 7 60 37

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 13 13 114 75

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 0 0 20 19

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 62 60 62 60

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0 0 0 0

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 35 28 25 14

California

Avenal State Prison 21 20 53 52

California Inst. for Men 0 0 8 8

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 94 54 112 56

California Men’s Colony 22 17 22 17

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 11 11 21 21

Calipatria State Prison 0 0 0 0

Central California Women's Fac.e 82 48 89 44

Corr. Training Fac. 0 0 8 8

Ironwood State Prison 0 0 0 0

Mule Creek State Prison 251 115 175 86

North Kern State Prison 0 0 0 0

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 192 123 256 138

San Quentin State Prison 48 45 144 79

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 72 55 56 44

Valley State Prison for Womene 51 32 219 74

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 30 17 149 72

High Plains Corr. Fac.e,g 13 11 41 32

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 8 7 8 7

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.f 28 23 80 49

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 4 4 0 0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 18 13 32 29

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 15 14 64 42

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 68 34 190 96

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campe 51 30 176 85

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 58 36 56 41

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 21 20 21 20

Georgia

Hays State Prison 86 42 89 37

Men's Corr. State Prison 60 24 141 60

Metro State Prisone 69 29 153 51

Walker Corr. Inst. 4 4 146 120

Wilcox State Prison 80 48 31 26

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 80 61 80 61

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 5 5 18 14

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 81 44 101 48

Logan Corr. Ctr. 21 20 31 22

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 6 5 6 5

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 106 60 151 74

Rockville Corr. Fac.e 218 101 386 120
42 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 65 43 139 62

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 88 79 84 79

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 0 0 0 0

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 211 85 253 107

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 38 33 15 9

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.f 11 7 138 60

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womene 55 38 40 20

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 165 113 223 135

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 153 94 111 61

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 31 22 184 123

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 73 36 99 63

Marquette Branch Prison 32 14 57 34

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 6 6 111 77

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 23 22 107 65

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 57 27 114 64

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 71 36 115 75

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 101 74 122 75

Montana

Montana State Prison 56 43 118 65

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 62 59 62 59

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.e 61 24 155 45

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 30 28 56 30

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 142 75 192 86

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 106 97 106 97

South Woods State Prison 9 9 5 5

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.g 0 0 46 43

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0 0 0 0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 5 5 9 8

Elmira Corr. Fac. 73 66 69 66

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 31 22 21 10

Greene Corr. Fac. 24 22 26 22

Wende Corr. Fac. 69 39 65 39

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 45 22 152 85

Fountain Corr. Ctr.e 26 14 109 47

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 115 75 236 115

Odom Corr. Inst. 46 39 46 39

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 25 21 36 22

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 91 74 146 95

Grafton Corr. Inst. 112 66 42 40

North Central Corr. Inst. 59 37 126 74
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 43

Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 161 68 330 132

Oregon

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 26 20 42 22

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e 68 37 174 89

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 35 24 117 72

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 35 24 145 90

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 0 0 31 23

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 92 87 96 87

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 6 5 47 38

Women's Divisione 26 9 101 31

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 91 60 91 60

Lee Corr. Inst. 88 65 32 26

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 93 50 85 66

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 4 4 49 43

Tennessee Prison for Womene 0 0 22 13

Whiteville Corr. Fac.g 28 20 44 29

Texas

Allred Unit 115 57 106 56

Clements Unit 118 110 135 110

Coffield Unit 104 46 137 59

Dawson State Jailf,g 0 0 31 20

Estelle Unit 244 132 297 139

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 0 0 0 0

Hilltop Unite 15 10 103 54

Holliday Transfer Fac. 11 10 5 5

Lockhart Unitf,g 19 13 62 29

Lopez State Jail 0 0 0 0

McConnell Unit 65 48 97 55

Mountain View Unite 100 48 257 85

Polunsky Unit 36 31 83 58

Ramsey Unit #2 38 28 43 28

Wynne Unit 6 5 34 24

Utah

Utah State Prisonf 259 127 306 130

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 27 14 76 54

Virginia

Red Onion State Prison 66 54 159 129

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 14 10 60 44

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 35 26 161 73

Wisconson

Stanley Corr. Inst. 27 26 27 26

Waupun Corr. Inst. 5 5 0 0

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 0 0 37 23
44 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 8. Number of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 27 21 21 20

Bennettsville-Camp 0 0 0 0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 12 11 79 75

Big Spring Corr. Inst.g 0 0 00

Cibola County Corr. Inst.g 0 0 00

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 0 0 11 9

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 34 26 40 26

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 0 0 0 0

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 68 64 68 64

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0 0 0 0

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 8 7 8 7

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

Taft Corr. Inst.g 0 0 76

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 126 83

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 25 18 42 41

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 7 7 114 107

Note: Detail may sum to more than total because victims may have reported both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate 

sexual victimization.

aIncludes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that involved oral sex, anal sex, vaginal sex, handjobs, 

or other sexual acts. 

bIncludes all incidents of unwanted contacts with another inmate that involved only touching of the inmate's butt, thighs, 

penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. 

c

Incident rate represents that the number of incidents reported by inmates per 1,000 inmates. 

dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

eFemale facility.

f

Facility houses both males and females.

gPrivately operated facility.
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 45

Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007

Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Total 75 7 71 7

Alabama

Julia Tutwiler Prisone 115 64 0 0

Limestone Corr. Fac. 38 36 38 36

Alaska

Wildwood Corr. Complex 142 78 180 104

Arizona

Arizona State Prison Complex - Eyman 64 36 111 60

Arizona State Prison Complex - Florence 4 4 4 4

Arizona State Prison Complex - Tucson 0 0 3 3

Arkansas

Diagnostic Unit 0 0 9 7

Jefferson County Corr. Fac. 0 0 45 35

California

Avenal State Prison 21 20 11 11

California Inst. for Men 102 86 96 85

California Sub. Abuse Treatment Fac. - Corcoran 152 94 98 56

California Men’s Colony 15 15 24 18

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 45 32 65 39

Calipatria State Prison 68 60 0 0

Central California Women's Fac.e 33 20 47 46

Corr. Training Fac. 109 108 0 0

Ironwood State Prison 0 0 0 0

Mule Creek State Prison 102 78 18 18

North Kern State Prison 0 0 7 7

R. J. Donovan Corr. Fac. at Rock Mountain 133 98 0 0

San Quentin State Prison 132 91 31 25

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 185 96 119 80

Valley State Prison for Womene 105 52 122 62

Colorado

Fremont Corr. Fac. 16 11 33 22

High Plains Corr. Fac.e,g 0 0 162 123

Connecticut

Osborn Corr. Inst. 54 44 11 10

Delaware

Howard R. Young Corr. Inst.f 48 27 121 63

Florida

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East, South & Main 0 0 0 0

Charlotte Corr. Inst. 458 171 306 108

Cross City Corr. Inst. & Work Camp 38 17 26 15

Hamilton Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Camp 26 25 141 79

Lowell Corr. Inst., Annex & Work Campe 49 28 10 10

Sumter Corr. Inst., Boot Camp & Work Camp 13 10 44 21

Taylor Corr. Inst. & Annex 50 32 23 14

Georgia

Hays State Prison 143 62 237 75

Men's Corr. State Prison 66 39 43 20

Metro State Prisone 45 25 4 4

Walker Corr. Inst. 0 0 32 27

Wilcox State Prison 0 0 139 75

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 144 88 0 0

Idaho

South Idaho Corr. Inst. 119 85 38 26

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Dixon Corr. Ctr. 83 47 81 56

Logan Corr. Ctr. 55 35 27 21

Vienna Corr. Ctr. 48 38 62 40
46 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Indiana

Plainfield Corr. Fac. 71 40 103 49

Rockville Corr. Fac.e 37 27 45 42

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 46 43 16 15

Kansas

Hutchinson Corr. Fac. 108 79 283 107

Kentucky

Western Kentucky Corr. Complex 167 116 0 0

Louisiana

Dixon Corr. Inst. 100 46 58 40

Forcht-Wade Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.f 107 58 9 8

Maryland

Baltimore Pre-Release Unit - Womene 00 0 0

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 100 81 132 67

Roxbury Corr. Inst. 74 60 145 85

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 229 127 0 0

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 9 9 194 71

Marquette Branch Prison 133 74 69 32

Ojibway Corr. Fac. 118 71 52 28

Minnesota

Minnesota Corr. Fac. - Stillwater 2 2 14 12

Mississippi

Harrison Community Work Ctr. 9 4 9 4

Missouri

Jefferson City Corr. Ctr. 108 58 87 58

Northeast Corr. Ctr. 11 6 19 13

Southeast Corr. Ctr. 57 32 190 89

Montana

Montana State Prison 95 63 165 65

Nebraska

Tecumseh State Corr. Inst. 866 372 384 235

Nevada

Florence McClure Women's Corr. Ctr.e 65 33 0 0

Southern Desert Corr. Ctr. 164 89 183 98

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 31 25 55 37

New Jersey

Northern State Prison 50 23 170 109

South Woods State Prison 130 90 204 105

New Mexico

Lea County Corr. Fac.g 16 10 83 45

Penitentiary of New Mexico 0 0 0 0

New York

Arthur Kill Corr. Fac. 119 69 30 23

Elmira Corr. Fac. 118 73 16 16

Great Meadow Corr. Fac. 334 125 232 131

Greene Corr. Fac. 99 87 17 11

Wende Corr. Fac. 133 63 50 35

North Carolina

Avery Mitchell Corr. Inst. 78 65 8 5

Fountain Corr. Ctr.e 98 0 0

Gates Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Harnett Corr. Inst. 32 16 31 21

Odom Corr. Inst. 166 90 154 90

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 146 76 148 78
Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 47

Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Ohio

Belmont Corr. Inst. 191 101 232 110

Grafton Corr. Inst. 16 15 63 60

North Central Corr. Inst. 46 32 57 39

Oklahoma

Joseph Harp Corr. Ctr. 0 0 0 0

Oregon

Oregon State Corr. Inst. 200 82 102 55

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e 00 00

Dallas State Corr. Inst. 11 10 0 0

Fayette State Corr. Inst. 121 64 188 75

Graterford State Corr. Inst. 27 19 59 58

Rockview State Corr. Inst. 10 7 59 48

Rhode Island

John Moran Medium Security Fac. 27 18 15 14

Women's Divisione 22 11 50 25

South Carolina

Allendale Corr. Inst. 88 56 120 83

Lee Corr. Inst. 66 28 216 73

South Dakota

South Dakota State Penitentiary 179 92 134 74

Tennessee

Northwest Corr. Complex 4 4 46 24

Tennessee Prison for Womene 60 35 119 53

Whiteville Corr. Fac.g 197 116 203 89

Texas

Allred Unit 190 87 49 26

Clements Unit 311 104 213 97

Coffield Unit 70 51 204 83

Dawson State Jailf,g 12 8 51 49

Estelle Unit 129 58 251 90

Fort Stockton Transfer Fac. 6 5 14 12

Hilltop Unite 11 6 9 8

Holliday Transfer Fac. 65 62 0 0

Lockhart Unitf,g 18 16 0 0

Lopez State Jail 6 5 13 8

McConnell Unit 45 24 122 52

Mountain View Unite 162 74 72 45

Polunsky Unit 53 24 53 22

Ramsey Unit #2 27 15 22 14

Wynne Unit 107 92 66 45

Utah

Utah State Prisonf 87 68 8 6

Vermont

Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. 0 0 26 13

Virginia

Red Onion State Prison 53 30 116 67

St. Brides Corr. Ctr. 183 154 408 223

Washington

Stafford Creek Corr. Ctr. 32 23 46 39

West Virginia

Northern Regional Corr. Fac. 0 0 56 31

Wisconsin

Stanley Corr. Inst. 85 57 67 56

Waupun Corr. Inst. 269 122 151 61

Wyoming

Wyoming State Penitentiary 56 33 196 84
48 Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007

Appendix table 9. Number of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates, 

by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2007 (cont.)

Unwilling sexual contacta Willing sexual contactb

Facility name Incident ratec Standard errord Incident ratec Standard errord

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

Allenwood Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 27 21 10 9

Beaumont Low Fed. Corr. Inst. 50 34 8 8

Bennettsville-Camp 0 0 0 0

Big Sandy U.S. Penitentiary 13 9 12 12

Big Spring Corr. Inst.g 00 00

Cibola County Corr. Inst.g 99 11 10

Fort Dix Fed. Corr. Inst. 5 3 16 16

La Tuna - Fed. Satellite Fac. (El Paso) 28 18 0 0

Lexington Fed. Medical Fac. 0 0 7 7

McCreary U.S. Penitentiary 39 37 0 0

Memphis Fed. Corr. Inst. 33 27 81 65

Milan Fed. Corr. Inst. 39 36 8 7

Oakdale Fed. Detention Fac. 0 0 27 26

Pekin Fed. Corr. Inst. 251 131 14 13

Schuylkill Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

Taft Corr. Inst.g 00 00

Terminal Island Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 0 0

Victorville Med. I Fed. Corr. Inst. 0 0 164 113

Yazoo City Med. Fed. Corr. Inst. 175 103 110 85

aIncludes all incidents of reported unwilling sexual contacts with staff. 

bIncludes all incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff inmate.

c

Incident rate represents the number of incidents reported by inmates per 1,000 inmates. 

dStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around the weighted survey estimates. (See Methodology.)

eFemale facility.

f

Facility houses both males and females.

gPrivately operated facility.