U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Sexual Victimization in Prisons 

and Jails Reported by Inmates, 

2011–12

BJS

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Federal and state prisons

Local jails

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. 

BJS Statistician

Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar, 

and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI International

May 2013, NCJ 241399
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013 2

Bureau of Justice Statistics

William J. Sabol 

Acting Director

BJS Website:

www.bjs.gov 

askbjs@usdoj.gov 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. William J. Sabol is the acting director. 

This report was written by Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, and Marcus 

Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI 

International. 

Paige M. Harrison (former BJS statistician) was the project manager for the 

NIS-3. RTI International staff, under a cooperative agreement and in 

collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, 

and monitored the data collection and processing. The staff included Rachel 

Caspar, Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Leader; Christopher 

Krebs, Co-principal Investigator; Ellen Stutts, Co-principal Investigator and 

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

Bachrach, Human Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing 

Task Leader; and Marcus Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader. Ramona Rantala, 

BJS statistician, and RTI staff, including Heather Meier, Barbara Alexander, and 

Rodney Baxter, verified the report.

Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn designed 

and produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. 

May 2013, NCJ 241399
Federal and state prisons

Local jails

Sexual Victimization in Prisons 

and Jails Reported by Inmates, 

2011–12

Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. 

BJS Statistician

Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar, 

and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI International

May 2013, NCJ 241399

BJS

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 4

Contents

Highlights 6

National Inmate Survey-3 8

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

Facility-level rates 10

Demographic and other characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Special inmate populations—Inmates ages 16 to 17 . . . . . . 20

Special inmate populations— Inmates with mental health 

problems 24

Special inmate populations—Inmates with a non-heterosexual 

sexual orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

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

victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 41

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 42

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

activity, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 42

List of tables

Table 1. Adult inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of 

facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 9

Table 2. Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by 

type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, 

and 2011–12 10

Table 3. Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 4. Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type 

of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 5. Facilities with low rates of sexual victimization, by type of 

facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 15

Table 6. Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, 

by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Table 7. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and 

inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 17

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

inmate sexual characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 18

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

inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

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

age of inmate, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 21

Table 11. Juvenile inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of 

incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 21

Table 12. Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 

16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of incident and 

inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 22

Table 13. Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 

16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of victimization, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 23

Table 14. Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status 

and history of mental health problems among inmates, by type of 

facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 24

Table 15. Prevalence of serious psychological distress among adults 

in prisons, jails, and the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 16. Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, 

by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 17. Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental 

health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 18. Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, 

by current mental health status and type of victimization, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Table 19. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and 

inmate sexual orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 30

Table 20. Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization 

among heterosexual and non-heterosexual inmates, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12 31
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 5

List of appendix tables

Appendix table 1. Characteristics of state and federal prisons and 

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

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual 

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

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual 

victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting 

nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 61

Appendix table 5. Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 67

Appendix table 6. Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by 

type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 75

Appendix table 7. Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual 

victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Appendix table 8. Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual 

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

Survey, 2011–12 91

Appendix table 9. Characteristics of special correctional facilities and 

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

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Appendix table 10. Standard errors for table 2: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National 

Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Appendix table 11. Standard errors for table 7: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

Appendix table 12. Standard errors for table 8: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 101

Appendix table 13. Standard errors for table 9: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status 

and history, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 101

Appendix table 14. Standard errors for table 10: Juvenile inmates 

reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12 102

Appendix table 15. Standard errors for table 11: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12 102

Appendix table 16. Standard errors for table 12: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 

and 20–24, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Appendix table 17. Standard errors for table 13: Circumstances 

surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 

18–19 and 20–24, by type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Appendix table 18. Standard errors for table 14: Prevalence of 

victimization by current mental health status and history of mental 

health problems among inmates, by type of facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12 104

Appendix table 19. Standard errors for table 15: Prevalence of 

serious psychological distress among adults in prisons, jails, and the 

U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 2011–12 104

Appendix table 20. Standard errors for table 16: Prevalence of 

inmate-on-inmate victimization, by current mental health status and 

inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 105

Appendix table 21. Standard errors for table 17: Prevalence of 

staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate 

characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . . . . . . . . .105

Appendix table 22. Standard errors for table 18: Circumstances 

surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health 

status and type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 106

Appendix table 23. Standard errors for table 19: Prevalence of sexual 

victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 106

Appendix table 24. Standard errors for table 20: Circumstances 

surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and 

non-heterosexual inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 . . .107

List of figures

Figure 1. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12 11

Figure 2. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12 11

Figure 3. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high 

rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 4. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high 

rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 6

Highlights

Prevalence of sexual victimization

 In 2011-12, an estimated 4.0% of state and federal prison 

inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing 

one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another 

inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since 

admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

 Using the same methodology since 2007, the rate of sexual 

victimization among state and federal prison inmates was 

4.5% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2011-12; but, the difference was 

not statistically significant. Among jail inmates, the rate of 

sexual victimization remained unchanged—3.2% in 2007 

and 3.2% in 2011-12.

 Among state and federal prison inmates, 2.0% (or 

an estimated 29,300 prisoners) reported an incident 

involving another inmate, 2.4% (34,100) reported an 

incident involving facility staff, and 0.4% (5,500) reported 

both an incident by another inmate and staff.

 About 1.6% of jail inmates (11,900) reported an incident 

with another inmate, 1.8% (13,200) reported an incident 

with staff, and 0.2% (2,400) reported both an incident by 

another inmate and staff.

 From 2007 to 2011-12, reports of “willing” sexual activity 

with staff (excluding touching) declined in prisons and 

jails, while reports of other types of sexual victimization 

remained stable.

Facility rankings

 Eleven male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were 

identified as high-rate facilities based on the prevalence 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 2011-12. 

Eight male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 12 jails were 

identified as high rate based on the prevalence of staff 

sexual misconduct. Each of these facilities had a lower 

bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was at least 

55% higher than the average rate among comparable 

facilities.

 Seven male prisons, 6 female prisons, and 4 jails 

were identified as low-rate facilities based on a small 

percentage of inmates reporting any sexual victimization 

by another inmate or staff and a low upper bound of the 

95%-confidence interval around the rate. 

 Among the 225 prisons and 358 jails in the survey, 

13 prisons and 34 jails had no reported incidents of 

sexual victimization.

 Two military facilities and one Indian country jail had 

high rates of staff sexual misconduct in 2011-12. The 

Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility (Fort 

Lewis, Washington) (6.6%) and the Naval Consolidated 

Brig (Miramar, California) (4.9%) had high rates of staff 

sexual misconduct that were more than double the 

average of prisons (2.4%) and jails (1.8%) nationwide. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (Pine Ridge, 

South Dakota) (10.8%) reported the highest rate of staff 

sexual misconduct among all tribal and nontribal jails in 

the survey.

Variations in victimization rates

 Patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 

2011-12 were consistent with patterns in past surveys. 

Rates reported by prison and jail inmates were higher 

among females than males, higher among whites than 

blacks, and higher among inmates with a college degree 

than those who had not completed high school.

 Variations in staff sexual misconduct rates were also 

similar across surveys. Rates reported by inmates were 

higher among males in jails than females in jails, higher 

among black inmates in prisons and jails than white 

inmates in prisons and jails, and lower among inmates 

age 35 or older than inmates ages 20 to 24 in both 

prisons and jails.

 Inmates held for violent sexual offenses reported higher 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.7% 

in prison and 3.9% in jails) than inmates held for other 

offenses.

Special inmate populations 

 In 2011-12, juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in adult prisons 

and jails did not have significantly higher rates of sexual 

victimization than adult inmates:

•	 An estimated 1.8% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in 

prisons and jails reported being victimized by another 

inmate, compared to 2.0% of adults in prisons and 

1.6% of adults in jails.

•	 An estimated 3.2% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in 

prisons and jails reported experiencing staff sexual 

misconduct. Though higher, these rates were not 

statistically different from the 2.4% of adults in prisons 

and 1.8% of adults in jails.

•	 Juveniles (ages 16 to 17) and young adults (ages 

18 to 19 and 20 to 24) reported similar rates of sexual 

victimization for most of the key subgroups (sex, 

race or Hispanic origin, body mass index, sexual 

orientation, and offense).
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 7

Highlights (continued)

 Inmates with serious psychological distress reported high 

rates of inmate-on-inmate and staff sexual victimization 

in 2011-12:

•	 Among state and federal prison inmates, an estimated 

6.3% of those identified with serious psychological 

distress reported that they were sexually victimized by 

another inmate. In comparison, among prisoners with 

no indication of mental illness, 0.7% reported being 

victimized by another inmate.

•	 Similar differences were reported by jail inmates. 

An estimated 3.6% of those identified with serious 

psychological distress reported inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization, compared to 0.7% of inmates 

with no indication of mental illness.

•	 Rates of serious psychological distress in prisons 

(14.7%) and jails (26.3%) were substantially higher 

than the rate (3.0%) in the U.S. noninstitutional 

population age 18 or older.

•	 For each of the measured demographic subgroups, 

inmates with serious psychological distress reported 

higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

than inmates without mental health problems.

 Inmates who reported their sexual orientation as gay, 

lesbian, bisexual, or other were among those with the 

highest rates of sexual victimization in 2011-12:

•	 Among non-heterosexual inmates, 12.2% of prisoners 

and 8.5% of jail inmates reported being sexually 

victimized by another inmate; 5.4% of prisoners and 

4.3% of jail inmates reported being victimized by staff.

•	 In each demographic subgroup (sex, race or Hispanic 

origin, age, and education), non-heterosexual 

prison and jail inmates reported higher rates 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than 

heterosexual inmates.

•	 Among inmates with serious psychological distress, 

non-heterosexual inmates reported the highest rates 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (21.0% of 

prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates).
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 8

National Inmate Survey-3

Between February 2011 and May 2012, BJS completed 

the third National Inmate Survey (NIS-3) in 233 

state and federal prisons, 358 jails, and 

15 special confinement facilities operated by Immigration 

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

correctional authorities in Indian country. The survey, 

conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, 

North Carolina), was administered to 92,449 inmates age 

18 or older, including 38,251 inmates in state and federal 

prisons, 52,926 in jails, 573 in ICE facilities, 539 in military 

facilities, and 160 in Indian country jails. The survey was 

also administered to juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in adult 

prisons and jails. Based on 527 completed interviews of 

juveniles in state prisons and 1,211 interviews in local 

jails, the NIS-3 provides the first-ever national estimates of 

sexual victimization of juveniles held in adult facilities.

The NIS-3 is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics 

Program, which collects reported sexual violence 

from administrative records and allegations of sexual 

victimization directly from victims through surveys of 

inmates in prisons and jails and surveys of youth held in 

juvenile correctional facilities. Administrative records have 

been collected annually since 2004. Reports by victims of 

sexual victimization have been collected since 2007. 

The NIS-3 survey consisted of an audio computer-assisted 

self-interview (ACASI) in which inmates used a touchscreen to interact with a computer-assisted questionnaire 

and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones. 

Some inmates (751) completed a short paper form instead 

of using the ACASI. Most of these inmates were housed 

in administrative or disciplinary segregation or were 

considered too violent to be interviewed. 

As in the NIS-1 (conducted 2007) and the NIS-2 

(conducted 2008-09), the NIS-3 collected only allegations 

of sexual victimization. Since participation in the survey is 

anonymous and reports are confidential, the survey does 

not permit any follow-up investigation or substantiation of 

reported incidents through review. Some allegations in the 

NIS-3 may be untrue. At the same time, some inmates may 

not report sexual victimization experienced in the facility, 

despite efforts of survey staff to assure inmates that their 

responses would be kept confidential. Although the effects 

may be offsetting, the relative extent of under reporting and 

false reporting in the NIS-3 is unknown. 

Incidents of sexual victimization 

In 2011-12, 4.0% of prison inmates and 3.2% of jail 

inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of 

sexual victimization 

Among the 91,177 adult prison and jail inmates 

participating in the NIS-3 sexual victimization survey, 

3,381 reported experiencing one or more incidents of 

sexual victimization in the past 12 months or since 

admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Since the 

NIS-3 is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled 

facilities and inmates within facilities to produce nationallevel and facility-level estimates. The estimated number of 

prison and jail inmates experiencing sexual victimization 

totaled 80,600 (or 4.0% of all prison inmates and 3.2% of 

jail inmates nationwide) (table 1). 

Among all state and federal prison inmates, 2.0% (or an 

estimated 29,300 prisoners) reported an incident involving 

another inmate, and 2.4% (34,100) reported an incident 

involving facility staff. Some prisoners (0.4% or 5,500)

reported sexual victimization by both another inmate and 

facility staff. 

Among all jail inmates, about 1.6% (11,900) reported an 

incident with another inmate, and 1.8% (13,200) reported 

an incident with staff. Approximately 0.2% of jail inmates 

(2,400) reported being sexually victimized by both another 

inmate and staff. 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and 

Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79; 

PREA) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 

to carry out a comprehensive statistical review and 

analysis of incidents and effects of prison rape for each 

calendar year. This report fulfills the requirement under 

Sec. 4c(2)(B)(ii) of the act to provide a list of prisons and 

jails according to the prevalence of sexual victimization.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 9

The NIS-3 screened for specific sexual activities in which 

inmates may have been involved during the past 12 months 

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

Inmates were then asked if they were forced or pressured 

to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff. 

(See appendices 1, 2, and 3 for specific survey questions.) 

Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were 

classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive 

sexual contacts. (See text box for Terms and definitions.) 

Approximately 1.1% of prisoners and 0.7% of jail inmates 

said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual 

sex with another inmate, including manual stimulation 

and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An additional 1.0% 

of prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates said they had 

experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only or 

unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way 

by another inmate. 

An estimated 1.5% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail 

inmates reported that they had sex or sexual contact 

unwillingly with staff as a result of physical force, pressure, 

or offers of special favors or privileges. An estimated 1.4% 

of all prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates reported they 

willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Any sexual 

contact between inmates and staff is illegal, regardless of 

whether an inmate reported being willing or unwilling, 

but this difference between willing and unwilling may 

be informative when addressing issues of staff training, 

prevention, and investigation. 

Table 1

Adult inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Number of victimsa Percent of inmates Standard errorsb

Type of incidentc Prisons Jails Prisons Jails Prisons Jails

Total 57,900 22,700 4.0% 3.2% 0.2% 0.2%

Inmate-on-inmate 29,300 11,900 2.0% 1.6% 0.1% 0.1%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 15,400 5,100 1.1 0.7 0.1 0.1

Abusive sexual contacts only 13,900 6,800 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.1

Staff sexual misconduct 34,100 13,200 2.4% 1.8% 0.2% 0.1%

Unwilling activity 21,500 10,000 1.5 1.4 0.1 0.1

Excluding touching 15,400 7,400 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.1

Touching only 5,600 2,500 0.4 0.3 0.1 --

Willing activity 19,700 6,200 1.4 0.9 0.1 0.1

Excluding touching 17,000 5,200 1.2 0.7 0.1 0.1

Touching only 2,700 900 0.2 0.1 -- --

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. 

--Less than 0.05%.

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

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

cSee Methodology for terms and definitions.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Terms and definitions

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

oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching 

of the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or 

vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and 

both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff.

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved 

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

sexual acts.

Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved 

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

or vagina in a sexual way.

Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual 

contacts with another inmate or staff.

Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts 

with staff. These contacts are characterized by the 

reporting inmates as willing; however, all sexual 

contacts between inmates and staff are legally 

nonconsensual.

Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of 

willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff 

and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, 

anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and 

other sexual acts with facility staff.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 10

The NIS-3 recorded slightly lower rates of sexual 

victimization in prisons compared to the NIS-1 and 

NIS-2, which was largely driven by a decline in the reported 

rates of staff sexual misconduct (table 2). Overall, the 

rate of sexual victimization was 4.5% in 2007 and 4.0% in 

2011-12, but the difference was not statistically significant. 

(See Methodology for discussion of significance testing 

and standard errors.) Staff sexual misconduct considered 

“willing” by the victims was the only rate to show a decline, 

from 1.8% in 2008-09 to 1.4% in 2011-12. This drop was 

limited to willing sexual activity, excluding touching. 

In addition, willing sexual activity with staff (excluding 

touching only) in 2011-12 was significantly different from 

2007 (dropping from 1.5% to 1.2%). 

Among jail inmates, the overall rates of sexual victimization 

remained unchanged (3.2% in 2007, 3.1% in 2008-09, and 

3.2% in 2011-12). The rates of staff sexual misconduct 

in jails were 2.0% in 2007, 2.0% in 2008-09, and 1.8% in 

2011-12, but this decline was not statistically significant. Jail 

inmates in 2011-12 were less likely to report experiencing 

willing sexual activity with staff (0.9%) than jail inmates in 

2007 (1.1%) and 2008-09 (1.1%). This decline was limited 

to willing sexual activity, excluding touching.

Facility-level rates 

The NIS-3 provides a basis for identifying high rate and 

low rate facilities 

As required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the 

NIS-3 provides facility-level estimates of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. Since 

these estimates are based on a sample of inmates rather 

than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling 

error. (See Methodology for description of sampling 

procedures.) 

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

calculated based on the estimated standard error. Typically, 

a 95%-confidence interval around each survey estimate is 

calculated by multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and 

then adding and subtracting the result from the sample 

estimate to create an upper and lower bound. This interval 

expresses the range of values that could result among 95% 

of the different samples that could be drawn. 

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

with facility-level estimates of sexual victimization by type 

of incident, the use of the standard error to construct the 

95%-confidence interval may not be reliable. An alternative 

method developed by E. B. Wilson has been shown to 

perform better than the traditional method.1,2

Table 2

Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, 

and 2011–12

Percent of prison inmates Percent of jail inmates

Type of incident

NIS-1 

2007

NIS-2 

2008–09

NIS-3 

2011–12*

NIS-1 

2007

NIS-2 

2008–09

NIS-3 

2011–12*

Total 4.5% 4.4% 4.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.2% 

Inmate-on-inmate 2.1% 2.1% 2.0% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 

Nonconsensual sexual acts 1.3 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 

Abusive sexual contacts only 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7** 0.9 

Staff sexual misconduct 2.9% 2.8% 2.4% 2.0% 2.0% 1.8% 

Unwilling activity 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.4 

Excluding touching 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 

Touching only 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 

Willing activity 1.7 1.8** 1.4 1.1** 1.1** 0.9 

Excluding touching 1.5** 1.5** 1.2 0.9** 0.9** 0.7 

Touching only 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 

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 appendix table 

10 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12.

1Brown, L.D., Cai, T., & DasGupta, A. (2001). “Interval Estimation for a 

Binomial Proportion.” Statistical Science, 16(2), pp. 101–117. 

2Wilson, E.B. (1927). “Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and 

Statistical Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 

22(158), pp. 209–12. 
11

This method provides asymmetrical confidence intervals 

for facilities in which the lower bound is constrained to 

be no less than 0%. It also provides confidence intervals 

for facilities in which the survey estimates are 0% (but 

other similarly conducted samples could yield non-zero 

estimates). 

Although the NIS-3 provides facility-level estimates and 

measures of precision, it cannot provide an exact ranking 

for all facilities as required under PREA. Rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct 

differ across facilities, but the observed differences are 

not always statistically significant. To address PREA 

requirements, facilities have been categorized as having 

high rates or low rates based on criteria applied to the lower 

and upper bounds of the 95%-confidence interval for each 

facility (figure 1 and figure 2). 

As with the NIS-2, the criterion that the lower bound of 

the confidence interval be at least 55% higher than the 

average rate for comparable facilities was used in the NIS-3 

to identify high-rate male prisons, female prisons, and 

jails. The criterion that the upper bound of the confidence 

interval be lower than 65% of the average rate for 

comparable facilities was used to identify low-rate facilities. 

To better identify variations among correctional facilities 

in rates of sexual victimization, prisons and jails are 

compared separately by type of sexual victimization. 

Though informative, an analysis of a single, overall 

prevalence rate of sexual victimization for each 

sampled facility would confound differing risk factors, 

circumstances, and underlying causes of victimization. 

For the same reasons, prisons are compared separately by 

the sex of inmates housed. 

Figure 1

Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mabel 

Bassett 

Corr. 

Ctr. (OK)*

Utah 

State 

Prison (UT)

Farmington 

Corr. 

Fac. (MO)

Maine 

Corr. 

Ctr. (ME)

Clements 

Unit (TX)

Apalachee 

Corr. Inst./

West/ East 

Unit/ River 

Junction (FL)

Southern 

State 

Corr. 

Fac. (VT)

Stiles 

Unit (TX)

Montford 

Psychiatric 

Fac. (TX)

Montana 

State 

Prison (MT)

Idaho

Max. 

Security 

Inst. (ID)

Northwest 

Florida 

Reception 

Ctr. (FL)

All 

prisons 

*Facility housed only female inmates.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Figure 2

Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Percent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Schenectady 

Co. Jail (NY)

Western 

Regional 

Jail (WV)

Los Angeles Co. - 

Twin Towers 

Corr. Fac. (CA)

New York City 

Rose M. Singer 

Ctr. (NY)*

Cook Co. -

Division 

11 (IL)

Eastern 

Regional 

Jail (WV)

Harris Co. Jail - 

1200 Baker 

Street Jail (TX)

Philadelphia 

City Riverside 

Corr. Fac. (PA)*

Ripley Co. 

Jail (IN) All jails

*Facility housed only female inmates.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 12

The NIS-3 sample was designed to ensure a sufficient 

number of female-only prison facilities (44 facilities 

participated) and a sufficient number of female respondents 

(7,141 completed the survey) to allow for valid comparisons 

among female prisons. Four of the 358 jails that 

participated in the NIS-3 housed females only and 

one other jail was majority female. As a result, rates 

of sexual victimization in jails could not be compared 

separately by sex of inmates housed. 

11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were 

identified as having high rates of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization in 2011-12 

Among the 233 prisons and 358 jails surveyed in the NIS-3, 

11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were designated as 

high-rate facilities based on reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization (table 3). Each of these facilities had a rate of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization that was at least twice the 

national rate of 1.7% for male prisons, 7.2% for female prisons, 

and 1.6% for jails. Each had a 95%-confidence interval with a 

lower bound that was at least 55% higher than the average rate 

among comparable facilities. 

Among male prisons, Northwest Florida Reception 

Center (Florida), Idaho Maximum Security Institution, 

and Montana State Prison recorded inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization rates of 9.0% or greater. Mabel Bassett 

Correctional Center (Oklahoma), with a rate of 15.3%, 

was the only female prison that could be classified as high 

rate. Eleven other female-only prison facilities had rates of 

10% or greater but did not meet the requirement of a lower 

bound that was 55% higher than the average rate for all 

female prisons. (See appendix table 2.)

Table 3

Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Any inmate-on-inmate incidenta

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsb Response rate

95%-confidence interval

Percentc Lower bound Upper bound

All prisons 38,251 60.0% 2.0% 1.8% 2.3%

Male facilities 31,110 59.0% 1.7% 1.5% 2.0%

Northwest Florida Reception Ctr. (FL) 131 49.0 9.8 5.8 16.1

Idaho Max. Security Inst. (ID) 78 39.0 9.4 3.9 21.0

Montana State Prison (MT) 191 65.0 9.0 4.6 16.8

Montford Psychiatric Fac. (TX) 166 70.0 8.4 5.2 13.1

Stiles Unit (TX) 151 49.0 7.8 4.3 13.8

Southern State Corr. Fac. (VT) 109 55.0 7.7 3.9 14.6

Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/ East Unit/ River Junction (FL) 161 57.0 7.3 4.3 12.1

Clements Unit (TX) 141 44.0 6.8 3.8 11.7

Maine Corr. Ctr. (ME) 192 80.0 6.1 3.6 10.2

Farmington Corr. Fac. (MO) 240 84.0 5.8 3.6 9.3

Utah State Prison (UT) 233 73.0 5.6 3.2 9.5

Female facilities 7,141 69.0% 7.2% 5.9% 8.6%

Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr. (OK)d 192 70.0 15.3 11.3 20.6

All jails 52,926 61.0% 1.6% 1.4% 1.9%

Ripley Co. Jail (IN) 51 89.0 7.9 5.1 11.9

Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac. (PA)d 194 58.0 6.7 4.2 10.7

Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail (TX) 238 58.0 6.3 3.4 11.2

Eastern Regional Jail (WV) 130 51.0 6.0 3.3 10.6

Cook Co. - Division 11 (IL) 272 76.0 5.5 3.5 8.4

New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr. (NY)d 202 63.0 5.0 2.9 8.4

Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac. (CA) 199 44.0 4.9 2.6 9.1

Western Regional Jail (WV) 215 68.0 4.8 3.0 7.7

Schenectady Co. Jail (NY) 162 68.0 4.4 2.7 7.0

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

the average among all jail facilities. 

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

less than 12 months.

bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time since admission.

dFacility housed only female inmates.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 13

Ripley County Jail (Indiana) recorded an inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization rate of 7.9% and Philadelphia City 

Riverside Correctional Facility (Pennsylvania), a femaleonly jail facility, recorded a rate of 6.7%, both of which 

were more than four times the average rate among jails 

nationwide. Two other jails—Harris County Jail, Baker 

Street (Texas) and Eastern Regional Jail (Martinsburg, West 

Virginia)—each had rates of 6% or greater.

8 male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 12 jails were 

identified as having high rates of staff sexual misconduct 

Twelve prisons were identified as high-rate facilities based 

on reports of staff sexual misconduct—eight male prisons 

and four female prisons (table 4). Twelve jails were also 

identified as high-rate facilities. Each had a confidence 

interval with a lower bound that was at least 55% higher 

than the national rate for male prisons (2.4%), female 

prisons (2.4%), and jails (1.8%) (figure 3 and figure 4). 

In five state prisons, at least 9% of surveyed inmates 

reported being the victims of staff sexual misconduct, 

including 10.1% of inmates in Santa Rosa Correctional 

Institution (Florida), 9.9% in Montana State Prison, 9.6% 

in Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (Mississippi), 

9.5% in Clements Unit (Texas), and 10.7% in Denver 

Women’s Correctional Facility (Colorado).

Table 4

Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Any staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsb Response rate

95%-confidence interval

Percentc Lower bound Upper bound

All prisons 38,251 60.0% 2.4% 2.0% 2.8%

Male facilities 31,110 59.0% 2.4% 2.0% 2.9%

Santa Rosa Corr. Inst. (FL) 185 60.0 10.1 6.5 15.5

Montana State Prison (MT) 191 65.0 9.9 5.3 17.7

Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac. (MS) 249 92.0 9.6 6.9 13.2

Clements Unit (TX) 141 44.0 9.5 5.7 15.3

Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/ East Unit/ River Junction (FL) 161 57.0 6.8 3.7 12.2

Coffield Unit (TX) 210 66.0 6.8 4.1 11.1

Wilkinson Co. Corr. Ctr. - CCA (MS) 173 67.0 6.4 3.8 10.6

Louisiana State Penitentiary (LA) 219 70.0 6.3 3.9 10.1

Female facilities 7,141 69.0% 2.4% 1.9% 3.0%

Denver Women’s Corr. Fac. (CO)d 160 68.0 10.7 6.8 16.3

Broward Corr. Inst. (FL)d 154 64.0 7.3 3.9 13.3

Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst. (DE)d 165 83.0 7.0 4.6 10.3

Julia Tutwiler Prison (AL)d 181 68.0 6.8 4.1 10.9

All jails 52,926 61.0% 1.8% 1.7% 2.0%

Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. (IN) 62 43.0 7.7 3.4 16.3

Baltimore City Det. Ctr. (MD) 261 66.0 6.7 4.3 10.2

St. Louis Med. Security Inst. (MO) 220 58.0 6.3 3.9 10.0

Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. (PA) 207 69.0 6.3 3.9 10.0

Santa Clara Co. Main Jail (CA) 130 37.0 6.2 3.0 12.5

Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. (NY) 153 68.0 6.1 3.6 10.2

Houston Co. Jail (GA) 174 71.0 6.0 3.7 9.6

Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac. (CA) 143 42.0 5.9 3.2 10.4

Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex (MI) 148 49.0 5.9 3.0 11.1

New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr. (NY)d 202 63.0 5.9 3.7 9.4

New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. (NY) 170 44.0 5.6 2.9 10.5

Robeson Co. Jail (NC) 147 52.0 5.2 3.0 8.7

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

the average among all jail facilities. 

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

less than 12 months.

bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on selected characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time since admission.

dFacility housed only female inmates.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 14

Seven jails had staff sexual misconduct rates of at least 

6%. Marion County Jail Intake Facility (Indiana) had the 

highest reported rate of staff sexual misconduct (7.7%), 

followed by Baltimore City Detention Center (Maryland) 

(6.7%), St. Louis Medium Security Institution (Missouri) 

(6.3%), and Philadelphia City Industrial Correctional 

Center (Pennsylvania) (6.3%). 

The reported use or threat of physical force to engage in 

sexual activity with staff was generally low among all prison 

and jail inmates (0.8%); however, at least 5% of the inmates 

in three state prisons and one high-rate jail facility reported 

they had been physically forced or threatened with force. 

(See appendix tables 3 and 7.) The Clements Unit (Texas) 

had the highest percentage of inmates reporting sexual 

victimization involving physical force or threat of force by 

staff (8.1%), followed by Denver Women’s Correctional 

Facility (Colorado) (7.3%), and Idaho Maximum Security 

Institution (6.0%). Wilson County Jail (Kansas) led all 

surveyed jails, with 5.6% of inmates reporting that staff used 

physical force or threat of force to have sex or sexual contact. 

While 0.8% of prison and jail inmates reported the use or 

threat of physical force, an estimated 1.4% of prison inmates 

and 1.2% of jail inmates reported being coerced by facility 

staff without any use or threat of force, including being 

pressured or made to feel they had to have sex or sexual 

contact. In 8 of the 24 facilities with high rates of staff 

sexual misconduct, at least 5% of the inmates reported such 

pressure by staff. Among state prisoners, the highest rates 

were reported by female inmates in the Denver Women’s 

Correctional Facility (Colorado) (8.8%) and by male inmates 

in the Clements Unit (Texas) (8.7%). Among jail inmates, the 

highest rates were reported by inmates in the Rose M. Singer 

Center (New York) (5.6%) and the Contra Costa County 

Martinez Detention Facility (California) (5.2%).

Figure 3

Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

Julia 

Tutwiler 

Prison 

(AL)*

Delores J. 

Baylor 

Women's 

Corr. Inst. 

(DE)*

Broward 

Corr. Inst. 

(FL)*

Denver 

Women's 

Corr. Fac. 

(CO)*

Louisiana 

State 

Penitentiary 

(LA)

Wilkinson 

Co. Corr. 

Ctr. - CCA 

(MS)

Coeld 

Unit (TX)

Apalachee 

Corr. Inst./

West/ East 

Unit/River 

Junction (FL)

Clements 

Unit (TX)

Walnut 

Grove 

Youth 

Corr. 

Fac. (MS)

Montana 

State 

Prison 

(MT)

Santa 

Rosa Corr. 

Inst. (FL)

All 

prisons 

*Facility housed only female inmates.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Figure 4

Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

Robeson 

Co. Jail 

(NC)

New York 

City Otis 

Bantum 

Corr. Ctr. 

(NY)

New York 

City Rose M. 

Singer 

Ctr. (NY)*

Oakland 

Co. Law 

Enforcement

Complex 

(MI)

Contra 

Costa Co. 

Martinez 

Det. Fac. 

(CA)

Houston 

Co. Jail (GA)

Ulster Co. 

Law 

Enforcement 

Ctr. (NY)

Santa 

Clara Co. 

Main Jail 

(CA)

Philadelphia 

City 

Industrial 

Corr. Ctr. (PA)

St. Louis 

Med. 

Security 

Inst. (MO)

Baltimore 

City Det. 

Ctr. (MD)

Marion 

Co. Jail 

Intake 

Fac. (IN)

All jails

*Facility housed only female inmates.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 15

7 male prisons, 6 female prisons, and 4 jails were 

identified as low-rate facilities for sexual victimization 

overall 

Thirteen prisons and 34 jails had no reported incidents of 

sexual victimization of any kind. (See appendix tables 1 

and 5.) Estimates of the number of inmates who 

experienced a sexual victimization in each of these facilities 

are also subject to sampling error and could vary if a 

different group of inmates had been interviewed. Although 

the lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval in each of 

these facilities is 0%, the upper bound varies depending on 

the number of completed interviews in each facility. 

Combining reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization and staff sexual misconduct, seven male 

prisons and six female prisons were designated as low-rate 

facilities. These designations were based on their low rate 

of sexual victimization overall and the upper bound of 

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

the average rate among male and female prisons (table 5). 

Six of these facilities had no reported incidents of sexual 

victimization, while seven facilities had at least one inmate 

who reported sexual victimization. 

Danville Correctional Center (Illinois), with a reported 

sexual victimization rate of 0.5%, had a confidence interval 

with the lowest upper bound (1.8%) among male prisons. 

FCI Marianna Camp (operated in Florida by the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons), with a reported sexual victimization 

rate of 0.6%, had a confidence interval with the lowest 

upper bound (2.1%) among female prisons. 

Four jails were designated as low-rate facilities based on 

the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was 

less than 65% of the average for jails nationwide. Woodford 

County Detention Center (Kentucky), with a 0.1% overall 

sexual victimization rate, had a confidence interval with the 

lowest upper bound (0.6%). 

Table 5

Facilities with low rates of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting any sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of 

respondentsb Response rate Percentc

95%-confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

All prisons 38,251 60.0% 4.0% 3.6% 4.5%

Male prisons 31,110 59.0% 3.7% 3.2% 4.3%

Danville Corr. Ctr. (IL) 205 70.0 0.5 0.2 1.8

Lawtey Corr. Inst. (FL) 198 80.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

CI Eden (TX)d 185 67.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

CI Reeves III (TX) d 188 69.0 0.4 0.1 2.0

CI Reeves I and II (TX) d 180 64.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr. (OK) 179 72.0 0.5 0.1 2.3

La Palma Corr. Ctr. (AZ) d 163 45.0 0.0 0.0 2.3

Female prisons 7,141 69.0% 8.5% 7.2% 10.0%

FCI Marianna Camp (FL) 172 88.0 0.6 0.2 2.1

FMC Lexington Camp (KY) 148 83.0 0.8 0.2 2.7

Decatur Corr. Ctr. (IL) 157 65.0 1.1 0.3 3.3

Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr. (VA) 95 86.0 0.0 0.0 3.9

Woodman State Jail (TX) 139 57.0 1.3 0.4 4.3

Mary Frances Ctr. (NC) 68 85.0 0.0 0.0 5.3

All jails 52,926 61.0% 3.2% 2.9% 3.5%

Woodford Co. Det. Ctr. (KY) 34 51.0 0.1 0.0 0.6

Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr. (TX) 262 72.0 0.3 0.1 1.6

Jefferson Co. Jail (CO) 205 62.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Sarasota North Co. Jail (FL) 203 65.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

Note: Low-rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval is lower than 0.65 times the average among prisons by sex of inmates housed, and 0.65 times 

the average among all jail facilities. 

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

12 months.

bNumber of inmates who responded to the sexual victimization survey.

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

and sentence length. 

dPrivately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 16

In 2011-12, two military facilities and one Indian country 

jail had high rates of staff sexual misconduct 

The NIS-3 also surveyed 15 special confinement facilities, 

including 5 ICE facilities, 5 military facilities, and 5 Indian 

country jails. (See Methodology for sample description.) 

As a result of too few completed interviews, rates in two 

Indian country facilities—Hualapai Adult Detention Center 

(Arizona) and Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult 

Detention Center (North Dakota)—could not be provided. 

Among ICE facilities, sexual victimization rates were 

highest in the Krome North Service Processing Center 

(Florida), in which 3.2% of detainees reported experiencing 

sexual victimization by another detainee and 3.0% reported 

experiencing staff sexual misconduct (table 6). Overall, an 

estimated 3.8% of detainees in this ICE facility reported 

experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization, 

which was somewhat lower than the 4.0% average in 

prisons nationwide and slightly higher than the 3.2% 

average in jails nationwide. (See appendix table 9.)

The Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility 

(Washington), which is operated by the U.S. Army 

Corrections Command and holds pretrial offenders 

and short-term post-trial offenders, had a staff sexual 

misconduct rate (6.6%) that was more than double the 

average rate for prisons (2.4%) and jails (1.8%) nationwide. 

Inmates held at this military facility also reported a high 

rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (5.1%), 

which was also more than double the 2.0% average among 

prisons and 1.6% average among jails nationwide.

Inmates at the Naval Consolidated Brig Mirimar (California) 

reported high rates of staff sexual misconduct (4.9%) and 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.0%). This facility, 

which is operated by the U.S. Navy, holds male inmates 

sentenced to terms of 10 years or less and female inmates 

regardless of sentence length from all military services. 

Among all facilities sampled, staff sexual misconduct was 

highest in the Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (South 

Dakota) (10.8%). Based on the 6.2% lower bound of the 

95%-confidence interval, the rate of staff sexual misconduct 

in this Indian country facility was statistically higher than 

the rate reported for any jail nationwide. This facility, with a 

peak population of 147 in June 2011, was the most crowded 

facility among the 80 Indian jails in operation at midyear 

2011. (See Jails in Indian Country, 2011, NCJ 238978.)

Table 6

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

2011–12

Number of 

completed 

interviews

Any inmate-on-inmate incident Any staff sexual misconduct

Facility name Percenta

95%-confidence interval 95%-confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound Percenta Lower bound Upper bound

Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities

El Centro SPC (CA) 115 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 0.8% 0.2% 3.4%

Jena/LaSalle Det. Fac. (LA)b 97 0.0 0.0 3.8 1.1 0.2 5.4

Krome North SPC (FL) 60 3.2 0.8 11.7 3.0 0.7 11.6

Otero Co. Processing Ctr. (NM) 140 1.7 0.6 4.4 0.5 0.1 2.4

Port Isabel Processing Ctr. (TX) 161 2.3 1.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 2.3

Military facilities 

Midwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac., Fort Leavenworth (KS) 82 1.0% 0.3% 3.6% 3.0% 1.3% 6.7%

Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston (SC) 94 2.9 1.6 5.3 2.4 1.1 5.1

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)c 121 3.0 1.5 6.0 4.9 2.5 9.4

Northwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac. (WA) 85 5.1 1.9 13.0 6.6 2.9 14.1

United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth (KS) 157 2.1 0.9 5.1 1.1 0.4 3.2

Indian country jails

Hualapai Adult Det. Ctr. (AZ)b 7 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Laguna Det. Ctr. (NM)b 26 0.0% 0.0% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 12.9%

Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Fac. (SD)b 56 1.8 0.5 6.4 10.8 6.2 17.9

San Carlos Dept. of Corr. and Rehabilitation - Adult 

 and Juvenile Det. (AZ)b 64 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.6 0.6 4.2

Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Det. Ctr. (ND)b 7 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

^Too few cases to provide reliable estimate.

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

less than 12 months. 

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

cFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 17

Demographic and other characteristics 

Overweight and obese prison inmates had lower rates of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff misconduct 

than inmates who were at or below a normal weight

Variations in reported sexual victimization rates across 

inmate demographic categories in the NIS-3 were 

consistent with past surveys:

 Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among 

prison inmates were higher among females (6.9%) than 

males (1.7%), higher among whites (2.9%) or inmates of 

two or more races (4.0%) than among blacks (1.3%), higher 

among inmates with a college degree (2.7%) than among 

inmates who had not completed high school (1.9%), and 

lower among currently married inmates (1.4%) than among 

inmates who never married (2.1%) (table 7). 

Table 7

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Characteristic

Number of 

inmatesb Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

inmatesb Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Sex

Male* 1,345,200 1.7% 2.4% 628,600 1.4% 1.9% 

Female 96,600 6.9** 2.3 91,600 3.6** 1.4**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitec 430,000 2.9%** 1.6%** 240,500 2.0%** 1.4%**

Blackc* 507,900 1.3 2.6 239,200 1.1 2.1 

Hispanic 339,800 1.6 2.2 159,300 1.5 1.5**

Otherc,d 38,200 1.7 2.6 18,900 1.2 1.8 

Two or more racesc 108,300 4.0** 3.9** 54,300 3.0** 3.2**

Age

18–19 18,500 1.6% 2.4% 40,000 1.9% 2.6% 

20–24* 162,500 2.2 3.5 145,800 2.0 2.4 

25–34 457,100 2.3 2.9 250,700 1.9 2.2 

35–44 398,200 2.0 2.3** 150,900 1.4** 1.5**

45–54 281,400 2.0 1.7** 102,800 1.1** 0.9**

55 or older 124,000 1.1** 0.8** 30,000 1.3 0.3**

Education

Less than high school* 813,300 1.9% 2.4% 379,700 1.4% 1.8% 

High school graduate 293,900 1.7 2.3 168,700 1.4 1.7 

Some collegee 231,100 2.7** 1.8 120,700 2.3** 1.9 

College degree or more 98,700 2.7** 2.4 47,200 3.0** 2.7**

Marital status

Married* 265,600 1.4% 1.9% 134,800 1.1% 1.8% 

Widowed, divorced, or separated 390,500 1.9 1.6 165,800 1.9** 1.7 

Never married 741,200 2.1** 2.5 410,800 1.7** 1.8 

Body Mass Index

Underweight 12,500 3.2% 3.6% 9,800 3.5%** 2.0% 

Normal* 357,000 2.7 2.7 267,000 1.6 1.8 

Overweight 632,200 1.4** 2.0** 272,200 1.5 1.7 

Obese 348,700 1.8** 1.8** 133,000 1.7 1.9 

Morbidly obese 32,700 2.7 3.7 14,400 3.0** 2.6 

Note: See appendix table 11 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

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

than 12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 and yearend 2011 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to 

the nearest 100.

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

dIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander.

eIncludes persons with an associate degree. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 18

 Similar patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization were reported by jail inmates. Female 

jail inmates (3.6%), whites (2.0%), and inmates with 

a college degree (3.0%) reported higher rates of 

victimization than males (1.4%), blacks (1.1%), and 

inmates who had not completed high school (1.4%). 

 Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were 

unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners, except 

for slightly lower rates among inmates age 55 or older. 

 Rates were lower among jail inmates in the oldest age 

categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older) than 

among jail inmates ages 20 to 24. 

 Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were different, with 

higher rates among males in jails (1.9%) than among 

females in jails (1.4%), and higher among black inmates 

in prisons (2.6%) and jails (2.1%) than among white 

inmates in prisons (1.6%) and jails (1.4%). 

 In both prisons and jails, rates of reported staff sexual 

misconduct were lower among inmates in the oldest 

age categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older), 

compared to inmates in the 20 to 24 age category. 

With a new survey question on the inmate’s specific height 

in combination with a question on the inmate’s weight, the 

NIS-3 provides the first opportunity to determine if rates of 

sexual victimization vary based on an inmate’s Body Mass 

Index (BMI). Among state and federal prison inmates, 

obese inmates (with a BMI of 30 to 39) and overweight 

inmates (with a BMI of 25 to 30) had lower rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct 

than inmates with a normal weight (with a BMI of 18.5 to 

24) or who were underweight (a BMI of less than 18.5). 

(See Methodology for calculation of BMI.) 

Among jail inmates, those underweight (3.5%) and those 

morbidly obese (BMI of 40 or greater) (3.0%) have nearly 

double the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

than inmates in other categories (1.6%, normal weight; 

1.5%, overweight; and 1.7%, obese). There are no 

statistically significant variations in reported staff sexual 

misconduct among jail inmates across BMI categories.

Large differences in sexual victimization were found 

among inmates based on their sexual orientation and past 

sexual experiences

Inmates who identified their sexual orientation as gay, 

lesbian, bisexual, or other reported high rates of inmate-oninmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct: 

 Among heterosexual state and federal prisoners, an 

estimated 1.2% reported being sexually victimized by 

another inmate, and 2.1% reported being victimized by 

staff. In comparison, among non-heterosexual prison 

inmates (including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other 

sexual orientations), 12.2% reported being sexually 

victimized by another inmate, and 5.4% reported being 

sexually victimized by staff (table 8).

Table 8

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Sexual characteristic

Number of 

inmatesb Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

inmatesb Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual* 1,298,000 1.2% 2.1% 654,500 1.2% 1.7% 

Non-heterosexualc 111,500 12.2** 5.4** 50,100 8.5** 4.3**

Number of sexual partners

0–1* 227,500 1.1% 1.2% 106,900 1.5% 1.1% 

2–4 173,300 2.3** 1.6 99,900 1.7 1.4 

5–10 242,200 2.1** 1.5 127,800 1.6 1.2 

11–20 218,500 2.5** 2.9** 117,100 1.8 1.6 

21 or more 491,700 1.9** 2.8** 234,600 1.8 2.9**

Prior sexual victimization

Yes 178,800 12.0%** 6.7%** 94,200 8.3%** 5.1%**

No* 1,262,500 0.6 1.8 625,800 0.6 1.3 

Note: See appendix table 12 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

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

than 12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 and yearend 2011 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to 

the nearest 100. 

cIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 19

 Among jail inmates, heterosexual inmates reported 

lower rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

(1.2%) and staff sexual misconduct (1.7%) than nonheterosexual inmates (8.5% for inmate-on-inmate and 

4.3% for staff sexual misconduct). 

 Inmates who experienced sexual victimization before 

coming to the facility were also more likely than inmates 

with no sexual victimization history to report incidents 

of sexual victimization involving other inmates and staff. 

Among inmates who experienced sexual victimization 

before coming to the facility, 12.0% of prisoners and 

8.3% of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized 

by another inmate at the current facility. An estimated 

6.7% of prisoners and 5.1% of jail inmates who 

experienced sexual victimization before coming to the 

facility reported sexual victimization by staff. 

In 2011-12, inmates held for a violent sexual offense 

reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization than inmates held for other offenses 

An estimated 3.7% of violent sex offenders in prison and 

3.9% of violent sex offenders in jail reported being sexually 

victimized by another inmate in the last 12 months or since 

admission to the facility, if less than 12 months (table 9). 

Table 9

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Criminal justice status and history 

Number of 

prison inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

jail inmatesb

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 211,300 3.7% 2.1% 34,300 3.9% 2.0% 

Other violent 440,900 2.3** 3.4** 113,700 2.3** 3.3**

Property 244,100 2.4** 2.6 165,400 1.9** 1.7 

Drug 310,300 0.7** 1.1** 153,900 1.1** 1.4 

Other 162,900 1.7** 2.1 190,300 1.2** 1.6 

Sentence length

Less than 1 year 53,400 1.5% 1.6% : : :

1–4 years* 350,400 1.8 1.3 : : : 

5–9 years 311,100 1.6 2.2** : : : 

10–19 years 296,900 1.8 2.3** : : : 

20 years or more 239,300 2.2 2.5** : : : 

Life/death 139,600 2.7** 3.2** : : : 

Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility

None 296,400 1.8% 1.5% 204,500 1.9% 1.5% 

Less than 6 months 161,400 2.3 1.7 135,500 1.7 1.3 

6–11 months 131,200 1.7 2.1 69,200 1.5 1.9 

1–4 years 384,900 1.6 1.8 171,700 1.4** 2.1**

5 years or more 423,500 2.2 3.0** 129,700 1.6 2.5**

Number of times arrested

1 time* 217,600 2.0% 1.7% 78,800 2.1% 1.3% 

2–3 427,200 2.0 2.2 197,800 1.7 1.6 

4–10 495,400 1.8 2.0 265,900 1.5 1.9**

11 or more 253,200 2.0 2.8** 164,400 1.5 2.3**

Time since admission

Less than 1 month* 79,600 1.4% 0.8% 226,800 0.9% 1.2% 

1–5 months 367,500 1.6 1.7** 341,100 1.7** 1.8**

6–11 months 263,200 2.2 2.6** 92,500 2.7** 2.5**

1–4 years 558,100 2.1 2.5** 58,000 2.6** 3.3**

5 years or more 172,400 2.9** 3.4** 1,600 2.1 3.2 

Note: See appendix table 13 for standard errors.

: Not calculated.

*Comparison group.

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

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

than 12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 and yearend 2011 in prisons and jails represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to 

the nearest 100.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 20

These rates were higher than those reported by inmates 

held for other offenses. Among state and federal prisoners, 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were—

 higher among prison inmates serving a sentence of life 

or death (2.7%) than among inmates serving a sentence 

of 1 to 4 years (1.8%). 

 higher among prison inmates who had been at their 

current facility for 5 years or more (2.9%) than among 

inmates who had been admitted in the last month (1.4%). 

Among jail inmates, the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization increased with the length of time served 

in the current facility, rising from 0.9% among inmates 

who had been at the facility for less than a month to 1.7% 

among inmates in jail for 1 to 5 months, 2.7% among 

inmates in jail for 6 to 11 months, and 2.6% among those 

in jail for 1 to 4 years. 

Rates of staff sexual misconduct varied among inmates 

based on their criminal justice status and history 

 Among state and federal prisoners, inmates with a 

long sentence, inmates who had served 5 years or more 

in prison prior to coming to the current facility, and 

inmates who had served 5 years or more at the current 

facility were more likely to report experiencing staff 

sexual misconduct than inmates with a sentence of 1 to 

4 years, inmates who had not served any prior time, and 

inmates who had been admitted in the last month. 

 Among jail inmates, the rate of reported staff sexual 

misconduct increased with time served in the current 

facility and was higher among inmates who had 

previously served time in a correctional facility for 1 year 

or more. 

These variations in rates of sexual victimization among 

inmate subgroups based on demographic characteristics, 

sexual history and orientation, and criminal justice status 

are almost identical to those reported in the NIS-2. (See 

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by 

Inmates, 2008-09, NCJ 231169, BJS Web, August 2010.) 

Special inmate populations—Inmates ages 16 to 17

In 2011-12, juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult 

facilities reported rates of sexual victimization similar to 

those of adult inmates

The NIS-3 was specially designed to provide estimates of 

sexual victimization for inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult 

facilities. Previous NIS collections excluded inmates age 17 

or younger due to special human subject issues (related to 

consent and assent, as well as risk of trauma in the survey 

process) and statistical issues (related to clustering of youth 

and the need to oversample to ensure a representative 

sample). To address issues of consent and risk, the NIS-3 

juvenile sample was restricted to inmates ages 16 to 17 

(who represented an estimated 95% of the 1,790 juveniles 

held in prisons at yearend 2011 and 97% of the 5,870 

juveniles held in local jails at midyear 2011). 

The NIS-3 was designed to oversample for facilities that 

house juveniles and to oversample juveniles within selected 

facilities. The resulting sample was structured to provide 

separate nationwide estimates for juveniles in prisons 

and jails, while providing national-level and facility-level 

estimates for adult inmates that were comparable to 

estimates in the NIS-1 and NIS-2. (See Methodology for the 

juvenile sample design.)
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 21

Juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in prisons and jails did not 

report significantly higher rates of sexual victimization 

than adult inmates. Although the overall rates for juveniles 

(4.5% in prisons and 4.7% in jails) were somewhat higher 

than those for adults (4.0% in prisons and 3.2% in jails), the 

differences were not statistically significant (table 10). 

Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization are 

unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners 

(table 11). When compared to inmates in every other 

age category, inmate ages 16 to 17 reported experiencing 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization at similar rates. 

Among jail inmates, the rate of staff sexual misconduct was 

higher for inmates ages 16 to 17 than for older inmates; 

however, the differences were statistically significant only 

for inmates age 35 or older.

These data do not support the conclusion that juveniles 

held in adult prisons and jails are more likely to be sexually 

victimized than inmates in other age groups. Due to the 

relatively small number of juveniles held in state prisons 

(an estimated 1,700 inmates ages 16 to 17 at midyear 2011), 

BJS combined these data with reports from juveniles held 

in local jails (an estimated 5,700 inmates ages 16 to 17). 

Table 11

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates Jail inmates

Age Number Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct Number Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

16–17* 1,700 1.8% 2.8% 5,700 1.8% 3.3% 

18–19 18,550 1.6 2.4 40,000 1.9 2.6 

20–24 162,520 2.2 3.5 145,770 2.0 2.4 

25–34 457,060 2.3 2.9 250,690 1.9 2.2 

35–44 398,230 2.0 2.3 150,890 1.4 1.5**

45–54 281,390 2.0 1.7 102,820 1.1 0.9**

55 or older 124,050 1.1 0.8 30,010 1.3 0.3**

Note: See appendix table 15 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Table 10

Juvenile inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of 

incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Percent of inmates

Type of incidentb All facilities Prisons Jails

Total 4.7% 4.5% 4.7%

Inmate-on-inmate 1.8% 1.8% 1.8%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 0.7 1.6 0.4

Abusive sexual contacts only 1.1 0.2 1.4

Staff sexual misconduct 3.2% 2.8% 3.3%

Unwilling activity 1.9 0.9 2.2

Excluding touching 1.6 0.9 1.9

Touching only 0.2 0.0 0.3

Willing activity 2.2 2.5 2.1

Excluding touching 2.2 2.5 2.1

Touching only 0.0 0.0 0.0

Number of inmates 7,400 1,700 5,700

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 

appendix table 14 for standard errors.

: Not calculated.

aStandard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around each estimate. 

See Methodology for calculations.

bSee Methodology for terms and definitions.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 22

Overall, the patterns of reported sexual victimization by 

juveniles were similar to those for adult inmates, including 

higher rates of staff sexual misconduct than rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization:

 Of juveniles held in prisons and jails, 1.8% reported being 

victimized by another inmate in the past 12 months or since 

admission to the facility, if less than 12 months) 

(table 12). This rate was similar to the rate reported by adult 

prisoners (2.0%) and adult jail inmates (1.6%). 

 Among juveniles held in prisons and jails nationwide, 

3.2% reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct. 

Though higher, the rate was not statistically different from 

that of adults in prisons (2.4%) and adults in jails (1.8%).

Among juveniles and young adult inmates in 2011-12, 

patterns of sexual victimization across demographic 

subgroups showed little variation 

Across subgroups defined by sex, race or Hispanic origin, 

BMI, sexual orientation, and most serious offense, 

juveniles and young adults reported experiencing similar 

rates of sexual victimization. Due to the small number of 

juveniles within each subgroup, few differences in sexual 

victimization rates across age groups were statistically 

significant. (Tests across age group not shown; see appendix 

table 14 for standard errors.) 

Table 12

Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of incident and 

inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison and jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Number of inmates Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Characteristic Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24 Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24 Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24

All inmates 7,400 58,550 308,290 1.8% 1.8% 2.1% 3.2% 2.5% 2.9% 

Sex

Male* 6,930 54,220 280,670 1.6% 1.5% 1.8% 3.3% 2.6% 3.1% 

Female 470 4,330 27,610 4.4 5.2** 5.7** 0.9** 0.8** 1.7**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitec 910 12,080 76,890 6.6% 3.8%** 3.6%** 3.4% 2.5% 2.0%**

Blackc* 3,760 24,770 115,000 1.1 1.0 1.2 3.3 2.5 3.0 

Hispanic 1,820 14,730 78,470 1.1 1.6 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.0 

Otherc,d 100 1,120 8,200 0.0** 1.6 1.1 0.0** 1.8 4.7 

Two or more racesc 740 5,430 25,910 1.5 2.0 3.8** 1.9 3.8 3.6 

Body Mass Index

Underweight 340 1,260 3,670 5.9% 1.7% 2.5% 6.6% 1.8% 4.1% 

Normal* 4,410 33,850 139,140 1.1 1.8 2.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 

Overweight 1,540 15,940 110,360 2.4 1.9 1.7 2.7 2.8 3.0 

Obese 520 3,970 36,160 4.8 2.0 2.9 4.8 0.9** 3.2 

Morbidly obese 70 310 3,740 0.0** 5.3 4.3 0.0** 7.3 5.0 

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual* 6,930 54,200 277,960 1.7% 1.1% 1.4% 3.0% 2.5% 2.6% 

Non-heterosexuale 270 3,150 22,840 6.3 13.9** 11.3** 1.4 4.3 7.0**

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense* 160 2,200 18,830 7.5% 10.4% 6.9% 12.0% 3.0% 2.4% 

Other violent 3,100 18,580 94,970 1.7 1.5 2.1** 4.3 3.6 4.1**

Property 2,170 18,480 70,730 1.0 1.5 2.4** 1.5** 2.4 2.5 

Drug 480 6,980 53,990 4.8 1.3 1.4** 2.9 1.6 2.0 

Other 870 8,230 50,900 2.3 1.8 1.2** 1.9** 1.3 2.1 

Note: See appendix table 16 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

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

12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 in jails and yearend 2011 in prisons represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the 

nearest 100.

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

dIncludes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander. 

eIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 23

Among juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 and young adult 

inmates ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24—

 Young adult females reported higher rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization than young adult males, 

while young adult males reported higher rates of staff 

sexual misconduct than young adult females.

 White non-Hispanic young adults (ages 18 to 19 and 20 

to 24) reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual 

victimization than black non-Hispanic and Hispanic 

youth in the same age groups.

 Inmates ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24 with a sexual 

orientation other than heterosexual experienced higher 

rates of sexual victimization by another inmate than 

heterosexual inmates in similar age groups.

 Male juvenile inmates reported higher rates of staff 

sexual misconduct (3.3%) than female juveniles (0.9%). 

 Juvenile inmates held for violent sex offenses reported 

higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (12.0%) than 

those held for property offenses (1.5%).

Among juveniles victimized by other inmates in 2011-12, 

more than three-quarters experienced force or threat of 

force, and a quarter were injured

Juveniles ages 16 to 17 who reported sexual victimization 

by other inmates revealed that— 

 Two-thirds were victimized more than once (65.5%) 

(table 13).

 An estimated 78.6% reported experiencing physical 

force or threat of force, and 39.8% were pressured by the 

perpetrator to engage in the sexual act or other sexual 

contact.

 More than a quarter (27.7%) were injured in at least one 

of the incidents.

 Fewer than 1 in 6 (15.4%) reported an incident to 

someone at the facility, a family member, or a friend.

Among juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 who reported 

experiencing staff sexual misconduct— 

 Three-quarters (75.8%) were victimized more than once.

 An estimated 43.7% said that staff used force or threat 

of force.

 An estimated 10.8% were injured in at least one of the 

incidents.

 Fewer than 1 in 10 (9.0%) reported the staff sexual 

misconduct to someone at the facility, a family member, 

or a friend.

Table 13

Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of 

victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Victims in prisons and jails

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance Ages 16–17* 18–19 20–24 16–17* 18–19 20–24

Number of victims 130 1,070 6,490 230 1,470 9,070

Number of incidentsa

1 34.5% 26.2% 29.9% 24.2% 19.7% 27.9% 

2 or more 65.5 73.8 70.1 75.8 80.3 72.1 

Type of coercion or forceb

Without pressure or force ~ ~ ~ 68.9% 59.9% 67.2% 

Pressured 39.8% 62.6% 73.8%** 51.2 52.6 49.7 

Force or threat of force 78.6 75.5 62.1 43.7 36.2 33.0 

Ever injured 27.7% 33.2% 15.9% 10.8% 12.9% 13.5% 

Ever report an incident 15.4% 29.9% 18.1% 9.0% 14.3% 16.9% 

Note: See appendix table 17 for standard errors.

~Not applicable.

*Comparison group.

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

aNumber of incidents by another inmate and number of reported willing and unwilling incidents of staff sexual misconduct.

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 24

Special inmate populations— Inmates with mental 

health problems

The NIS-3 collected data on the mental health problems of 

inmates for the first time in 2011-12. Inmates were asked 

whether they had been told by a mental health professional 

that they had a mental disorder or if because of a mental 

health problem they had stayed overnight in a hospital 

or other facility, used prescription medicine, or they had 

received counseling or treatment from a trained professional. 

These items have been previously used by BJS to determine if 

inmates in prisons and jails had any history of mental health 

problems. (See Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail 

Inmates, NCJ 213600, BJS Web, September 2006.) 

A high percentage of inmates had a history of problems 

with their emotions, nerves, or mental health 

An estimated 36.6% of prison inmates and 43.7% of jail 

inmates reported being told by a mental health professional 

that they had a mental health disorder, as specified in 

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM-IV) (table 14). Inmates were asked specifically if 

they had ever been told they had manic depression, bipolar 

disorder, or other depressive disorder, schizophrenia 

or another psychotic disorder, post-traumatic stress 

disorder, or an anxiety or other personality disorder. (See 

Methodology for survey items and full list of disorders.)

More than a third of prison inmates (35.8%) and jail 

inmates (39.2%) said they had received some counseling 

or therapy from a trained professional for these problems. 

An estimated 8.9% of prisoners and 12.8% of jail 

inmates reported an overnight stay in a hospital or other 

facility before their current admission to prison or jail. 

Approximately 15.4% of prisoners and 19.7% of jail inmates 

reported taking prescription medication for these mental 

health and emotional problems at the time of the offense 

for which they were currently being held.

Table 14

Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status and history of mental health problems among inmates, by type 

of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Adult prison inmates Adult jail inmates

Mental health status Numberb Percent

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct Number Percent

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Current mental health statusa

No mental illness* 926,800 67.1% 0.7% 1.1% 360,600 51.4% 0.7% 1.0% 

Anxiety-mood disorder 251,700 18.2 2.8** 3.0** 155,800 22.2 1.3** 1.4**

Serious psychological distress 203,200 14.7 6.3** 5.6** 184,500 26.3 3.6** 3.6**

History of mental health problemsb

Ever told by mental health 

 professional had disorder

Yes 505,600 36.6% 3.8%** 3.4%** 305,400 43.7% 2.9%** 2.5%**

No* 875,500 63.4 0.8 1.3 393,500 56.3 0.6 1.2

Had overnight stay in hospital in 

 year before current admission

Yes 122,800 8.9 5.7%** 4.9%** 89,700 12.8% 4.4%** 3.4%**

No* 1,257,700 91.1 1.5 1.8 611,300 87.2 1.2 1.5

Used prescription medications at 

 time of current offense

Yes 211,800 15.4 4.5%** 3.3%** 137,700 19.7% 3.2%** 2.7%**

No* 1,165,000 84.6 1.4 1.8 561,400 80.3 1.2 1.5

Ever received professional mental 

 health therapy

Yes 492,000 35.8% 3.6%** 3.0%** 274,100 39.2% 2.8%** 2.3%**

No* 884,000 64.2 0.9 1.5 425,200 60.8 0.8 1.4

Note: See appendix table 18 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

aBased on the K6 scale where a score of 1–7 indicates no mental illness, a score of 8–12 indicates anxiety mood-disorder, and a score of 13 or more indicates serious psychological distress. 

See Methodology for discussion of the K6 scale and past applications.

bSee Methodology for survey items. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 25

Inmates with a history of mental health problems had 

higher rates of sexual victimization than other inmates 

Inmates who had been told by a mental health professional 

that they had a mental disorder were more likely than 

other inmates to report being sexually victimized while in 

prison or jail. Among inmates who had been told they had 

a specific DSM-IV disorder—

 During 2011-12, an estimated 3.8% of prison inmates 

and 2.9% of jail inmates reported that they were sexually 

victimized by another inmate.

 Approximately 3.4% of prison inmates and 2.5% of jail 

inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by 

staff during 2011-12.

Sexual victimization rates were also higher among inmates 

who had stayed overnight in a hospital or other treatment 

facility because of a mental health problem than among 

inmates who had no prior admission for mental health 

problems. Among those who had stayed overnight in a 

hospital for mental or emotional problems, 5.7% of prison 

inmates and 4.4% of jail inmates said they were victimized 

by another inmate, and 4.9% of prison inmates and 3.4% of 

jail inmates said they were victimized by facility staff.

Differences in sexual victimization rates among inmates 

were similar across other mental health measures. Rates of 

inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were—

 Two to three times higher among inmates who were 

taking prescription medications for their mental health or 

emotional problems at the time of the current offense than 

among inmates who were not taking such medications. 

 Three to four times higher among inmates who had 

received mental health counseling or treatment from a 

trained professional in the past than among inmates who 

had not received such counseling or treatment.

In 2011-12, nearly 15% of state and federal prisoners and 

26% of jail inmates had symptoms of serious psychological 

distress

To determine whether inmates had a current mental 

health problem, BJS used the K6 screening scale in the 

NIS-3. The K6 was previously developed by Kessler and 

others for estimating the prevalence of serious mental 

illness in noninstitutional settings as a tool to identify 

cases of psychiatric disorder. It has been used widely in 

epidemiological surveys in the U.S. and internationally.3,4

The K6 consists of six questions that ask inmates to report 

how often during the past 30 days they had felt—

 nervous

 hopeless

 restless or fidgety

 so depressed that nothing could cheer them up

 everything was an effort

 worthless.

The response options were (1) all of the time, (2) most of 

the time, (3) some of the time, (4) a little of the time, and 

(5) none of the time. Following Kessler, the responses were 

coded from 4 to 0, with 4 assigned to “all of the time” and 

0 assigned to “none of the time.” A summary scale 

combining the responses from all six items was then 

produced with a range of 0 to 24. The summary score was 

then reduced to three categories: 0 to 7 indicated no mental 

illness, 8 to 12 indicated an anxiety-mood disorder, and 13 

or higher indicated serious psychological distress (SPD). 

Since 2008, the K6 scale has been used in federal 

epidemiological studies to measure symptoms of SPD 

rather than serious mental illness. Although the K6 has 

been demonstrated to be a good predictor of serious 

mental illness in prior studies, a technical advisory group, 

convened by the Center for Mental Health Services 

at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA), recommended that it should 

be supplemented with questions on functional impairment 

to improve statistical prediction and validity. (See 

Methodology for discussion of K6 scaling rules and current 

applications.)

Consistent with other measures of mental health or 

emotional problems, the K6 reveals that prison and jail 

inmates have high rates of SPD. An estimated 203,200 

state and federal inmates and 185,500 jail inmates reported 

levels of psychological distress in the 30 days prior to the 

interview consistent with SPD. These estimates of current 

SPD represented nearly 15% of state and federal inmates 

and 26% of local jail inmates. These may be underestimates 

because some inmates with serious mental illness may have 

been unable to participate in the NIS-3 due to cognitive 

limitations that precluded them from fully understanding 

the informed consent procedures or the survey questions.

3Kessler, R.C., Barker, P.R., Colpe, L.J., Epstein, J.F., Gfroerer, J.C., Hiripi, 

E., Howes, M.J., Normand, S.L., Manderscheid, R.W., Walters, E.E., & 

Zaslavsky, A.M. (2003). “Screening for serious mental illness in the general 

population.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 184–189.

4Kessler, R.C., Green, J.G., Gruber, M.J., Sampson, N.A., Bromet, E., 

Cuitan, M., Furukawa, T.A., et al. (2010). “Screening for serious mental 

illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: results from 

the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative.” International 

Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19 (Spp. 1) 4–22.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 26

An additional 251,700 state and federal prisoners (18.2%) 

and 155,800 jail inmates (22.2%) reported lower levels of 

psychological distress, indicative of anxiety-mood disorders.

Rates of SPD in prisons and jails were substantially higher 

than the 3.0% rate of SPD observed in the 2012 National 

Health Interview Survey of the noninstitutional U.S. 

population age 18 or older, using the same K6 screener.5 

Although inmate populations are demographically different 

from the general U.S. population, these differences in the 

prevalence of SPD remain significant when comparisons 

are restricted to demographic subgroups most commonly 

held in prisons and jails (table 15): 

 Among males, 3.0% of the general U.S. population was 

identified with SPD, compared to 14.7% of prisoners 

and 26.3% of jails inmates.

 Among persons ages 18 to 44, 2.7% of the general 

population, 14.8% of prisoners and 26.1% of jail inmates had 

SPD.

 Among black non-Hispanic adults, 2.6% of the general 

population was classified with SPD, compared to 13.0% of 

prisoners and 22.1% of jail inmates.

 Among white non-Hispanic adults, 2.9% of the general 

population, 17.5% of prisoners and 30.8% of jail inmates 

had SPD.

Inmates with SPD or anxiety-mood disorders reported high 

overall rates of sexual victimization in 2011-12

Inmates identified with SPD reported significantly higher rates 

of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual 

misconduct than inmates without a mental health problem: 

 Among state and federal inmates, an estimated 6.3% of those 

identified with SPD reported being sexually victimized by 

another inmate, and 5.6% reported being victimized by staff. 

In comparison, among prison inmates with no indication 

of mental illness or anxiety-mood disorders, 0.7% reported 

being sexually victimized by another inmate and 1.1% 

reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct.

 Similarly, jail inmates identified with SPD reported higher 

rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.6%) and 

staff sexual misconduct (3.6%) than inmates with no mental 

illness (0.7% for inmate-on-inmate and 1.0% for staff sexual 

misconduct).

Table 15

Prevalence of serious psychological distress among adults 

in prisons, jails, and the U.S. civilian noninstitutional 

population, 2011–12

Percent with symptoms of 

serious psychological distressa

U.S. noninstitutional 

adult populationb*

Inmates age 18 or older

Demographic characteristic Prison Jail

Total 3.0% 14.7%** 26.3%**

Sex

Male 2.8% 14.3%** 25.5%**

Female 3.7 20.8** 32.2**

Race/Hispanic origin

Whitec 2.9% 17.5%** 30.8%**

Blackc 2.6 13.0** 22.4**

Hispanic 3.6 11.6** 23.1**

Age

18–44 2.7% 14.8%** 26.1%**

45–64 3.9 14.7** 27.7**

65 or older 1.9 9.5** 19.3**

Note: See appendix table 19 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

aBased on a score of 13 or more on the K-6 scale. 

bBased on household interviews of a national sample of the civilian noninstitutional 

population between January and September 2012. 

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

5Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Early Release of Selected 

Estimates Based on Data from Surveillance Among Adults in the United 

States, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 2011;60 (Suppl.) table 7.) 

January-September 2012, National Health Interview Survey. Figures 13.1-

13.3, March 2013.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 27

Inmates identified as having anxiety-mood disorders 

reported higher rates of sexual victimization than inmates 

who did not report a mental health problem. Inmates with 

anxiety-mood disorders reported lower victimization rates 

than inmates with SPD. Among inmates with anxietymood disorders—

 An estimated 2.8% of prison inmates and 1.3% of jail 

inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by 

another inmate.

 About 3.0% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail inmates 

reported that they were sexually victimized by staff.

Inmates with mental illness reported higher rates of 

sexual victimization than inmates without mental health 

problems across subgroups

For each of the measured subgroups (i.e., sex, race or 

Hispanic origin, age, sexual orientation, and most serious 

offense), inmates with SPD reported higher rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization than inmates without 

mental health problems (table 16). With the exception of 

jail inmates age 45 or older, the differences were large and 

statistically significant. Among inmates with SPD, nonheterosexual inmates reported the highest rates of inmateon-inmate sexual victimization (an estimated 21.0% of 

prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates).

Table 16

Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Characteristic

No mental 

illness*

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

No mental 

illness*

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

Sex

Male 0.5% 2.2%** 5.6%** 0.5% 1.1%** 3.2%**

Female 3.4 8.9** 12.9** 2.3 2.8 5.8**

Race/Hispanic originc

Whited 1.1% 3.9%** 7.0%** 0.8% 1.4%** 4.0%**

Blackd 0.3 1.5** 5.3** 0.5 0.9 2.7**

Hispanic 0.6 2.2** 5.3** 0.6 1.3** 3.8**

Age

18–24 0.4% 3.4%** 7.4%** 0.5% 1.8%** 4.8%**

25–34 0.9 3.2** 6.1** 1.0 1.6** 3.6**

35–44 0.5 2.4** 6.9** 0.5 0.7 3.4**

45 or older 0.7 2.4** 5.4** 0.6 0.8 2.2 

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 0.4% 1.6%** 4.0%** 0.5% 1.0%** 2.6%**

Non-heterosexuale 5.9 13.4** 21.0** 5.0 5.1 14.7**

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense 1.5% 4.8%** 9.5%** 1.4% 4.1% 6.7%**

Other violent 0.9 3.1** 6.1** 1.2 1.8 3.9**

Property 0.5 3.1** 8.1** 0.8 1.6** 4.1**

Drug 0.3 1.2** 2.8** 0.3 0.6 2.9**

Other 0.6 1.3 4.2** 0.5 0.8 2.9**

Note: See appendix table 20 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

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

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 in jails and yearend 2011 in prisons represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest 100.

cDue to small sample size, estimates for other races, including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander, and two or more races, are not shown.

dExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

eIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 28

Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were similar to those of 

inmate-on-inmate victimization. Staff sexual misconduct 

was also higher among inmates with SPD than those without 

mental health problems (table 17). With the exception of 

female jail inmates, the differences within each demographic 

subgroup were statistically significant. Among inmates with 

SPD, non-heterosexual prison inmates recorded the highest 

rate (10.5%) of sexual victimization by staff.

Table 17

Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimizationa Jail inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Characteristic

No mental 

illness*

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

No mental 

illness*

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

Sex

Male 1.1% 3.0%** 5.7%** 1.0% 1.4%** 4.0%**

Female 1.0 2.4** 5.2** 1.1 1.0 1.7 

Race/Hispanic originc

Whited 0.6% 2.0%** 3.6%** 0.8% 0.7% 2.5%**

Blackd 1.2 4.1** 6.1** 1.1 1.7 4.7**

Hispanic 1.1 1.7 6.8** 0.5 1.2** 3.9**

Age

18–24 1.8% 3.1% 7.4%** 1.2% 1.8%** 5.1%**

25–34 1.6 3.4** 6.1** 1.3 1.6 3.9**

35–44 0.9 3.3** 5.6** 0.7 0.9 3.3**

45 or older 0.6 2.0** 4.3** 0.4 0.7 1.4**

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 1.0% 2.9%** 4.8%** 0.9% 1.3%** 3.4%**

Non-heterosexuale 3.4 3.6 10.5** 3.0 2.4 6.2**

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense 1.4% 2.3% 4.1%** 1.2% 1.2% 3.3% 

Other violent offense 1.7 3.8** 7.2** 2.2 2.2 5.7**

Property 1.1 3.1** 6.7** 0.8 1.6** 3.3**

Drug 0.4 2.9 2.3** 0.7 1.0 2.8**

Other 0.8 1.7 5.9** 0.8 1.0 3.5**

Note: See appendix table 21 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

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

than 12 months.

bEstimated number of inmates at midyear 2011 in jails and yearend 2011 in prisons represented by NIS-3, excluding inmates under age 18. Estimates have been rounded to 

the nearest 100.

cDue to small sample size, estimates for other races, including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander, and two or more races, are not shown.

dExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

eIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 29

Reports of sexual victimization differed among inmates 

with SPD and other inmates

Among prison and jail inmates who reported inmate-oninmate sexual victimization, those with SPD were more 

likely than those without mental health problems to be—

 victimized more than once (80.4% compared to 62.6%) 

 forced or threatened with force by the perpetrator 

(71.2% compared to 57.7%)

 injured (26.4% compared to 12.3%) (table 18).

Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, inmates with 

SPD were more likely than those without mental health 

problems to—

 report being pressured by staff (73.4% compared to 

50.2%) or forced or threatened with force (47.2% 

compared to 33.8%)

 be injured by staff (19.8% compared to 6.3%)

 report at least one victimization to someone at the 

facility, a family member, or a friend (24.9% compared 

to 14.1%).

Table 18

Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health status and type of victimization, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Victims in prisons and jails

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance

No mental 

illness*

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

No mental 

illness*

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

Number of victims 8,880 9,040 19,490 13,910 9,580 18,130

Number of incidentsa

1 37.4% 33.5% 19.6%** 23.4% 25.5% 23.6% 

2 or more 62.6 66.5 80.4** 76.6 74.5 76.4 

Type of coercion or forceb

Without pressure or force ~ ~ ~ 64.1% 57.2% 43.6%**

Pressured 72.7% 79.4% 73.7% 50.2 54.8 73.4**

Force or threat of force 57.7 61.9 71.2** 33.8 29.8 47.2**

Ever injured 12.3% 14.1% 26.4%** 6.3% 6.1% 19.8%**

Ever report an incident 21.2% 15.4% 23.1% 14.1% 18.4% 24.9%**

Note: See appendix table 22 for standard errors.

~Not applicable.

*Comparison group.

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

aNumber of sexual acts by another inmate and number of reported willing and unwilling incidents of staff sexual misconduct.

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 30

Special inmate populations—Inmates with a 

non-heterosexual sexual orientation

To date, all of the BJS victim self-report surveys conducted 

under PREA have found that inmates with the highest 

rates of sexual victimization are those who reported their 

sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other. For 

example, among non-heterosexual inmates interviewed in 

the NIS-2, 11.2% of prison inmates and 7.2% of jail inmates 

reported being victimized by another inmate in the past 

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

months. Among former state prison inmates interviewed 

in the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS, conducted 

in 2008), more than a third of non-heterosexual males 

(33% of bisexuals and 39% of gays and lesbians) reported 

being sexually victimized by another inmate during their 

most recent period of incarceration. Combined with the 

higher rates among non-heterosexual inmates in the NIS-3 

(12.2% in prisons and 8.5% in jails), the surveys clearly 

identify a high-risk population. Although the NIS-2 and 

NFPS provide detailed multivariate models that control for 

other risk factors, NIS-3 provides additional detail on this 

population.

Across subgroups, inmate-on-inmate victimization 

rates were higher for non-heterosexual inmates than 

heterosexual inmates 

In every measured subgroup (i.e., sex, race or Hispanic 

origin, age, education, and mental health problems), 

non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates reported 

higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization 

than heterosexual inmates (table 19). Rates of sexual 

victimization by other inmates against non-heterosexual 

inmates were at least 10 times greater than that of 

heterosexual inmates when the victim was also male, 

black, Hispanic, or had less than a high school education. 

These differences were smaller, but still large, among 

non-heterosexual female inmates (2.5 times larger), whites 

(more than 6 times larger), and high school graduates 

(8 times larger).

Within each of the other demographic subgroups, staff-oninmate victimization rates were at least double for nonheterosexual inmates compared to heterosexual inmates. 

Among non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates, rates of 

staff sexual misconduct were the highest for inmates ages 

18 to 24 (6.7%), blacks (6.2%), and males (6.1%).

Table 19

Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Characteristic Heterosexual* Non-heterosexuala Heterosexual* Non-heterosexuala

Sex

Male 1.0% 11.9%** 2.0% 6.1%**

Female 3.6 9.4** 1.4 3.0**

Race/Hispanic originb

Whitec 1.7% 11.4%** 1.3% 3.2%**

Blackc 0.6 10.6** 2.2 6.2**

Hispanic 1.0 10.1** 1.8 5.9**

Age

18–24 1.3% 11.6%** 2.5% 6.7%**

25–44 1.2 11.9** 2.2 5.0**

45 or older 0.9 8.9** 1.1 4.2**

Education

Less than high school 1.0% 11.0%** 2.0% 5.1%**

High school graduate 1.1 9.0** 2.0 4.9 

Some college or more 1.7 12.6** 1.8 4.8**

Current mental health status

No mental illness 0.4% 5.7%** 1.0% 3.2%**

Anxiety-mood disorder 1.3 10.7** 2.3 3.2 

Serious psychological distress 3.3 18.6** 4.1 8.8**

Note: Prison and jail inmates have been combined to obtain a sufficient number of non-heterosexual inmates. See appendix table 23 for standard errors.

*Comparison group.

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

aIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations. 

bDue to small sample size, estimates for other races, including American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander, and persons of two or more races, are not 

shown.

cExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 31

Non-heterosexual victims (82.9%) were more likely 

than heterosexual victims (68.0%) to report that the 

victimization by another inmate involved pressure, but 

less likely to report that it involved force or threat of 

force (62.0% for non-heterosexual compared to 69.7% 

for heterosexual victims) (table 20). In addition, nonheterosexual victims (84.2%) of staff sexual misconduct 

were more likely than heterosexual victims (71.4%) to 

report more than one incident.

Table 20

Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and non-heterosexual inmates, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Victims in prisons and jails

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance Heterosexual* Non-heterosexuala Heterosexual * Non-heterosexuala

Number of victims 22,960 17,910 38,320 8,130

Number of incidentsb

1 32.5% 25.9% 28.6% 15.8%**

2 or more 67.5 74.1 71.4 84.2**

Type of coercion or forcec

Without pressure or force ~ ~ 53.0% 60.6% 

Pressured 68.0% 82.9%** 60.1 63.8 

Force or threat of force 69.7 62.0** 37.8 41.7 

Ever injured 22.5% 20.9% 11.0% 15.6% 

Ever report an incident 27.5% 19.4%** 19.5% 26.7% 

Note: Prison and jail inmates have been combined to obtain a sufficient number of non-heterosexual inmates. See appendix table 24 for standard errors.

~Not applicable.

*Comparison group.

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

aIncludes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations.

bNumber of incidents by another inmate and number of reported willing and unwilling incidents of staff sexual misconduct.

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

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 32

Methodology

The National Inmate Survey, 2011-12 (NIS-3) was 

conducted in 233 state and federal prisons, 

358 jails, and 15 special facilities (military, Indian 

country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

(ICE)) between February 2011 and May 2012. The data 

were collected by RTI International under a cooperative 

agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

The NIS-3 comprised two questionnaires—a survey of 

sexual victimization and a survey of mental and physical 

health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for 

substance abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned to 

receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the 

interview the content of the survey remained unknown to 

facility staff and the interviewers. 

A total of 106,532 inmates participated in NIS-3, including 

the sexual victimization survey or the randomly assigned 

companion survey. Combined, the surveys included 43,721 

inmates in state and federal prisons, 61,351 inmates in jails, 

605 inmates in military facilities, 192 inmates in Indian 

country jails, and 663 inmates in facilities operated by ICE. 

The interviews, which averaged 35 minutes in length, 

used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) 

and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) 

data collection methods. For approximately the first 

two minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal 

interview using CAPI to obtain background information 

and date of admission to the facility. For the remainder 

of the interview, respondents interacted with a computeradministered questionnaire using a touchscreen and 

synchronized audio instructions delivered via headphones. 

Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview 

in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or 

moving away from the computer.

A shorter paper questionnaire was made available 

for inmates who were unable to come to the private 

interviewing room or interact with the computer. The 

paper form was completed by 751 prison inmates (or 1.9% 

of all prison interviews)—733 were completed by adult 

prison inmates (1.9% of adult prison inmate interviews) 

and 18 were completed by prisoners ages 16 to 17 (3.4% of 

all prison inmate interviews of inmates ages 16 to 17). The 

paper questionnaire was also completed by 264 jail inmates 

(0.5% of all jail inmate interviews)—255 were completed 

by adults (0.5% of adult jail inmate interviews) and 9 were 

completed by jail inmates ages 16 to 17 (0.7% of jail inmate 

interviews of inmates ages 16 to 17). In addition, five paper 

questionnaires were completed by military inmates (0.9% 

of all military inmate interviews). Most of these inmates 

were housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation 

or were 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 (96% in 

prisons, 95% in jails, 35% in ICE facilities, and 100% in 

military and Indian country facilities) or Spanish (4% in 

prisons, 5% in jails, and 65% in ICE facilities).

Selection of state and federal prisons

A sample of 241 state and federal prisons was drawn to 

produce a sample representing the 1,158 state and 

194 federal adult confinement facilities identified in the 

2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional 

Facilities, supplemented with updated information 

from websites maintained by each state’s department of 

corrections (DOC) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP). The 2005 census was a complete enumeration 

of adult state prisons, including all publicly operated 

and privately operated facilities under contract to state 

correctional authorities. 

The NIS-3 was restricted to confinement facilities—

institutions in which fewer than 50% of the inmates were 

regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by staff, for 

work, study, or treatment. Such facilities included prisons, 

penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, 

and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug 

treatment. The NIS-3 excluded community-based facilities, 

such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release 

centers. 

Based on BJS’s 2011 National Prisoner Statistics and 2005 

Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, the 

prisons in the study universe held an estimated 1,238,000 

state and 203,800 federal inmates age 18 or older and 

1,700 state inmates ages 16 to 17 at yearend 2011. Facilities 

that had been closed and new facilities that had opened since 

the 2005 census were identified via review of DOC and BOP 

websites. Facilities determined to be closed were removed 

from the NIS-3 frame and new facilities were added. 

State and federal confinement facilities were sequentially 

sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to 

size (as measured by the number of inmates held in state 

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

September 9, 2010). 
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 33

Facilities on the sampling frame were stratified by sex of 

inmates housed, whether the facility had a mental health 

function, and whether the facility held five or more juveniles: 

 Among facilities that housed males, the measure of size 

for facilities that held male inmates and participated in 

the NIS-1 in 2007 or NIS-2 in 2008-09 were adjusted to 

lower their probability of selection in the NIS-3. 

 Among facilities with an inmate population that was at 

least 50% female, the measure of size for facilities that 

participated in the NIS-2 was reduced to lower their 

probability of selection in the NIS-3. 

 The measures of size were further adjusted to increase 

the probability of selection of facilities with large juvenile 

populations. 

Within each stratum, facilities in the sampling frame were 

first sorted by region, state, and public or private operation: 

 The sample measures of size for facilities housing only 

female inmates were increased by a factor of 5 to ensure 

a sufficient number of women and allow for meaningful 

analyses of sexual victimization by sex. This led to an 

allocation of 51 female facilities (out of 233) in the 

sample.

 An additional 25 facilities were allocated to the stratum 

with facilities that have a mental health function, and 

another 20 facilities were allocated to the strata that 

housed juveniles. 

 This led to the allocation of 66 facilities known to have a 

mental health function—49 male facilities and 17 female 

facilities—and 38 facilities that housed juveniles (36 

facilities that housed males and 2 facilities that housed 

females). 

Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility 

in every state was selected. Federal facilities were grouped 

together and treated like a state for sampling purposes. The 

remaining facilities were selected from each region with 

probabilities proportionate to size. 

Of the 241 selected prison facilities, 7 had closed prior to 

the start of data collection: Metro State Prison (Georgia), 

Hillsborough Corr. Inst. (Florida), Gates Corr. Inst. 

(Connecticut), Brush Corr. Fac. (Colorado), Burnet Co. 

Intermediate Sanction Fac. (Texas), and Diamondback 

Corr. Fac. (Oklahoma). One facility—Chittenden Regional 

Corr. Fac. (Vermont)—had transitioned from holding 

males to females during the data collection period and 

was considered a closed facility. All other selected prison 

facilities participated fully in NIS-3.

Selection of inmates within prisons

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

data collection at each facility. Inmates age 15 or younger 

and inmates who were released prior to data collection 

were deleted from the roster. Eligible inmates within a 

facility were placed into one of two strata based on their 

ages. Inmates who were ages 16 to 17 (juveniles) were 

placed in one stratum and inmates age 18 or older (adults) 

were placed in the other. Inmates age 15 or younger were 

considered ineligible for the NIS-3. 

Selection of adult inmates within prisons

The number of adult inmates sampled in each facility 

varied based on six criteria—

 an expected sexual victimization prevalence rate of 4%

 a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 

1.75%

 a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates

 a 10% chance among participating inmates of not 

receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire

 an adjustment factor of 1.9 to account for the complex 

survey design

 the size of the facility.

Each eligible adult 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. 

Selection of inmates ages 16 to 17 within prisons

The number of inmates ages 16 to 17 sampled in each facility 

varied based on the number who appeared on the roster:

 If fewer than 50 were on the roster, all inmates ages 16 to 

17 were selected.

 If between 50 and 149 were on the roster, 75% were 

sampled (with a minimum of 50).

 If 150 or more were on the roster, 75% were sampled 

(with a minimum of 150).

In cases in which not all inmates ages 16 to 17 were 

selected, each eligible inmate ages 16 to 17 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.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 34

A total of 74,655 prison inmates were selected. After 

selection, 2,233 ineligible inmates were excluded—1,441 

(1.9%) were released or transferred to another facility 

before interviewing began, 657 (0.9%) were mentally or 

physically unable to be interviewed, 10 (0.01%) were age 

15 or younger or their age could not be obtained during 

the interview process, 56 (0.5%) were selected in error 

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

21 (0.03%) were only in the facility on weekends, and 47 

(0.06%) were on unsupervised work release or only served 

time on weekends.

Of all selected eligible prison inmates, 32% refused to 

participate in the survey, 0.5% were not available to 

be interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, 

determined by the facility to be too violent to be 

interviewed, or restricted from participation by another 

legal jurisdiction), and 0.5% were not interviewed due 

to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, or 

transfers to another facility after interviewing began).

Overall, 43,721 prison inmates participated in the survey, 

yielding a response rate of 60%. Approximately 90% of 

the participating inmates (38,778) received the sexual 

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

participating inmates in each prison facility.)

Selection of jail facilities

A sample of 393 jails was drawn to represent the 2,957 jail 

facilities identified in the Census of Jail Inmates, 2005, and 

the sample was supplemented with information obtained 

during the NIS-1 and NIS-2. The 2005 census was a 

complete enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all 

publicly operated and privately operated facilities under 

contract to jail authorities. The NIS-3 was restricted to 

jails that had six or more inmates on June 30, 2005. Jails 

identified as closed or ineligible during the NIS-1 and NIS2 were removed from the NIS-3 frame. Based on estimates 

from the Annual Survey of Jails, 2011, the jails in the NIS-3 

held an estimated 720,171 inmates age 18 or older and 

5,700 inmates ages 16 to 17 on June 30, 2011.

Jail facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of 

selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number 

of inmates held on June 30, 2005). 

 Two facilities that were unable to participate in the 

NIS-2 were selected with certainty in the NIS-3. 

 The measures of size for facilities that participated in 

the NIS-1 or NIS-2 were adjusted to give them a lower 

probability of selection.

 Facilities with juveniles had their measures of size 

adjusted to increase their probability of selection. 

 Facilities were stratified such that facilities in each of the 

10 largest jail jurisdictions were placed into a stratum. 

Within the large jurisdiction stratum, three facilities 

were selected from the five largest jurisdictions with 

probabilities proportionate to size, and two facilities 

were selected from the next five largest jurisdictions with 

probabilities proportionate to size.

 All other facilities were placed in a single stratum 

and then sorted by region, state, and public or private 

operation. Facilities were sampled to ensure that at least 

one jail facility in every state was selected. The remaining 

jail facilities were selected from each region with 

probabilities proportionate to size. 

Of the 393 selected jails in the NIS-3, 20 facilities refused to 

participate:

 Covington Co. Jail (Alabama)

 Mobile Co. Metro Jail (Alabama)

 Delaware Co. George W. Hill Corr. Fac. (Pennsylvania)

 Montcalm Co. Jail (Michigan)

 Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (Illinois)

 Northumberland Co. Prison (Pennsylvania)

 Kenosha Co. Pre-Trial Det. Fac. (Wisconsin)

 Carroll Co. Jail (Tennessee)

 Brevard Co. Jail (Florida)

 Pinellas Co. North Division (Florida)

 Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail (Florida)

 Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. (Georgia)

 Whitfield Co. Jail (Georgia)

 Marion Co. Jail (Tennessee)

 Sandoval Co. Det. Ctr. (New Mexico)

 Williamson Co. Jail (Texas)

 Montgomery Co. Jail (North Carolina)

 Catahoula Parish Corr. Ctr. (Louisiana)

 Escambia Co. Det. Ctr. (Alabama)

 Orleans Parish House of Det. (Louisiana).

Williamsburg Co. Jail (South Carolina), was excused due 

to construction at the facility. In Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. 

(New York), data were collected only among inmates ages 

16 to 17 due to lack of space to interview both adults and 

juveniles ages 16 to 17. 
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 35

Fourteen facilities were determined to be ineligible: six 

had closed, two were considered part of another facility 

on the sampling frame, three had fewer than six eligible 

inmates, two were facilities containing only unsupervised 

work release inmates, and one had active litigation related 

to sexual victimization. All other selected jail facilities 

participated fully in NIS-3.

Selection of inmates within jails

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

data collection at each facility. Inmates age 15 or younger 

and inmates who had not been arraigned were removed 

from the roster. Eligible inmates within a facility were 

placed into one of two stratum based on their age. Inmates 

who were ages 16 to 17 (juveniles) were placed in one 

stratum and inmates age 18 or older (adults) were placed 

in the other. Inmates age 15 or younger were considered 

ineligible for the NIS-3. 

Selection of adult inmates within jails

The number of adult inmates sampled in each facility varied 

based on six criteria:

 an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 3%

 a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 

1.4%

 a projected 65% response rate among selected inmates

 a 10% chance among participating inmates of not 

receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire

 an adjustment factor of 1.9 to account for the complex 

survey design

 a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in 

facilities where the status was known for all inmates and 

less than 1 in facilities where only the overall proportion 

of inmates who were pre-arraigned was known.

Each eligible adult inmate was assigned a random number 

and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were selected from 

the list up to the expected number of inmates determined 

by the sampling criteria. 

Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second 

roster of inmates was obtained on the first day of data 

collection. Eligible adult inmates who appeared on the 

second roster but who had not appeared on the initial 

roster were identified. These inmates had been arraigned 

since the initial roster was created or were newly admitted 

to the facility and arraigned. A random sample of these new 

inmates was chosen using the same probability of selection 

used to sample from the first roster. 

Selection of inmates ages 16 to 17 within jails

The number of inmates ages 16 to 17 sampled in each facility 

varied based on the number who appeared on the roster:

 If fewer than 50 were on the roster, all inmates ages 16 to 

17 were selected.

 If between 50 and 149 were on the roster, 75% were 

sampled (with a minimum of 50).

 If 150 or more were on the roster, 75% were sampled 

(with a minimum of 150).

In facilities in which not all inmates ages 16 to 17 were 

selected, each eligible inmate ages 16 to 17 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. 

As with adult jail inmates, a second roster obtained on the 

first day of data collection was used to identify inmates that 

had been arraigned since the initial roster was created or 

newly admitted. A random sample of these new inmates 

was chosen using the same probability of selection used to 

sample from the first roster.

A total of 112,594 jail inmates was selected. After selection, 

11,342 ineligible inmates were excluded—9,479 (8.4%) 

were released or transferred to another facility before 

interviewing began, 1,036 (0.8%) were mentally or 

physically unable to be interviewed, 25 (0.02%) were age 15 

or younger or their age could not be obtained during the 

interview process, 296 (0.3%) were selected in error (i.e., an 

inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and 

484 (0.4%) were on unsupervised work release or only 

served time on weekends.

Of all selected inmates, 22% refused to participate in the 

survey, 1.1% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in 

court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility 

to be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from 

participation by another legal jurisdiction), and 8% were 

not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language 

barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility after 

interviewing began).

Overall, 61,351 jail inmates participated in the survey, 

yielding a response rate of 61%. Approximately 90% of 

the participating inmates (54,137) received the sexual 

victimization survey. (See appendix table 5 for the number 

of participating inmates in each jail facility.)
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 36

Selection of special confinement facilities

A sample of 16 special facilities was drawn to represent the 

inmate populations in military, Indian country, and ICE 

facilities. Five military, six Indian country, and five ICE 

facilities were included. 

The military frame came from the military correctional 

facilities population report on April 1, 2011. The Indian 

country frame came from the BJS report, Jails in Indian 

Country, 2009, NCJ 232223, BJS Web, February 2011. The 

ICE frame came from the ICE integrated decision support 

system on March 21, 2011.

Military, Indian country, and ICE facilities were 

sequentially selected with probability proportionate to the 

adjusted number of inmates in the facility. The measures of 

size (population) were adjusted to reduce the probability of 

selection among facilities included in the NIS-2. 

Tohono O’odham Adult Detention Facility (Arizona) 

refused to participate in the NIS-3. All other selected special 

confinement facilities participated fully in the survey.

Selection of inmates in special confinement facilities

For purposes of inmate selection, military facilities were 

treated as prisons, and Indian country and ICE facilities 

were treated like jails. The assumptions used to determine 

the sample size within a prison or jail and the corresponding 

selection procedures were used. However, in ICE facilities, a 

second sample of newly admitted inmates was not drawn due 

to an inability to identify new inmates on the ICE rosters. In 

addition, inmates in ICE facilities who did not speak English 

or Spanish were defined as ineligible for the study.

Overall, 2,874 inmates were selected, including 910 in 

military facilities, 300 in Indian country facilities, and 

1,664 in ICE facilities. After selection, 163 ineligible 

inmates were excluded—28 (1.0%) were released or 

transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 

46 (1.1%) were mentally or physically unable to be 

interviewed, 3 (0.1%) were sampled in error, 2 (0.1%) were 

inmates in custody only on the weekend, and 84 (3.0%) in 

ICE facilities did not speak English or Spanish. 

Overall, 1,272 inmates participated in the survey (605 in 

military, 192 in Indian country, and 663 in ICE facilities), 

yielding a response rate of 68% in military, 68% in Indian 

country, and 43% in ICE facilities. Approximately 90% 

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

victimization survey (539 in military, 160 in Indian 

country, and 573 in ICE facilities). (See appendix table 9 

for the number of participating inmates in each special 

confinement facility.)

Weighting and nonresponse adjustments

Responses from interviewed inmates were weighted 

to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. 

Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight 

corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection 

within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors 

was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias 

due to nonresponse and to provide national estimates.

Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different 

from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each 

facility, bias could result if the random sample of inmates 

did not accurately represent the facility population. Bias 

could also result if the nonrespondents were different 

from the respondents. Post-stratification and nonresponse 

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 demographic characteristics. These 

characteristics included distributions by inmate age, sex, 

race, sentence length, and time since admission. This 

adjustment ensured that the estimates better reflected 

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 was assigned to a responding inmate 

with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment 

ensured that the estimates accurately reflected 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 victimization survey 

respondents.6

A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made 

to provide national-level estimates for the total number of 

inmates age 18 or older and the total number of inmates 

ages 16 to 17 who were held in jails at midyear 2011 

or in prison at yearend 2011. These ratios represented 

the estimated number of inmates by sex (from BJS’s 

2011 Annual Survey of Jails and 2011 National Prisoner 

Statistics) divided by the number of inmates by sex for 

adults and overall for juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 in the 

NIS-3, after calibration for sampling and nonresponse. 

The national estimates for state prisons were 1,154,600 

6Folsom, Jr., R.E., & Singh, A.C. (2002). “The Generalized Exponential 

Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, 

and Poststratification.” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 598–603.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 37

adult males, 83,400 adult females, and 1,700 juveniles 

ages 16 to 17; for federal prisons, 190,600 adult males and 

13,200 adult females (there were no juveniles ages 16 to 

17 in federal custody); and for jails (with an average daily 

population of six or more inmates), 628,620 adult males, 

91,551 adult females, and 5,700 juveniles ages 16 to 17. 

Final ratio adjustments were not applied to inmate 

weights in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. 

Estimates for special confinement facilities were made at 

the facility level only.

Standard errors and tests of significance

The NIS-3 is statistically unable to provide an exact 

ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. As with 

any survey, the NIS estimates are subject to error arising 

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

complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated 

sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the 

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

A common way to express this sampling variability is to 

construct a 95%-confidence interval around each survey 

estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 

and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate 

produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses 

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

different samples that could be drawn. 

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

with sexual victimization in most prisons and jails, the 

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

interval may not be reliable. An alternative developed 

by Wilson has been shown to perform better than the 

traditional method when constructing a confidence 

interval. (See footnote 1 on page 10.) This method produces 

an asymmetrical confidence interval around the facility 

estimates in which the lower bound is constrained to be 

greater than or equal to 0%. It also provides confidence 

intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are 

zero (but other similarly conducted surveys could yield 

non-zero estimates). (See tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 and appendix 

tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.)

When applied to large samples, the traditional and the 

Wilson confidence intervals are nearly identical. As a result, 

the tables that show national estimates display traditional 

standard errors. (See tables 1 and 2.) The traditional 

standard errors have also been used to compare estimates 

of sexual victimization among selected groups of inmates 

that have been defined by type of incident, demographic 

subgroup, sexual history, and criminal justice status. (See 

tables 7 through 9 and 11 through 20.) To facilitate the 

analysis, rather than provide the detailed estimates for 

every standard error, differences in the estimates of sexual 

victimization for subgroups in these tables have been tested 

and notated for significance at the 95%-level of confidence. 

For example, the difference in the rate of inmate-on-inmate 

sexual victimization among female prison inmates (6.9%) 

compared to male prison inmates (1.7%) is statistically 

significant at the 95%-level of confidence (table 7). In 

all tables providing detailed comparisons, statistically 

significant differences at the 95%-level of confidence or 

greater have been designated with two asterisks (**).

Exposure period

To calculate comparative rates of sexual victimization, 

respondents were asked to provide the most recent date of 

admission to the current facility. If the date of admission 

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

inmates were asked questions related to their experiences 

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

than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked 

about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility.

The average exposure period of inmates participating in the 

sexual victimization survey was—

 8.8 months for federal prisoners

 8.1 months for adult state prisoners

 5.5 months for juveniles ages 16 to 17 in state prisons 

 3.7 months for jail inmates

 7.6 months for inmates in military facilities

 2.8 months for inmates in ICE facilities

 2.0 months for inmates in Indian country facilities.

Measurement of sexual victimization

The survey of sexual victimization relied on inmates 

reporting their direct experiences, rather than inmates 

reporting on the experiences of other inmates. Questions 

related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were 

asked separately from questions related to staff sexual 

misconduct. (For specific survey questions, see appendices 

1 and 2.) 

The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that 

screened for specific sexual activities without restriction, 

including both wanted and unwanted sex and sexual 

contacts with other inmates. To fully measure all sexual 

activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in 

a sexual way were followed by questions related to manual 

stimulation and questions related to acts involving oral, 
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 38

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

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

was measured for each type of reported sexual activity.

ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were 

asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked about 

being pressured or being made to feel they had to have 

sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked about 

being physically forced. In addition, inmates were asked 

if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges 

in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if they 

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

sex or sexual contact between an inmate and facility staff, 

regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff 

sexual misconduct.

The ACASI survey included additional questions related 

to both inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff 

sexual misconduct. These questions, known as latent class 

measures, were included to assess the reliability of the 

survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, 

all inmates were asked a series of general questions to 

determine if they had experienced any type of unwanted 

sex or sexual contact with another inmate or had any sex or 

sexual contact with staff. (See appendix 3.)

The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National 

Inmate Survey-3) and the shorter paper and pencil survey 

form (PAPI) are available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov. 

Interviews checked for inconsistent response patterns

Once data collection was completed, individual response 

patterns were assessed to identify interviewer error, 

interviews that had been completed in too short of 

time, and incomplete interviews. In 141 interviews, the 

interviewers administered sex-specific survey items 

inconsistent with the sex of the inmate. In 693 interviews, 

the inmate failed to complete enough questions to be 

considered a completed interview. These interviews were 

excluded from the calculations of sexual victimization. 

Interviews were also examined for inconsistent response 

patterns. A list of 31 indicators were developed based 

on inmate characteristics (e.g., education, age, marital 

status, and time since admission) and items related to 

victimization (e.g., number of times, injuries, willing 

contact with staff, sex of staff perpetrator, and reporting 

of victimization). Indicators compared responses to initial 

questions with responses to detailed follow-up questions. 

The indicators were identified as unlikely, highly unlikely, 

or extremely unlikely. 

Of the 31 indicators, 21 were deemed unlikely, 7 were 

deemed highly unlikely, and 3 were deemed extremely 

unlikely. An example of an unlikely indicator is when 

a respondent indicated victimization occurred, but 

responded no to all types of victimization. An example of 

a highly unlikely indicator is when a responded indicated 

that the first time a victimization occurred was before 

the inmate was admitted to the facility. An example of an 

extremely unlikely indicator is if the inmate responded yes 

to 12 or more of the sex-specific victimization items and 

indicated being victimized 11 or more times to both staff 

sexual misconduct and inmate-on-inmate victimization. 

If any of the extremely unlikely indicators were triggered 

and at least one highly unlikely indicator or four or more 

unlikely indicators were triggered, the inmate’s data were 

removed. 

The amount of time the interview took was also reviewed. 

Inmates whose average time for the sexual victimization 

items was less than 2 seconds per item and inmates 

whose total time was less than 10 minutes for English 

respondents and less than 12 minutes for Spanish 

respondents had their data removed. 

Overall, the results revealed very high levels of consistency 

in survey responses. Of the 92,689 respondents to the 

sexual victimization survey, 87 triggered one extremely 

highly unlikely flag. Of these, 20 met the additional 

criteria for removal. In addition, data for 12 respondents 

were removed because their interviews did not meet the 

length of interview criteria. Among the 32 cases that 

were removed, 1 respondent was in a federal facility, 13 

respondents were in state prisons (2 were juveniles ages 16 

to 17), and 18 respondents were in jails. These 32 inmates 

came from separate facilities (i.e., only one inmate from 

each of these facilities was removed) and were excluded 

from the calculation of sexual victimization. 

Calculation of Body Mass Index (BMI) 

BMI is a measurement of body fat, based on height and 

weight, that applies to both men and women ages 18 to 65. 

BMI can be used to determine if a person is underweight 

(18.5 or less), normal (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 29.9), 

obese (30 to 39.9), or morbidly obese (40 or greater). The 

calculation in the NIS-3 was based on the following formula 

provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

BMI = weight (pounds) / [height (inches)]2 x 703.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 39

Screening for serious psychological distress (SPD) and 

history of mental health problems

The NIS-3 included four items to measure the prevalence 

of any problems with emotions, nerves, or mental health an 

inmate may have had in the past:

R24. Have you ever been told by a mental health professional, 

such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, that you had...

a. manic depression, a bipolar disorder or mania?

b. a depressive disorder?

c. schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder?

d. post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)?

e. another anxiety disorder, such as panic disorder or 

obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)?

f. a personality disorder, such as antisocial or 

borderline personality?

g. a mental or emotional condition other than those 

listed above?

R27. During the 12 months before you were admitted to 

[this facility / any facility to serve time on your current 

sentence], did you stay overnight or longer in any type of 

hospital or other facility to receive treatment or counseling 

for problems you were having with your emotions, nerves, 

or mental health?

R30. At the time of the offense for which you are currently 

[being held / serving time], were you taking prescription 

medicine for any problem you were having with your 

emotions, nerves, or mental health?

R33. Have you ever received counseling or therapy from a 

trained professional, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, 

social worker, or nurse, for any problem you were having 

with your emotions, nerves, or mental health?

Development of the K6 

The K6 is a six-item scale designed to provide rapid 

assessment of the prevalence of serious psychological 

distress (SPD) in population surveys. (See page 25 for 

the six items and response categories.) Developed by 

Kessler and colleagues, the K6 has become widely used 

in epidemiological surveys throughout the world. It 

is included in three general population surveys in the 

U.S.—the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 

and the National Health Interview Survey (conducted 

by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and 

the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (conducted 

by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration). 

The K6 has been recognized as a broad screener rather 

than a specific screener for any one mental disorder. 

Kessler and others have shown that the K6 outcomes are 

consistent with blinded clinical diagnoses of SPD in general 

population samples. Moreover, their statistical analyses of 

alternative scoring rules for the sex items have shown the 

unweighted sum (based on codes 0 to 4, with a total sum 

ranging from 0 to 24) to be virtually identical to sums using 

other weighting schemes. Although its use under PREA 

is to determine risk related to SPD and the incidence of 

sexual victimization, more specific screening scales could 

have been used to determine if sexual victimization was 

associated with particular kinds of mental disorder.

Prior to 2004, the K6 was used in the National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to estimate the 

prevalence of serious mental illness. In 2008, following the 

recommendation of a technical advisory group, convened 

by the Center for Mental Health Services at the SAMHSA, 

NSDUH supplemented the K6 scale with questions on 

functional impairment. Functional impairment is defined 

as difficulties that substantially interfere with or limit role 

functioning in one or more major life activities, including 

basic living skills; instrumental living skills; and functioning 

in social, family, and vocational or educational contexts.7

However, the NIS-3 did not include any items related to 

functional impairment, since past measures and scales are 

not appropriate for inmates held in prisons or jails.

The use of K6 for predicting serious mental illness has 

never been validated in a correctional setting. It may be 

expected that some inmates feel nervous, hopeless, restless 

or fidgety, sad or depressed, or worthless due to their 

confinement rather than due to an underlying mental 

health disorder. Consequently, the exact cut point for 

serious psychological distress may be higher than 13 among 

inmates than among persons in the general population. 

However, the link between SPD and sexual victimization 

rates remains strong, regardless of the exact cut point in 

the K6 scale. For example, had the cut point for serious 

psychological distress in the NIS been raised to 17 (from 

13), inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization rates would 

have increased to 7.6% among prison inmates and 4.4% 

7Gfroerer, J., Hedden, S., Barker, P., Bose, J., & Aldworth, J. (2012). 

“Estimating Mental Illness in an Ongoing National Survey,” Federal 

Committee on Statistical Methodology, available at www.fcsm.

gov/12papers/Gfroerer_2012FCSM_VII-A.pdf
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 40

among jail inmates, and staff sexual misconduct rates 

would have increased to 7.2% among prison inmates and 

4.4% among jail inmates.

Imputation of missing data

SPD status was determined by the sum of the responses to 

the K6 items. Since some inmates did not respond to all six 

items, inclusion and imputation criteria were developed. 

Only respondents who answered at least four of the K6 

items were included in the estimates of SPD status. 

A missing K6 item was imputed in a nearest neighbor 

approach (i.e., the donor value for the imputed value was 

the nearest previous nonmissing K6 response). If the 

nearest K6 item was missing, then the value from the first 

nonmissing response preceding the missing item was used 

as the donor. For example, if item 2 was not answered, but 

item 1 was answered, then the value from the first K6 item 

was used as the value for the selected K6 item. If the first 

K6 item was missing, then the first nonmissing value that 

followed was used as the donor. Since only respondents 

who answered at least four of the K6 items were included in 

the analysis, the donor response was never more than two 

items away from the item with the missing response.

In prisons, among the 38,251 adult respondents, 555 (1.5%) 

answered fewer than four items and thus were not included 

in the estimates of SPD. Of the adult prison inmates who 

responded to four or more items, 931 (2.4%) had one or 

two items imputed.

In jails, among the 52,926 adult respondents, 1,106 (2.1%) 

answered fewer than four items and therefore were not 

included in the estimates of SPD status. Of the adult jail 

inmates who responded to four or more items, 1,840 (3.5%) 

had one or two items imputed. 

Terms and definitions

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

oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; touching of 

the inmate’s buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a 

sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and 

unwilling sexual activity with staff.

Nonconsensual sexual acts—unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, 

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

Abusive sexual contacts only—unwanted contacts with 

another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved 

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

vagina in a sexual way.

Unwilling activity—incidents of unwanted sexual contacts 

with another inmate or staff.

Willing activity—incidents of willing sexual contacts with 

staff. These contacts are characterized as willing by the 

reporting inmates; however, all sexual contacts between 

inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual.

Staff sexual misconduct—includes all incidents of willing 

and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all 

incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal 

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

with facility staff.

Related prior publications

Eight BJS reports on sexual victimization in prisons and 

jails:

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004

(NCJ 210333)

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005

(NCJ 214646)

Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006

(NCJ 218914)

Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional 

Authorities, 2007-2008 (NCJ 231172)

Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported 

by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414)

Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 

2007 (NCJ 221946)

Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by 

Inmates, 2008-09 (NCJ 231169)

Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 

2008 (NCJ 237363).

An overview of all of the BJS prison rape collections: PREA 

Data Collection Activities, 2012 (NCJ 238640)

These reports are available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013 41

Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Males

E16. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a 

sexual way?

E17. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to let them 

touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a 

sexual way?

E22. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you give or receive a hand job?

E23. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to give or receive 

a hand job?

E26. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you give or receive oral sex or a 

blow job?

E27. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to give or receive 

oral sex or a blow job?

E32. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you have anal sex?

E33. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have anal sex?

E34. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force 

to make you have any type of sex 

or sexual contact other than sexual 

touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow 

jobs, or anal sex?

E35. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have any type 

of sex or sexual contact other than 

sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or 

blow jobs, or anal sex?

Females

E18. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or 

vagina in a sexual way?

E19. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to let them 

touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or 

vagina in a sexual way?

E24. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you give or receive oral sex?

E25. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to give or receive 

oral sex?

E28. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you have vaginal sex?

E29. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or 

make you feel that you had to have 

vaginal sex?

E32. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force to 

make you have anal sex?

E33. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have anal sex?

E34. During the last 12 months, did 

another inmate use physical force 

to make you have any type of sex 

or sexual contact other than sexual 

touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or 

anal sex?

E35. During the last 12 months, 

did another inmate, without using 

physical force, pressure you or make 

you feel that you had to have any type 

of sex or sexual contact other than 

sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, 

or anal sex?
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 42

Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

These next questions are about the 

behavior of staff at this facility during 

the last 12 months. By staff we mean 

the employees of this facility and 

anybody who works as a volunteer in 

this facility.

G4. During the last 12 months, have 

any facility staff pressured you or 

made you feel that you had to let them 

have sex or sexual contact with you?

G5. During the last 12 months, 

have you been physically forced 

by any facility staff to have sex or 

sexual contact?

G7. During the last 12 months, have 

any facility staff offered you favors or 

special privileges in exchange for sex 

or sexual contact?

G2. During the last 12 months, 

have you willingly had sex or sexual 

contact with any facility staff?

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

Yes] During the last 12 months, which 

of the following types of sex or sexual 

contact did you have with a facility 

staff person?

G11a. You touched a facility staff 

person’s body or had your body 

touched in a sexual way.

G11b. You gave or received a hand job.

G11c. You gave or received oral sex or 

a blow job.

G11d. You had vaginal sex.

G11e. You had anal sex.

Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

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

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
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 43

Appendix table 1

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

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to 

sexual victimization 

surveyd Response ratee Percentf

95%-confidence intervalb

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Total 386,307 38,778 60.4% 4.0% 3.6% 4.5%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 1,928 219 72.9% 5.8% 3.6% 9.4%

G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac. 1,233 194 66.7 5.7 3.3 9.6

Julia Tutwiler Prisong 964 181 68.2 14.1 10.1 19.3

St. Clair Corr. Fac. 1,331 178 64.4 5.5 2.8 10.7

Alaska

Anchorage Corr. Complex West 472 119 57.0% 5.9% 3.1% 10.7%

Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.g 412 139 76.0 12.9 8.5 19.1

Arizona

ASPC - Douglas 2,512 163 55.6% 1.2% 0.3% 4.5%

ASPC - Eyman 4,919 200 41.2 4.1 2.0 8.2

ASPC - Perryvilleg 3,417 208 66.9 9.1 5.9 13.9

ASPC - Tusconh 5,092 273 72.7 3.7 1.9 7.2

ASPC - Yuma 4,190 158 50.6 1.9 0.6 5.6

Florence Corr. Ctr.h,i 2,809 188 67.4 1.0 0.3 3.5

La Palma Corr. Ctr.i 3,023 163 45.1 0.0 0.0 2.3

Red Rock Corr. Ctr.i 1,525 62 18.8 2.9 0.8 10.0

Arkansas

Ouachita River Corr. Unit 2,558 136 80.2% 4.2% 2.1% 8.5%

California

Avenal State Prison 5,619 183 61.3% 1.2% 0.3% 4.4%

California Corr. Ctr. 3,527 120 39.0 2.1 0.7 6.0

California Corr. Inst. 4,939 161 38.7 5.4 2.4 11.5

California Inst. for Womeng 1,952 146 51.6 6.7 3.8 11.3

California Men’s Colony 6,273 168 51.8 1.5 0.6 4.2

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 4,173 137 45.2 2.5 0.8 7.3

Calipatria State Prison 4,408 92 30.8 2.3 0.8 6.4

Central California Women’s Fac.g 3,745 196 67.6 10.1 6.5 15.3

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 3,169 158 52.7 2.7 1.1 6.7

Corcoran State Prison 4,812 155 35.7 6.4 3.0 12.9

Corr. Training Fac. 6,635 214 66.4 3.2 1.6 6.3

Sacramento State Prison 2,827 93 29.7 3.3 1.2 8.7

Salinas Valley State Prison 3,589 143 45.8 3.8 1.8 7.6

San Quentin State Prison 3,495 156 50.3 3.8 1.6 8.6

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 3,451 187 59.8 1.4 0.5 3.9

Solano State Prison 4,649 202 64.8 2.0 0.8 5.0

Valley State Prison for Womeng 3,513 178 56.3 11.5 7.5 17.2

Colorado

Buena Vista Corr. Ctr. 929 128 55.3% 3.3% 1.5% 7.1%

Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.g 777 160 68.2 19.3 13.8 26.3

Skyline Corr. Ctr. 248 95 54.9 3.7 1.4 8.9

Connecticut

Manson Youth Inst. 446 242 84.3% 5.2% 3.4% 7.9%

York Corr. Inst.g 1,087 206 76.3 12.0 8.3 17.2

Delaware

Central Violation of Probation Ctr. 216 138 88.3% 3.0% 1.7% 5.3%

Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.g 360 165 82.9 13.6 10.0 18.3

James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr. 2,538 167 57.4 5.3 2.7 10.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 44

Florida

Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction 2,230 161 56.9% 12.2% 8.0% 18.3%

Broward Corr. Inst.g 699 154 64.4 12.0 7.6 18.6

Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1,615 185 64.2 4.1 2.2 7.7

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South 2,057 115 48.0 0.0 0.0 3.4

Florida State Prison and Work Camp 2,082 133 44.2 5.2 2.6 10.2

Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1,522 129 46.1 4.0 1.7 9.1

Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 908 184 69.0 5.5 3.2 9.3

Lawtey Corr. Inst. 806 198 79.7 0.0 0.0 1.9

Levy Forestry Campg 159 91 66.0 6.1 3.1 11.9

Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1,455 238 83.2 2.2 1.1 4.6

Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1,489 189 66.4 5.8 3.4 9.7

Northwest Florida Reception Ctr. 2,073 135 48.9 13.7 8.8 20.7

Santa Rosa Corr. Inst. 2,686 185 60.0 14.0 9.5 20.3

Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex 2,996 206 67.1 2.7 1.1 6.0

Zephyrhills Corr. Inst. 656 156 62.5 7.9 4.7 13.0

Georgia

Autry State Prison 1,662 132 46.2% 6.1% 3.3% 11.1%

Burruss Corr. Training Ctr. 763 228 79.7 0.6 0.1 2.6

D. Ray James Prisoni 2,066 195 66.0 0.5 0.1 2.7

Lee Arrendale State Prisong 1,664 211 78.9 5.9 3.5 9.7

Macon State Prison 1,706 215 74.1 5.8 3.5 9.5

Rogers State Prison 1,479 235 80.2 2.2 1.0 4.8

Valdosta State Prison 1,457 139 50.6 10.5 6.5 16.7

Ware State Prison 1,521 231 78.0 4.6 2.7 7.8

Washington State Prison 1,537 216 82.3 2.2 1.0 4.7

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 280 155 92.0% 6.2% 4.2% 8.8%

Idaho

Idaho Max. Security Inst. 388 78 39.3% 14.0% 7.0% 25.9%

St. Anthony Work Camp 230 72 43.2 2.3 0.5 9.4

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 1,833 206 69.7% 0.5% 0.2% 1.8%

Decatur Corr. Ctr.g 683 157 65.0 1.1 0.3 3.3

Dwight Corr. Ctr.g 1,029 203 81.0 10.7 7.1 15.6

Hill Corr. Ctr. 1,843 248 84.1 4.9 2.7 8.7

Menard Corr. Ctr. 3,660 162 51.4 2.6 1.1 6.0

Pittsfield Work Camp 401 79 35.7 0.0 0.0 4.6

Stateville Corr. Ctr. 3,670 229 74.2 1.0 0.4 3.0

Western Illinois Corr. Ctr. 1,932 156 55.0 3.7 1.6 8.1

Indiana

Miami Corr. Fac. 3,168 203 65.5% 3.2% 1.5% 7.0%

Reception-Diagnostic Ctr. 645 148 63.2 2.4 1.1 5.5

Rockville Corr. Fac.g 1,140 224 83.1 7.6 4.3 12.9

Wabash Valley Corr. Fac. 2,080 169 49.1 3.2 1.3 7.7

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 1,166 166 59.0% 4.5% 2.3% 8.7%

Kansas

Lansing Corr. Fac. 2,241 191 66.3% 6.7% 4.0% 11.0%

Norton Corr. Fac. 808 128 61.6 5.1 2.6 9.9

Appendix Table 1 (continued) 

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

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to 

sexual victimization 

surveyd Response ratee Percentf

95%-confidence intervalb

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 45

Kentucky

Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex 1,704 154 50.3% 6.3% 3.6% 10.9%

Kentucky State Reformatory 2,039 156 53.3 6.4 3.6 11.3

Otter Creek Corr. Complexi 640 117 47.3 7.0 3.8 12.3

Louisiana

B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr. 1,157 187 70.1% 4.1% 2.1% 8.0%

Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr. 2,158 184 68.9 6.5 3.7 11.0

Louisiana State Penitentiary 5,351 220 69.5 8.5 5.5 12.8

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.h 617 192 80.5% 6.1% 3.6% 10.2%

Maryland

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown 2,021 180 61.4% 3.1% 1.5% 6.4%

Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womeng 827 151 54.8 12.7 8.5 18.4

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 2,653 203 64.7 3.4 1.7 6.8

Metropolitan Transition Ctr. 635 106 43.9 3.2 1.4 7.6

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 856 181 69.3% 5.6% 3.4% 9.3%

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 1,822 186 58.1% 4.4% 2.2% 8.6%

Central Michigan Corr. Fac. 2,455 226 76.0 2.7 1.2 6.0

Lakeland Corr. Fac. 1,368 222 78.0 5.6 3.4 9.3

Saginaw Corr. Fac. 1,459 215 78.0 2.9 1.4 6.0

Thumb Corr. Fac. 955 181 58.3 3.2 1.3 7.4

Minnesota

MCF - Moose Lake 1,019 191 70.0% 4.4% 2.5% 7.8%

MCF - Shakopeeg 564 156 67.8 13.0 8.4 19.6

Mississippi

Pike Co. Community Work Ctr. 46 29 79.5% 0.0% 0.0% 11.7%

Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.i 976 281 92.0 9.9 7.2 13.6

Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.i 881 173 66.8 7.5 4.6 11.8

Missouri

Algoa Corr. Ctr. 1,485 152 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

Farmington Corr. Fac. 2,602 240 83.9 7.9 5.2 11.8

South Central Corr. Fac. 1,576 182 62.6 7.2 4.2 12.1

Tipton Corr. Ctr. 1,155 152 51.0 1.3 0.4 4.5

Western Missouri Corr. Ctr. 1,910 161 54.0 3.4 1.7 6.9

Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr. 1,876 187 67.1 1.5 0.5 4.1

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.g 1,535 198 68.9 8.7 5.3 13.7

Montana

Montana State Prison 1,443 191 65.3% 13.9% 8.8% 21.4%

Nebraska

Lincoln Corr. Ctr. 491 141 64.2% 4.5% 2.4% 8.1%

Nevada

Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.g 705 142 61.0% 16.3% 10.8% 23.7%

High Desert State Prison 2,713 192 59.4 2.5 1.0 6.4

Lovelock Corr. Ctr. 1,609 191 61.9 3.8 1.8 7.6

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 1,370 193 69.2% 5.5% 2.9% 10.3%

New Hampshire State Prison for Womeng 111 78 84.0 8.2 5.5 12.1

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison 2,241 119 39.6% 3.4% 1.3% 8.6%

Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac. 1,060 151 53.2 3.1 1.4 6.7

South Woods State Prison 3,398 131 44.1 5.2 2.3 11.3

Appendix Table 1 (continued) 

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

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to 

sexual victimization 

surveyd Response ratee Percentf

95%-confidence intervalb

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 46

New Mexico

Lea Co. Corr. Fac.i 1,137 135 51.4% 4.5% 2.2% 9.2%

New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac.g,i 599 157 65.2 14.3 10.1 19.9

New York

Auburn Corr. Fac. 1,710 195 67.4% 9.8% 6.3% 14.7%

Cayuga Corr. Fac. 979 165 60.9 2.7 1.2 5.7

Gowanda Corr. Fac. 1,503 239 85.6 3.4 1.8 6.1

Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.h 950 233 85.4 1.9 0.8 4.3

Otisville Corr. Fac. 407 128 61.1 8.3 4.9 13.7

Washington Corr. Fac. 705 180 69.0 3.9 2.0 7.3

Wyoming Corr. Fac. 1,576 217 73.5 3.1 1.6 6.0

North Carolina

Harnett Corr. Inst. 987 160 58.9% 3.6% 1.8% 7.0%

Lanesboro Corr. Inst. 982 161 37.0 3.3 1.5 7.1

Mary Frances Ctr.g,i 93 68 84.6 0.0 0.0 5.3

Maury Corr. Inst. 961 102 29.0 5.6 2.7 11.3

North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womeng 1,138 150 57.8 13.0 8.3 19.6

Odom Corr. Inst. 531 129 59.0 3.3 1.5 7.4

Western Youth Inst. 668 227 70.6 1.1 0.4 3.2

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 517 146 61.5% 5.3% 2.9% 9.3%

Ohio

Allen Corr. Inst. 1,340 116 41.2% 3.2% 1.1% 9.0%

Belmont Corr. Inst. 2,648 167 55.0 2.4 0.9 5.8

Chillicothe Corr. Inst. 2,944 197 59.4 5.1 2.8 9.0

Franklin Medical Ctr.h 577 129 55.9 0.0 0.0 2.9

Madison Corr. Inst. 2,333 172 47.0 7.2 3.5 14.3

Noble Corr. Inst. 2,561 186 62.1 4.5 2.4 8.1

Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.g 553 157 65.5 7.6 4.5 12.3

Pickaway Corr. Fac. 2,185 188 65.4 5.3 2.9 9.5

Oklahoma

Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.g 717 187 75.3% 9.4% 6.3% 13.8%

Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr. 709 179 72.1 0.5 0.1 2.3

Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.g 1,054 193 70.1 17.5 13.1 22.9

North Fork Corr. Fac.i 2,326 46 17.2 1.7 0.3 8.7

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.g 1,107 207 69.1% 10.8% 7.5% 15.3%

Deer Ridge Corr. Inst. 754 165 65.7 3.2 1.5 6.6

Oregon State Penitentiary 1,989 203 62.3 2.9 1.4 6.1

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.g 856 199 76.6% 4.1% 2.3% 7.3%

Chester State Corr. Inst. 1,237 195 70.0 1.5 0.5 4.1

Houtzdale State Corr. Inst. 2,268 175 55.7 1.8 0.6 5.4

Mahanoy State Corr. Inst. 2,323 202 68.6 0.9 0.3 3.2

Muncy State Corr. Inst.g 1,443 216 75.6 11.4 8.2 15.8

Pine Grove State Corr. Inst. 798 196 68.2 7.1 4.0 12.2

Somerset State Corr. Inst. 2,237 183 61.0 4.5 2.2 9.1

Waymart State Corr. Inst. 1,426 189 66.1 1.4 0.4 5.1

Rhode Island

Donald Price Med. Security Fac. 290 151 81.9% 2.6% 1.4% 4.8%

Appendix Table 1 (continued) 

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

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to 

sexual victimization 

surveyd Response ratee Percentf

95%-confidence intervalb

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 47

South Carolina

Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.g 495 129 67.5% 8.7% 5.2% 14.1%

Kershaw Corr. Inst. 1,473 232 78.9 5.6 3.2 9.7

Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr. 1,672 233 85.3 2.8 1.4 5.8

Turbeville Corr. Inst. 1,163 214 74.6 3.2 1.6 6.2

Tyger River Corr. Inst. 1,287 206 63.7 1.9 0.7 4.8

South Dakota

South Dakota Women’s Prisong 220 118 74.7% 13.2% 9.5% 18.1%

Tennessee

Riverbend Max. Security Inst. 698 87 16.5% 1.2% 0.3% 4.1%

Texas

Byrd Unit 1,095 183 60.9% 1.8% 0.8% 4.4%

Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexg 402 162 79.5 1.7 0.8 3.6

Clemens Unit 1,168 173 55.8 6.4 3.1 12.7

Clements Unit 3,631 141 43.6 11.9 7.6 18.0

Coffield Unit 4,113 210 66.1 7.9 4.9 12.4

Dawson State Jailh,i 2,202 188 63.7 2.4 1.1 5.1

Eastham Unit 2,439 207 68.1 4.7 2.7 8.2

Gist State Jail 1,997 213 72.2 1.5 0.5 4.1

Gurney Transfer Fac. 1,834 179 62.3 1.5 0.5 4.2

Henley State Jailg 423 138 69.0 2.4 1.0 5.8

Hodge Unit 928 154 21.9 2.1 0.8 5.3

Holliday Transfer Fac. 2,077 161 52.9 2.8 1.1 7.1

Huntsville Unit 1,530 171 67.1 0.9 0.2 2.9

McConnell Unit 2,905 172 54.2 5.3 2.8 10.0

Michael Unit 3,257 179 57.1 6.0 3.4 10.3

Montford Psychiatric Fac. 819 166 70.2 10.2 6.7 15.2

Murray Unitg 1,315 168 63.7 15.3 10.7 21.4

Plane State Jailg 2,175 175 63.0 4.4 2.2 8.9

Powledge Unit 1,119 170 61.3 2.9 1.0 8.0

Stiles Unit 2,935 151 49.4 11.9 7.5 18.6

Willacy Co. State Jaili 1,069 151 55.6 1.1 0.3 3.8

Woodman State Jailg 796 140 56.8 1.3 0.4 4.3

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 1,105 193 69.9% 5.5% 3.2% 9.2%

Utah State Prisonh 3,746 233 73.1 6.4 3.8 10.5

Vermont

Southeast State Corr. Fac. 92 58 71.1% 5.1% 2.3% 10.9%

Southern State Corr. Fac. 359 109 55.3 9.9 5.6 16.9

Virginia

Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.g 131 95 85.8% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

Dillwyn Corr. Ctr. 1,061 163 60.3 4.5 2.2 9.0

Sussex II State Prison 1,276 204 74.1 5.4 3.0 9.5

Washington

Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr. 894 146 53.2% 5.1% 2.6% 9.6%

Monroe Corr. Complex 2,229 183 60.2 2.9 1.2 7.0

Washington State Penitentiary 2,017 119 41.2 5.2 2.2 11.9

West Virginia

Huttonsville Corr. Ctr. 1,147 128 46.6% 8.1% 4.4% 14.6%

Wisconsin

Green Bay Corr. Inst. 1,076 208 72.2% 4.8% 2.8% 7.9%

Oshkosh Corr. Ctr. 2,020 223 74.3 4.7 2.7 8.1

Appendix Table 1 (continued) 

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

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to 

sexual victimization 

surveyd Response ratee Percentf

95%-confidence intervalb

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 48

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 153 97 69.9% 2.9% 1.5% 5.5%

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

CI Edeni 1,556 185 67.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

CI Reeves I and IIi 2,395 180 63.7 0.0 0.0 2.1

CI Reeves IIIi 1,345 188 69.2 0.4 0.1 2.0

CI Riversi 1,416 159 58.3 0.9 0.2 4.7

FCI Allenwood Low 1,398 149 52.4 1.9 0.7 5.2

FCI Big Spring Camp 209 70 45.7 1.2 0.3 5.0

FCI Butner Med. I Camp 328 99 49.1 0.0 0.0 3.7

FCI Butner Med. II 1,722 180 61.0 2.2 0.7 7.1

FCI Forrest City Med. 1,725 152 51.4 0.6 0.1 2.9

FCI Greenville Campg 353 130 65.8 4.1 2.1 8.0

FCI Jesup 1,127 132 46.5 0.0 0.0 2.8

FCI Lompoc 1,413 164 57.5 0.6 0.1 2.8

FCI Manchester Camp 495 110 49.0 0.9 0.2 4.1

FCI Marianna Campg 296 172 88.5 0.6 0.2 2.1

FCI Milan 1,525 163 58.6 2.4 1.0 6.0

FCI Seagoville 1,562 194 67.4 1.1 0.4 3.1

FCI Tallahasseeg 1,250 157 60.2 5.8 3.2 10.3

FCI Terre Haute 1,182 92 34.6 2.2 0.5 8.2

FDC Philadelphiah 1,093 162 59.1 1.8 0.7 4.8

FMC Carswellg 1,413 193 64.6 4.2 2.3 7.5

FMC Devens 1,027 155 57.2 2.6 1.2 5.8

FMC Lexington Campg 285 148 83.2 0.8 0.2 2.7

FPC Aldersong 1,130 237 83.6 2.7 1.2 5.9

Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.i 1,021 157 60.1 0.6 0.1 3.1

MCFP Springfield 1,163 80 33.5 1.8 0.6 5.2

USP Hazelton - Femaleg 487 111 49.0 5.2 2.6 10.2

USP Lee 1,479 101 32.3 1.7 0.5 5.7

USP Tucson 1,521 140 42.2 7.3 3.9 13.4 aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

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

dNumber of respondents completing the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.) 

eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible sampled inmates times 100 percent.

f

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time served. (See Methodology.) 

gFemale facility.

hFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

i

Privately operated facility. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix Table 1 (continued) 

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

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc

Respondents to 

sexual victimization 

surveyd Response ratee Percentf

95%-confidence intervalb

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 49

Appendix table 2

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Total 2.0% 1.8% 2.3% 2.4% 2.0% 2.8%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 3.1% 1.5% 6.0% 3.6% 2.0% 6.5%

G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac. 4.4 2.3 8.2 2.3 1.0 5.2

Julia Tutwiler Prisond 10.0 6.8 14.6 6.8 4.1 10.9

St. Clair Corr. Fac. 3.2 1.3 7.6 3.5 1.4 8.4

Alaska

Anchorage Corr. Complex West 3.7% 1.8% 7.5% 2.2% 0.7% 6.5%

Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.d 9.9 6.2 15.5 3.0 1.2 7.4

Arizona

ASPC - Douglas 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.2% 0.3% 4.5%

ASPC - Eyman 1.8 0.7 4.4 3.2 1.4 7.2

ASPC - Perryvilled 7.5 4.6 11.9 2.1 0.8 5.4

ASPC - Tuscone 1.3 0.5 3.9 2.4 1.0 5.4

ASPC - Yuma 0.5 0.1 3.0 1.4 0.4 5.0

Florence Corr. Ctr.e,f 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.5 0.1 2.7

La Palma Corr. Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3

Red Rock Corr. Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.9 0.8 10.0

Arkansas

Ouachita River Corr. Unit 3.0% 1.2% 7.2% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6%

California

Avenal State Prison 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%

California Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.4 5.0 0.7 0.1 3.9

California Corr. Inst. 3.3 1.1 9.4 2.0 0.7 6.0

California Inst. for Womend 3.6 1.7 7.4 4.2 2.1 8.3

California Men’s Colony 1.5 0.6 4.2 0.0 0.0 2.2

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 1.4 0.3 5.2 1.1 0.2 5.9

Calipatria State Prison 0.7 0.1 3.8 1.6 0.4 5.5

Central California Women’s Fac.d 9.5 6.1 14.7 2.1 0.8 5.1

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2.7 1.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 2.4

Corcoran State Prison 2.4 0.9 5.9 4.3 1.6 11.0

Corr. Training Fac. 1.6 0.6 3.9 2.8 1.3 5.7

Sacramento State Prison 2.4 0.8 7.6 2.2 0.6 7.9

Salinas Valley State Prison 2.2 0.8 5.6 3.0 1.4 6.3

San Quentin State Prison 1.7 0.4 5.9 2.7 1.1 6.8

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 0.4 0.1 2.3 1.0 0.3 3.4

Solano State Prison 0.5 0.1 2.5 2.0 0.8 5.0

Valley State Prison for Womend 11.5 7.5 17.2 3.9 1.8 8.0

Colorado

Buena Vista Corr. Ctr. 1.5% 0.5% 4.9% 3.3% 1.5% 7.1%

Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.d 13.4 8.8 19.9 10.7 6.8 16.3

Skyline Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.6 1.4 8.9

Connecticut

Manson Youth Inst. 1.3% 0.5% 3.1% 4.0% 2.5% 6.3%

York Corr. Fac.d 11.0 7.4 16.0 2.5 1.0 6.3

Delaware

Central Violation of Probation Ctr. 0.7% 0.2% 2.0% 2.4% 1.2% 4.5%

Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.d 10.7 7.4 15.3 7.0 4.6 10.3

James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr. 3.6 1.7 7.6 1.7 0.5 5.7
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013 50

Florida

Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction 7.3% 4.3% 12.1% 6.8% 3.7% 12.2%

Broward Corr. Inst.d 5.4 2.9 9.9 7.3 3.9 13.3

Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.7 0.7 4.3 2.4 1.0 5.5

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4

Florida State Prison and Work Camp 2.8 1.0 7.2 3.3 1.5 7.1

Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.8 0.5 6.1 3.0 1.2 7.6

Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 2.7 1.2 5.7 3.4 1.7 6.7

Lawtey Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9

Levy Forestry Campd 4.7 2.1 10.4 1.4 0.4 4.3

Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.0 0.4 2.6 1.6 0.7 3.8

Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 4.3 2.3 7.8 2.5 1.1 5.5

Northwest Florida Reception Ctr. 9.8 5.8 16.1 4.9 2.3 10.2

Santa Rosa Corr. Inst. 4.6 2.1 9.4 10.1 6.5 15.5

Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex 0.4 0.1 2.2 2.2 0.9 5.5

Zephyrhills Corr. Inst. 2.9 1.3 6.1 5.5 2.9 10.3

Georgia

Autry State Prison 1.9% 0.7% 5.2% 4.2% 2.0% 8.8%

Burruss Corr. Training Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.1 2.6

D. Ray James Prisonf 0.5 0.1 2.7 0.0 0.0 1.9

Lee Arrendale State Prisond 5.9 3.5 9.7 0.0 0.0 1.8

Macon State Prison 1.3 0.5 3.6 5.3 3.1 8.9

Rogers State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.0 4.8

Valdosta State Prison 5.0 2.5 9.8 6.5 3.4 11.9

Ware State Prison 0.4 0.1 1.8 4.6 2.7 7.8

Washington State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.1 1.0 4.7

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 4.1% 2.6% 6.4% 2.1% 1.1% 3.9%

Idaho

Idaho Max. Security Inst. 9.4% 3.9% 21.0% 8.2% 3.1% 19.7%

St. Anthony Work Camp 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.3 0.5 9.4

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5% 0.2% 1.8% 0.3% 0.1% 1.4%

Decatur Corr. Ctr.d 1.1 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.4

Dwight Corr. Ctr.d 9.2 6.0 14.0 4.2 2.2 7.9

Hill Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.5 4.1 2.1 7.9

Menard Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 2.4 2.6 1.1 6.0

Pittsfield Work Camp 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 4.6

Stateville Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.0 0.4 3.0

Western Illinois Corr. Ctr. 2.2 0.8 6.1 3.0 1.2 7.4

Indiana

Miami Corr. Fac. 1.6% 0.5% 4.9% 2.7% 1.1% 6.4%

Reception-Diagnostic Ctr. 1.3 0.4 3.9 1.2 0.4 3.6

Rockville Corr. Fac.d 5.8 3.2 10.4 1.8 0.5 6.5

Wabash Valley Corr. Fac. 1.7 0.5 5.7 2.3 0.8 6.3

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 4.0% 2.0% 8.2% 0.5% 0.1% 2.4%

Kansas

Lansing Corr. Fac. 2.9% 1.4% 6.2% 5.1% 2.8% 9.1%

Norton Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.5 5.2 4.5 2.2 9.1

Kentucky

Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex 2.0% 0.7% 5.6% 5.7% 3.2% 10.1%

Kentucky State Reformatory 3.4 1.5 7.7 4.5 2.2 8.9

Otter Creek Corr. Complexf 4.7 2.3 9.6 2.9 1.2 6.7

Appendix table 2 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 51

Louisiana

B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr. 2.7% 1.1% 6.3% 2.1% 0.9% 5.0%

Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.6 7.5 4.6 2.5 8.4

Louisiana State Penitentiary 3.5 1.7 7.0 6.3 3.9 10.1

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.e 6.1% 3.6% 10.2% 1.8% 0.6% 5.1%

Maryland

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown 1.5% 0.5% 4.1% 1.6% 0.6% 4.4%

Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womend 8.4 5.2 13.2 5.6 3.0 10.3

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 1.6 0.6 4.5 2.4 1.0 5.3

Metropolitan Transition Ctr. 0.8 0.2 3.8 3.2 1.4 7.6

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 3.1% 1.5% 6.1% 2.6% 1.2% 5.4%

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 0.7% 0.1% 3.4% 4.3% 2.2% 8.6%

Central Michigan Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.5 3.5 1.8 0.6 5.1

Lakeland Corr. Fac. 1.7 0.7 3.9 4.0 2.1 7.4

Saginaw Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.1 2.9 1.4 6.0

Thumb Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.4 4.4 2.5 0.9 6.5

Minnesota

MCF - Moose Lake 2.8% 1.4% 5.6% 2.6% 1.2% 5.5%

MCF - Shakopeed 12.8 8.2 19.4 0.5 0.2 1.5

Mississippi

Pike Co. Community Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 11.7%

Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.f 0.4 0.1 1.6 9.6 6.9 13.2

Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.f 1.1 0.3 3.4 6.4 3.8 10.6

Missouri

Algoa Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

Farmington Corr. Fac. 5.8 3.6 9.3 3.7 2.0 6.7

South Central Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.6 6.1 3.4 10.9

Tipton Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.3 0.4 4.5

Western Missouri Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.3 3.9 2.3 1.0 5.3

Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 4.1

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.d 7.8 4.6 12.8 1.3 0.5 3.6

Montana

Montana State Prison 9.0% 4.6% 16.8% 9.9% 5.3% 17.7%

Nebraska

Lincoln Corr. Ctr. 0.5% 0.1% 2.1% 4.0% 2.1% 7.6%

Nevada

Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.d 16.3% 10.8% 23.7% 2.1% 0.8% 5.3%

High Desert State Prison 1.3 0.4 4.7 1.2 0.3 4.5

Lovelock Corr. Ctr. 2.3 0.9 5.7 1.5 0.5 4.4

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 2.2% 0.9% 5.3% 3.3% 1.3% 7.9%

New Hampshire State Prison for Womend 5.8 3.5 9.3 2.4 1.2 4.8

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison 2.0% 0.6% 7.1% 1.4% 0.4% 4.9%

Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.2 4.2 3.1 1.4 6.7

South Woods State Prison 3.5 1.3 8.8 4.0 1.5 10.2

New Mexico

Lea Co. Corr. Fac.f 1.3% 0.4% 4.4% 3.2% 1.3% 7.7%

New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac. d,f 12.2 8.3 17.5 6.0 3.4 10.5

Appendix table 2 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 52

New York

Auburn Corr. Fac. 3.7% 1.9% 7.3% 6.0% 3.4% 10.4%

Cayuga Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.7 1.2 5.7

Gowanda Corr. Fac. 1.1 0.4 3.2 2.6 1.3 5.1

Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.e 0.5 0.1 2.4 1.9 0.8 4.3

Otisville Corr. Fac. 3.7 1.7 8.1 5.9 3.2 10.6

Washington Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.1 2.9 1.4 6.1

Wyoming Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.5 3.8 1.7 0.7 4.0

North Carolina

Harnett Corr. Inst. 1.9% 0.8% 4.7% 1.9% 0.8% 4.7%

Lanesboro Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.3 1.5 7.1

Mary Frances Ctr.d,f 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3

Maury Corr. Inst. 1.9 0.7 5.0 3.7 1.4 9.4

North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womend 11.4 7.1 17.8 4.9 2.3 10.1

Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.2 3.9 3.3 1.5 7.4

Western Youth Inst. 0.6 0.1 2.5 0.5 0.1 2.3

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 2.5% 1.1% 5.6% 3.3% 1.6% 6.9%

Ohio

Allen Corr. Inst. 1.5% 0.3% 7.7% 1.7% 0.5% 5.7%

Belmont Corr. Inst. 1.6 0.6 4.6 0.7 0.1 3.8

Chillicothe Corr. Inst. 4.5 2.4 8.1 0.8 0.2 3.3

Franklin Medical Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9

Madison Corr. Inst. 3.0 1.2 7.3 4.2 1.5 11.4

Noble Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.3 2.3 3.7 1.8 7.3

Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.d 5.2 3.0 8.8 2.4 0.8 7.0

Pickaway Corr. Fac. 3.2 1.5 6.7 2.1 0.8 5.3

Oklahoma

Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.d 8.1% 5.3% 12.3% 2.4% 1.0% 5.5%

Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.1

Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.d 15.3 11.3 20.6 3.4 1.8 6.6

North Fork Corr. Fac.f 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.6 0.3 8.7

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.d 8.0% 5.2% 12.0% 4.7% 2.7% 8.1%

Deer Ridge Corr. Inst. 2.3 1.1 5.0 0.9 0.2 4.1

Oregon State Penitentiary 2.1 0.8 5.0 0.9 0.3 3.1

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.d 3.7% 1.9% 6.7% 0.9% 0.3% 2.7%

Chester State Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.0 0.3 3.6

Houtzdale State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.8 0.6 5.4

Mahanoy State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.9 0.3 3.2

Muncy State Corr. Inst.d 8.9 6.0 12.9 3.6 2.0 6.4

Pine Grove State Corr. Inst. 2.0 0.8 4.6 6.3 3.4 11.4

Somerset State Corr. Inst. 2.9 1.1 7.4 3.1 1.3 7.1

Waymart State Corr. Inst. 1.0 0.2 5.0 0.4 0.1 2.1

Rhode Island

Donald Price Med. Security Fac. 0.9% 0.4% 2.4% 1.7% 0.8% 3.6%

South Carolina

Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.d 6.5% 3.6% 11.4% 3.0% 1.3% 6.7%

Kershaw Corr. Inst. 3.0 1.3 6.8 2.6 1.3 5.3

Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr. 1.5 0.5 3.9 1.4 0.5 3.7

Turbeville Corr. Inst. 1.5 0.5 3.9 2.3 1.0 5.0

Tyger River Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.3 2.9 1.0 0.3 3.8

Appendix table 2 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 53

South Dakota

South Dakota Women’s Prisond 12.4% 8.8% 17.3% 2.6% 1.2% 5.4%

Tennessee

Riverbend Max. Security Inst. 0.4% 0.1% 2.0% 1.2% 0.3% 4.1%

Texas

Byrd Unit 0.9% 0.3% 2.8% 1.0% 0.3% 3.3%

Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexd 1.2 0.5 3.0 1.3 0.5 3.1

Clemens Unit 2.9 0.9 8.8 3.5 1.5 8.2

Clements Unit 6.8 3.8 11.7 9.5 5.7 15.3

Coffield Unit 1.1 0.3 3.8 6.8 4.1 11.1

Dawson State Jaile,f 1.4 0.5 3.9 1.6 0.6 4.1

Eastham Unit 2.3 1.0 5.1 2.9 1.4 5.9

Gist State Jail 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.9 0.2 3.1

Gurney Transfer Fac. 1.5 0.5 4.2 0.6 0.1 2.9

Henley State Jaild 1.7 0.6 4.9 0.8 0.2 3.2

Hodge Unit 1.9 0.7 5.2 0.7 0.2 2.6

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.7 1.8 0.5 6.1

Huntsville Unit 0.5 0.1 2.6 0.3 0.1 1.7

McConnell Unit 3.4 1.4 8.0 2.3 1.1 4.9

Michael Unit 4.4 2.3 8.4 2.1 0.8 5.2

Montford Psychiatric Fac. 8.4 5.2 13.1 5.0 2.7 9.2

Murray Unitd 11.3 7.3 17.0 4.4 2.3 8.2

Plane State Jaild 2.1 0.9 5.2 2.3 0.8 6.5

Powledge Unit 1.8 0.5 6.5 1.1 0.2 5.2

Stiles Unit 7.8 4.3 13.8 6.2 3.2 11.4

Willacy Co. State Jailf 1.1 0.3 3.8 0.6 0.1 2.8

Woodman State Jaild 1.3 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 2.7

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 3.7% 2.0% 6.9% 2.7% 1.2% 5.7%

Utah State Prisone 5.6 3.2 9.5 1.2 0.4 3.6

Vermont

Southeast State Corr. Fac. 2.2% 0.7% 6.5% 5.1% 2.3% 10.9%

Southern State Corr. Fac. 7.7 3.9 14.6 4.8 2.2 10.3

Virginia

Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.d 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

Dillwyn Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 3.9 3.7 1.7 8.0

Sussex II State Prison 1.3 0.4 4.6 4.1 2.2 7.7

Washington

Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr. 1.6% 0.5% 5.1% 3.5% 1.6% 7.5%

Monroe Corr. Complex 0.3 0.1 1.6 2.6 1.0 6.8

Washington State Penitentiary 3.3 1.1 9.4 1.9 0.5 6.9

West Virginia

Huttonsville Corr. Ctr. 2.8% 1.0% 7.5% 6.5% 3.2% 12.8%

Wisconsin

Green Bay Corr. Inst. 2.4% 1.2% 4.7% 2.4% 1.1% 5.1%

Oshkosh Corr. Ctr. 3.9 2.1 7.2 1.1 0.4 3.1

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 1.0% 0.3% 3.0% 2.9% 1.5% 5.5%

Appendix table 2 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 54

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

CI Edenf 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

CI Reeves I and IIf 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1

CI Reeves IIIf 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.1 2.0

CI Riversf 0.9 0.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 2.4

FCI Allenwood Low 0.5 0.1 2.8 1.4 0.4 4.5

FCI Big Spring Camp 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.2 0.3 5.0

FCI Butner Med. I Camp 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7

FCI Butner Med. II 1.4 0.3 7.0 0.8 0.2 2.7

FCI Forrest City Med. 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 2.9

FCI Greenville Campd 3.3 1.5 7.0 0.8 0.2 3.2

FCI Jesup 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.8

FCI Lompoc 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.6 0.1 2.8

FCI Manchester Camp 0.9 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 3.4

FCI Marianna Campd 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.2

FCI Milan 1.2 0.3 4.0 1.3 0.4 4.4

FCI Seagoville 1.1 0.4 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.9

FCI Tallahasseed 4.0 2.1 7.8 2.3 0.8 6.1

FCI Terre Haute 0.5 0.1 2.7 1.6 0.3 8.3

FDC Philadelphiae 1.2 0.4 4.0 0.6 0.1 3.0

FMC Carswelld 4.2 2.3 7.5 0.4 0.1 2.2

FMC Devens 1.3 0.4 4.1 1.4 0.5 3.8

FMC Lexington Campd 0.8 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.5

FPC Aldersond 2.3 1.0 5.5 0.4 0.1 1.8

Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.f 0.6 0.1 3.1 0.0 0.0 2.4

MCFP Springfield 1.2 0.3 4.2 0.6 0.1 3.4

USP Hazelton - Femaled 4.4 2.0 9.2 0.8 0.2 3.7

USP Lee 0.9 0.2 4.8 0.7 0.1 3.9

USP Tucson 4.1 1.7 9.5 3.2 1.3 7.9

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

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months, or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

dFemale facility. 

eFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility. 

f

Privately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 2 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011–12 | May 2013 55

Appendix table 3

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Total 1.3% 1.6% 0.8% 1.4% 1.4%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 2.0% 1.8% 0.3% 1.5% 2.9%

G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac. 3.5 3.1 1.0 1.7 1.3

Julia Tutwiler Prisone 5.0 7.8 4.0 5.5 2.4

St. Clair Corr. Fac. 2.5 3.2 1.1 2.9 1.7

Alaska

Anchorage Corr. Complex West 3.7% 2.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0%

Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.e 5.9 8.3 0.7 3.0 1.6

Arizona

ASPC - Douglas 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4%

ASPC - Eyman 1.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7

ASPC - Perryvillee 4.3 6.5 1.3 1.8 1.7

ASPC - Tusconf 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.6 1.2

ASPC - Yuma 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.4 0.0

Florence Corr. Ctr.f,g 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

La Palma Corr. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Red Rock Corr. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

Arkansas

Ouachita River Corr. Unit 2.2% 3.0% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9%

California

Avenal State Prison 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

California Corr. Ctr. 0.8 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.7

California Corr. Inst. 0.9 2.9 0.3 2.0 0.0

California Inst. for Womene 1.9 3.0 0.6 3.7 1.2

California Men’s Colony 1.1 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 0.4 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

Calipatria State Prison 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9

Central California Women’s Fac.e 7.5 5.4 1.5 2.1 0.0

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 1.5 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Corcoran State Prison 2.0 2.0 0.0 1.7 2.6

Corr. Training Fac. 1.2 0.8 1.8 1.1 2.2

Sacramento State Prison 1.4 2.4 0.0 2.2 0.0

Salinas Valley State Prison 2.2 2.2 1.4 2.0 1.0

San Quentin State Prison 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.9

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.5

Solano State Prison 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.1

Valley State Prison for Womene 8.8 10.7 3.1 3.6 0.7

Colorado

Buena Vista Corr. Ctr. 1.5% 1.5% 1.2% 2.8% 0.8%

Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.e 9.7 11.8 7.3 8.8 3.2

Skyline Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.8 1.9

Connecticut

Manson Youth Inst. 0.5% 0.8% 1.6% 2.2% 2.7%

York Corr. Fac.e 7.2 9.1 0.4 2.4 0.3

Delaware

Central Violation of Probation Ctr. 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% 1.5% 1.6%

Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.e 6.0 5.8 0.6 5.2 3.2

James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr. 3.2 2.5 0.0 0.8 0.9

Florida

Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction 5.0% 6.9% 1.3% 2.4% 5.7%

Broward Corr. Inst.e 2.3 3.6 4.7 3.5 1.3

Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.4 1.0 0.7 1.1 2.4

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Florida State Prison and Work Camp 2.3 1.6 0.9 1.4 2.9
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 56

Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 0.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% 0.3%

Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.6 2.0 1.1 2.2 2.8

Lawtey Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Levy Forestry Campe 4.7 3.6 1.4 1.4 0.0

Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 0.6 1.0 0.7 1.2 1.6

Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.3 4.3 1.5 1.5 1.0

Northwest Florida Reception Ctr. 6.9 6.9 1.8 2.9 3.4

Santa Rosa Corr. Inst. 2.5 3.5 2.4 6.4 3.5

Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.2 1.0

Zephyrhills Corr. Inst. 1.9 2.5 1.9 2.0 3.4

Georgia

Autry State Prison 0.7% 1.9% 0.8% 0.8% 4.2%

Burruss Corr. Training Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

D. Ray James Prisong 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lee Arrendale State Prisone 2.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Macon State Prison 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.9 3.8

Rogers State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.8

Valdosta State Prison 4.2 4.0 2.2 3.0 2.6

Ware State Prison 0.0 0.4 1.7 2.2 3.4

Washington State Prison 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.5 1.7

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 2.6% 3.3% 0.7% 1.4% 1.4%

Idaho

Idaho Max. Security Inst. 8.3% 4.8% 6.0% 6.0% 5.9%

St. Anthony Work Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

Decatur Corr. Ctr.e 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dwight Corr. Ctr.e 6.8 6.9 2.6 3.7 0.5

Hill Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.8 1.2 3.3 2.2

Menard Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.3

Pittsfield Work Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stateville Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.8

Western Illinois Corr. Ctr. 0.8 2.2 0.8 2.3 0.9

Indiana

Miami Corr. Fac. 0.9% 1.6% 0.0% 1.5% 1.2%

Reception-Diagnostic Ctr. 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.2

Rockville Corr. Fac.e 2.6 4.0 0.3 0.0 1.4

Wabash Valley Corr. Fac. 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.8 1.5

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 1.3% 4.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

Kansas

Lansing Corr. Fac. 2.4% 1.9% 2.8% 3.2% 3.1%

Norton Corr. Fac. 1.6 1.0 2.6 2.6 2.8

Kentucky

Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex 1.2% 2.0% 1.6% 2.9% 5.0%

Kentucky State Reformatory 2.1 2.6 0.5 3.1 3.6

Otter Creek Corr. Complexg 1.4 3.9 0.7 0.7 2.2

Louisiana

B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr. 1.2% 2.7% 1.7% 1.1% 0.9%

Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr. 2.7 1.3 1.6 3.8 1.2

Louisiana State Penitentiary 1.6 3.5 2.2 3.3 4.6

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.f 3.1% 4.4% 0.0% 1.8% 1.0%

Appendix table 3 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 57

Maryland

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown 1.0% 1.5% 0.6% 0.6% 1.6%

Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womene 4.8 5.1 0.9 5.6 1.4

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 1.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 1.4

Metropolitan Transition Ctr. 0.8 0.8 1.8 1.8 2.2

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 2.5% 1.6% 1.5% 2.0% 1.1%

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 0.7% 0.7% 1.1% 2.0% 2.7%

Central Michigan Corr. Fac. 0.4 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.8

Lakeland Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.9 2.4 3.5 2.7

Saginaw Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.1 1.6

Thumb Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.7 1.5 2.5 1.0

Minnesota

MCF - Moose Lake 0.4% 2.4% 1.5% 1.6% 2.1%

MCF - Shakopeef 7.3 10.2 0.2 0.5 0.0

Mississippi

Pike Co. Community Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.g 0.4 0.0 1.5 2.7 8.8

Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.g 1.1 0.6 0.5 1.9 5.7

Missouri

Algoa Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Farmington Corr. Fac. 4.7 4.2 2.4 3.2 1.7

South Central Corr. Fac. 1.0 1.0 2.2 1.8 3.0

Tipton Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 1.3

Western Missouri Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.6 2.3

Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.e 6.2 4.1 0.4 1.3 0.4

Montana

Montana State Prison 7.1% 5.0% 3.5% 8.0% 2.3%

Nebraska

Lincoln Corr. Ctr. 0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1% 2.8%

Nevada

Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.e 12.0% 11.3% 0.4% 2.1% 0.0%

High Desert State Prison 0.0 1.3 0.8 0.8 1.2

Lovelock Corr. Ctr. 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.2 1.0

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 1.7% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 0.9%

New Hampshire State Prison for Womene 4.3 3.3 2.4 2.4 1.2

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison 1.2% 2.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.6 1.8

South Woods State Prison 2.9 3.5 1.0 2.3 2.8

New Mexico

Lea Co. Corr. Fac.g 0.6% 1.3% 0.0% 2.4% 2.4%

New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac.e,g 6.8 8.9 4.5 5.3 2.4

New York

Auburn Corr. Fac. 3.1% 2.8% 3.0% 2.9% 1.8%

Cayuga Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.1 1.6

Gowanda Corr. Fac. 0.4 1.1 1.8 1.9 0.3

Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.f 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.3

Otisville Corr. Fac. 0.8 3.7 3.3 0.8 3.5

Washington Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.4 1.8 2.5 0.4

Wyoming Corr. Fac. 0.4 1.4 0.4 1.2 0.5

Appendix table 3 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 58

North Carolina

Harnett Corr. Inst. 0.8% 1.4% 1.0% 1.5% 1.0%

Lanesboro Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 3.3

Mary Frances Ctr.e,g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Maury Corr. Inst. 1.6 1.0 1.1 0.0 3.7

North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womene 7.1 9.1 2.5 2.5 4.0

Odom Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6

Western Youth Inst. 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.5

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 1.6% 1.4% 1.6% 1.1% 2.8%

Ohio

Allen Corr. Inst. 1.5% 1.5% 0.9% 0.9% 1.7%

Belmont Corr. Inst. 1.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7

Chillicothe Corr. Inst. 3.0 2.3 0.0 0.6 0.2

Franklin Medical Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Madison Corr. Inst. 2.3 3.0 0.0 4.2 0.0

Noble Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.6 1.7 2.1 3.2

Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.e 2.4 4.7 0.0 2.4 0.0

Pickaway Corr. Fac. 1.9 2.3 0.3 1.6 0.5

Oklahoma

Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.e 6.7% 6.5% 1.7% 2.4% 1.2%

Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.e 9.5 13.2 1.4 2.5 1.5

North Fork Corr. Fac.g 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.e 5.5% 5.5% 1.1% 3.9% 1.3%

Deer Ridge Corr. Inst. 1.2 1.7 0.0 0.9 0.0

Oregon State Penitentiary 1.1 2.1 0.9 0.5 0.0

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e 2.8% 3.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5%

Chester State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.0

Houtzdale State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.7

Mahanoy State Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5

Muncy State Corr. Inst.e 5.7 6.0 1.0 3.2 0.3

Pine Grove State Corr. Inst. 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 5.6

Somerset State Corr. Inst. 1.9 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1

Waymart State Corr. Inst. 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.0

Rhode Island

Donald Price Med. Security Fac. 0.9% 0.5% 0.4% 1.7% 0.8%

South Carolina

Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.e 3.3% 4.4% 0.7% 1.1% 1.2%

Kershaw Corr. Inst. 1.9 2.6 0.4 1.3 2.2

Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr. 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.4

Turbeville Corr. Inst. 0.5 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.9

Tyger River Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.3 1.0

South Dakota

South Dakota Women’s Prisone 7.9% 9.9% 0.0% 1.9% 0.7%

Tennessee

Riverbend Max. Security Inst. 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 1.2%

Appendix table 3 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 59

Texas

Byrd Unit 0.9% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 1.0%

Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexe 0.4 1.2 0.8 1.3 0.5

Clemens Unit 2.0 2.6 0.3 1.5 2.0

Clements Unit 4.9 5.7 8.1 8.7 2.5

Coffield Unit 0.7 0.4 2.0 3.5 3.8

Dawson State Jailf,g 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.0 0.6

Eastham Unit 1.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.8

Gist State Jail 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.3

Gurney Transfer Fac. 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0

Henley State Jaile 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0

Hodge Unit 1.9 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.2

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.8 0.7

Huntsville Unit 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0

McConnell Unit 3.0 2.9 1.0 1.6 1.1

Michael Unit 3.8 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.0

Montford Psychiatric Fac. 5.2 7.3 2.9 4.5 2.0

Murray Unite 6.9 7.4 1.0 3.6 1.1

Plane State Jaile 1.7 1.1 1.0 2.3 0.0

Powledge Unit 1.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1

Stiles Unit 4.5 6.3 0.9 2.5 4.9

Willacy Co. State Jailg 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.6

Woodman State Jaile 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 3.7% 2.8% 2.2% 1.5% 1.8%

Utah State Prisonf 2.4 4.7 0.0 1.2 0.0

Vermont

Southeast State Corr. Fac. 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 5.1%

Southern State Corr. Fac. 3.3 7.7 2.2 4.1 1.3

Virginia

Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.e 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Dillwyn Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 3.2

Sussex II State Prison 1.3 1.3 0.8 2.1 2.8

Washington

Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr. 0.8% 0.7% 1.4% 1.4% 2.6%

Monroe Corr. Complex 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 2.2

Washington State Penitentiary 3.3 3.3 0.0 1.3 0.7

West Virginia

Huttonsville Corr. Ctr. 2.0% 1.6% 0.9% 2.8% 4.7%

Wisconsin

Green Bay Corr. Inst. 1.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.5% 1.9%

Oshkosh Corr. Ctr. 1.6 3.1 0.4 0.7 0.4

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.8%

Appendix table 3 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 60

Federal Facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

CI Edeng 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

CI Reeves I and IIg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CI Reeves IIIg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0

CI Riversg 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

FCI Allenwood Low 0.0 0.5 0.7 1.4 0.0

FCI Big Spring Camp 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0

FCI Butner Med. I Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FCI Butner Med. II 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8

FCI Forrest City Med. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

FCI Greenville Campe 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.8 0.8

FCI Jesup 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FCI Lompoc 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

FCI Manchester Camp 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FCI Marianna Campe 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FCI Milan 0.5 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.8

FCI Seagoville 0.4 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

FCI Tallahasseee 1.7 3.5 0.0 0.8 1.5

FCI Terre Haute 0.0 0.5 1.7 1.6 0.0

FDC Philadelphiaf 0.6 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.6

FMC Carswelle 1.5 4.2 0.0 0.4 0.0

FMC Devens 0.7 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.4

FMC Lexington Campe 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FPC Aldersone 1.3 2.3 0.4 0.4 0.0

Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.g 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

MCFP Springfield 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0

USP Hazelton - Femalee 3.3 3.6 0.8 0.8 0.0

USP Lee 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.7 0.0

USP Tucson 1.2 4.1 0.6 3.2 2.5

Note: Detail may sum to more than total victimization rate because victims may report on more than one incident involving different levels of coercion.

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported. 

cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.)

dIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual 

contact with staff. 

eFemale facility.

f

Facility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

gPrivately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 3 (continued) 

Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 61

Appendix table 4

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Total 1.3% 1.1% 1.6% 2.7% 2.4% 3.0%

Alabama

Bibb Corr. Fac. 0.8% 0.2% 2.5% 5.1% 3.0% 8.5%

G.K. Fountain Corr. Fac./J.O. Davis Corr. Fac. 2.3 0.9 5.5 3.4 1.7 6.7

Julia Tutwiler Prisone 6.1 3.6 10.1 8.0 5.1 12.2

St. Clair Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.1 5.5 2.8 10.7

Alaska

Anchorage Corr. Complex West 2.6% 1.0% 6.7% 3.2% 1.4% 7.1%

Hiland Mountain Corr. Ctr.e 6.2 3.8 9.9 6.7 3.4 12.8

Arizona

ASPC - Douglas 0.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.2% 0.3% 4.5%

ASPC - Eyman 0.0 0.0 1.9 4.1 2.0 8.2

ASPC - Perryvillee 4.7 2.6 8.3 4.5 2.3 8.5

ASPC - Tusconf 1.6 0.6 4.6 2.1 0.9 4.8

ASPC - Yuma 0.5 0.1 3.0 1.4 0.4 5.0

Florence Corr. Ctr.f,g 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.3 3.5

La Palma Corr. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.3

Red Rock Corr. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 5.8 2.9 0.8 10.0

Arkansas

Ouachita River Corr. Unit 0.8% 0.1% 4.0% 3.5% 1.6% 7.4%

California

Avenal State Prison 1.2% 0.3% 4.4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%

California Corr. Ctr. 1.4 0.4 5.0 0.7 0.1 3.9

California Corr. Inst. 4.5 1.8 10.4 0.9 0.2 4.8

California Inst. for Womene 1.4 0.4 4.6 5.3 2.9 9.5

California Men’s Colony 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.5 0.6 4.2

California Rehabilitation Ctr. 1.5 0.4 5.9 1.0 0.2 5.1

Calipatria State Prison 1.4 0.4 4.9 0.9 0.2 4.7

Central California Women’s Fac.e 4.8 2.6 8.6 5.3 2.8 9.8

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2.2 0.8 6.2 0.5 0.1 2.5

Corcoran State Prison 1.6 0.5 5.3 4.7 1.9 11.3

Corr. Training Fac. 0.9 0.2 3.0 2.4 1.1 5.2

Sacramento State Prison 0.9 0.2 4.7 2.4 0.8 7.6

Salinas Valley State Prison 1.0 0.3 3.6 2.7 1.2 6.3

San Quentin State Prison 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.8 1.6 8.6

Sierra Conservation Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.4 0.5 3.9

Solano State Prison 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.5 0.5 4.4

Valley State Prison for Womene 6.1 3.4 10.7 5.4 2.8 10.0

Colorado

Buena Vista Corr. Ctr. 1.2% 0.4% 4.1% 2.1% 0.7% 5.5%

Denver Women’s Corr. Fac.e 7.0 3.8 12.6 12.2 8.0 18.3

Skyline Corr. Inst. 2.4 0.8 7.5 1.2 0.3 4.8

Connecticut

Manson Youth Inst. 1.7% 0.8% 3.6% 3.5% 2.1% 5.8%

York Corr. Fac.e 6.5 4.1 10.3 5.5 3.0 10.0

Delaware

Central Violation of Probation Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 3.0% 1.7% 5.3%

Delores J. Baylor Women’s Corr. Inst.e 6.2 3.8 10.0 7.4 4.9 11.0

James T. Vaughn Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.4 5.1 3.8 1.8 8.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 62

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Florida

Apalachee Corr. Inst./West/East Unit/River Junction 4.5% 2.3% 8.6% 7.7% 4.4% 13.3%

Broward Corr. Inst.e 5.0 2.5 9.5 7.1 3.7 13.1

Calhoun Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.2 0.4 3.7 2.9 1.4 6.1

Central Florida Reception Ctr. East and South 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4

Florida State Prison and Work Camp 1.9 0.5 6.7 3.3 1.5 7.1

Jackson Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 2.5 0.9 7.0 1.5 0.4 5.7

Lancaster Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 2.2 0.9 5.0 3.3 1.6 6.6

Lawtey Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9

Levy Forestry Campe 1.6 0.7 4.0 4.5 1.9 10.4

Marion Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.9 0.9 4.2

Martin Corr. Inst. and Work Camp 1.2 0.3 3.9 4.7 2.6 8.2

Northwest Florida Reception Ctr. 3.3 1.5 7.4 10.4 6.1 17.0

Santa Rosa Corr. Inst. 4.4 2.2 8.7 9.6 5.9 15.2

Taylor Corr. Inst. and Annex 1.1 0.3 3.7 1.6 0.5 4.5

Zephyrhills Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.5 7.4 4.3 12.4

Georgia

Autry State Prison 0.0% 0.0% 2.8% 6.1% 3.3% 11.1%

Burruss Corr. Training Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.1 2.6

D. Ray James Prisong 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.5 0.1 2.7

Lee Arrendale State Prisone 3.5 1.7 6.8 2.4 1.1 5.3

Macon State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.8 5.8 3.5 9.5

Rogers State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.2 1.0 4.8

Valdosta State Prison 4.0 1.9 8.4 6.5 3.4 12.0

Ware State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.7 4.6 2.7 7.8

Washington State Prison 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.1 1.0 4.7

Hawaii

Waiawa Corr. Fac. 2.1% 1.1% 4.0% 4.0% 2.5% 6.3%

Idaho

Idaho Max. Security Inst. 6.9% 2.6% 17.1% 7.0% 2.5% 18.0%

St. Anthony Work Camp 2.3 0.5 9.4 0.0 0.0 5.1

Illinois

Danville Corr. Ctr. 0.5% 0.2% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8%

Decatur Corr. Ctr.e 1.1 0.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 2.4

Dwight Corr. Ctr.e 4.0 2.1 7.4 6.7 3.9 11.0

Hill Corr. Ctr. 1.9 0.8 4.5 3.0 1.4 6.5

Menard Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.5 1.6 0.5 4.6

Pittsfield Work Camp 0.0 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 4.6

Stateville Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.5 0.8 0.2 2.7

Western Illinois Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.7 1.6 8.1

Indiana

Miami Corr. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.2% 1.5% 7.0%

Reception-Diagnostic Ctr. 1.2 0.3 3.9 1.3 0.4 3.6

Rockville Corr. Fac.e 4.1 2.0 8.3 3.5 1.5 8.1

Wabash Valley Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.1 4.0 2.4 0.9 6.7

Iowa

Anamosa State Penitentiary 2.1% 0.7% 5.5% 2.5% 1.0% 5.9%

Kansas

Lansing Corr. Fac. 2.1% 0.8% 5.2% 4.5% 2.4% 8.4%

Norton Corr. Fac. 2.2 0.8 5.8 2.9 1.2 7.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 63

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Kentucky

Eastern Kentucky Corr. Complex 1.0% 0.3% 3.4% 5.4% 2.9% 9.7%

Kentucky State Reformatory 2.0 0.7 5.6 4.4 2.2 8.8

Otter Creek Corr. Complexg 1.3 0.4 4.2 5.7 2.9 10.9

Louisiana

B.B. Rayburn Corr. Ctr. 1.0% 0.3% 3.1% 3.2% 1.4% 6.9%

Elayn Hunt Corr. Ctr. 2.5 0.9 6.3 4.0 2.1 7.6

Louisiana State Penitentiary 1.1 0.3 3.7 7.4 4.7 11.5

Maine

Maine Corr. Ctr.f 2.6% 1.3% 5.4% 3.5% 1.6% 7.2%

Maryland

Maryland Corr. Inst. - Hagerstown 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% 3.1% 1.5% 6.4%

Maryland Corr. Inst. for Womene 5.8 3.1 10.6 6.9 4.1 11.4

Maryland Corr. Training Ctr. 1.5 0.5 4.1 2.0 0.8 4.8

Metropolitan Transition Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.5 3.2 1.4 7.6

Massachusetts

Old Colony Corr. Ctr. 3.2% 1.6% 6.4% 2.4% 1.1% 5.1%

Michigan

Bellamy Creek Corr. Fac. 0.7% 0.1% 3.4% 3.7% 1.7% 7.7%

Central Michigan Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.7 1.2 6.0

Lakeland Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.2 2.7 4.8 2.7 8.4

Saginaw Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.2 3.1 2.1 0.9 4.9

Thumb Corr. Fac. 1.5 0.5 4.9 1.7 0.5 5.4

Minnesota

MCF - Moose Lake 2.5% 1.2% 5.4% 1.9% 0.8% 4.5%

MCF - Shakopeee 7.6 4.5 12.6 5.4 2.5 11.4

Mississippi

Pike Co. Community Work Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 11.7% 0.0% 0.0% 11.7%

Walnut Grove Youth Corr. Fac.g 1.2 0.5 3.1 8.7 6.1 12.2

Wilkinson Co. Corr. Fac.g 1.8 0.7 4.6 5.7 3.3 9.7

Missouri

Algoa Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5%

Farmington Corr. Fac. 3.0 1.5 5.7 4.9 2.9 8.3

South Central Corr. Fac. 2.0 0.7 5.7 5.1 2.7 9.5

Tipton Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.8 0.8 0.2 3.9

Western Missouri Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.1 3.7 2.7 1.3 5.8

Western Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.5 0.5 4.1

Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Corr. Ctr.e 6.0 3.4 10.5 2.6 1.1 6.4

Montana

Montana State Prison 5.6% 3.2% 9.6% 8.3% 4.1% 16.1%

Nebraska

Lincoln Corr. Ctr. 1.3% 0.5% 3.5% 3.2% 1.5% 6.6%

Nevada

Florence McClure Women’s Corr. Ctr.e 10.9% 6.3% 18.3% 5.4% 2.9% 9.6%

High Desert State Prison 0.5 0.1 2.5 2.1 0.7 5.9

Lovelock Corr. Ctr. 1.6 0.6 4.7 2.1 0.8 5.4

New Hampshire

New Hampshire State Prison for Men 1.7% 0.6% 4.7% 3.8% 1.7% 8.4%

New Hampshire State Prison for Womene 4.3 2.4 7.6 3.9 2.2 6.7

New Jersey

Bayside State Prison 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 3.4% 1.3% 8.6%

Mountainview Youth Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.1 3.2 2.4 1.0 5.9

South Woods State Prison 1.3 0.2 6.6 4.0 1.6 9.3
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 64

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

New Mexico

Lea Co. Corr. Fac.g 0.9% 0.2% 4.4% 3.7% 1.6% 8.0%

New Mexico Women’s Corr. Fac.e,g 5.2 2.9 9.2 9.1 5.8 14.0

New York

Auburn Corr. Fac. 4.0% 2.1% 7.6% 5.8% 3.2% 10.0%

Cayuga Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 2.6 2.1 0.9 5.0

Gowanda Corr. Fac. 0.2 0.0 1.2 3.1 1.7 5.9

Lakeview Shock Incarceration Corr. Fac.f 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.8 4.3

Otisville Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.1 2.4 7.7 4.4 13.2

Washington Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.1 2.7 3.3 1.6 6.5

Wyoming Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.5 3.5 1.8 0.7 4.3

North Carolina

Harnett Corr. Inst. 0.9% 0.3% 3.1% 2.7% 1.2% 5.9%

Lanesboro Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.3 3.3 1.5 7.1

Mary Frances Ctr.e,g 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3

Maury Corr. Inst. 2.1 0.8 5.4 3.5 1.3 9.2

North Carolina Corr. Inst. for Womene 4.9 2.4 9.6 8.0 4.5 14.1

Odom Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.9 3.3 1.5 7.4

Western Youth Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.4 3.2

North Dakota

North Dakota State Penitentiary 1.6% 0.6% 4.1% 3.6% 1.7% 7.5%

Ohio

Allen Corr. Inst. 1.5% 0.3% 7.7% 1.7% 0.5% 5.7%

Belmont Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.9 0.7 5.3

Chillicothe Corr. Inst. 2.6 1.2 5.7 2.5 1.0 5.8

Franklin Medical Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9

Madison Corr. Inst. 0.0 0.0 2.7 7.2 3.5 14.3

Noble Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.2 1.9 3.9 2.0 7.6

Northeast Pre-Release Ctr.e 4.7 2.7 8.3 2.8 1.1 7.3

Pickaway Corr. Fac. 2.9 1.2 6.5 2.5 1.1 5.5

Oklahoma

Dr. Eddie Warrior Corr. Ctr.e 5.4% 3.2% 9.1% 4.0% 2.1% 7.3%

Jackie Brannon Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.5 0.1 2.3

Mabel Bassett Corr. Ctr.e 8.5 5.6 12.8 8.9 5.8 13.4

North Fork Corr. Fac.g 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.6 0.3 8.7

Oregon

Coffee Creek Corr. Fac.e 6.5% 4.1% 10.2% 4.3% 2.4% 7.6%

Deer Ridge Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.3 2.9 2.3 1.0 5.6

Oregon State Penitentiary 0.0 0.0 1.9 2.9 1.4 6.1

Pennsylvania

Cambridge Springs State Corr. Inst.e 2.0% 0.9% 4.2% 2.2% 0.9% 5.1%

Chester State Corr. Inst. 1.2 0.3 3.8 0.4 0.1 1.8

Houtzdale State Corr. Inst. 0.8 0.2 4.2 1.0 0.3 3.8

Mahanoy State Corr. Inst. 0.5 0.1 2.4 0.5 0.1 2.5

Muncy State Corr. Inst.e 5.7 3.5 9.2 5.7 3.5 9.1

Pine Grove State Corr. Inst. 1.7 0.7 4.5 5.4 2.7 10.4

Somerset State Corr. Inst. 1.4 0.4 5.2 3.1 1.3 7.1

Waymart State Corr. Inst. 0.4 0.1 2.1 1.0 0.2 5.0

Rhode Island

Donald Price Med. Security Fac. 1.2% 0.5% 3.0% 1.4% 0.7% 3.0%
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 65

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

South Carolina

Camille Griffin Graham Corr. Inst.e 4.4% 2.1% 9.1% 4.3% 2.2% 8.4%

Kershaw Corr. Inst. 1.3 0.5 3.6 4.3 2.2 8.2

Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Ctr. 0.4 0.1 2.2 2.4 1.1 5.2

Turbeville Corr. Inst. 0.9 0.3 2.8 2.3 1.0 5.2

Tyger River Corr. Inst. 0.3 0.1 1.3 1.6 0.6 4.5

South Dakota

South Dakota Women’s Prisone 8.6% 5.6% 13.1% 4.6% 2.7% 7.7%

Tennessee

Riverbend Max. Security Inst. 0.8% 0.2% 3.9% 0.4% 0.1% 2.0%

Texas

Byrd Unit 1.0% 0.3% 3.3% 0.8% 0.3% 2.7%

Carole Young Medical Fac. Complexe 1.3 0.5 3.1 0.4 0.1 1.5

Clemens Unit 1.5 0.5 4.6 4.9 2.1 11.2

Clements Unit 2.4 1.0 6.1 9.4 5.7 15.2

Coffield Unit 2.7 1.2 6.0 5.2 3.0 9.1

Dawson State Jailf,g 1.2 0.4 3.2 1.3 0.4 3.7

Eastham Unit 0.7 0.2 2.5 4.0 2.1 7.4

Gist State Jail 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.9 0.2 3.1

Gurney Transfer Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.1 1.1 0.3 3.7

Henley State Jaile 1.7 0.6 4.9 0.8 0.2 3.2

Hodge Unit 0.5 0.1 2.6 1.6 0.5 4.7

Holliday Transfer Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.7 1.8 0.5 6.1

Huntsville Unit 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.2 2.9

McConnell Unit 2.2 0.9 4.9 3.2 1.3 7.7

Michael Unit 3.2 1.5 6.8 2.7 1.2 6.1

Montford Psychiatric Fac. 3.4 1.7 6.8 6.8 4.0 11.3

Murray Unite 7.0 4.0 11.9 8.3 5.0 13.4

Plane State Jaile 3.5 1.5 7.8 1.0 0.3 3.3

Powledge Unit 1.8 0.5 6.5 1.1 0.2 5.2

Stiles Unit 5.8 2.8 11.8 6.1 3.4 11.0

Willacy Co. State Jailg 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.3 3.8

Woodman State Jaile 1.3 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 2.7

Utah

Central Utah Corr. Fac. 1.8% 0.7% 4.3% 3.7% 1.9% 7.1%

Utah State Prisonf 2.8 1.3 5.8 3.6 1.8 7.2

Vermont

Southeast State Corr. Fac. 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 5.1% 2.3% 10.9%

Southern State Corr. Fac. 3.2 1.1 9.4 6.7 3.5 12.4

Virginia

Brunswick Women’s Reception and Pre-Release Ctr.e 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

Dillwyn Corr. Ctr. 1.5 0.5 5.0 3.0 1.3 7.0

Sussex II State Prison 1.3 0.4 4.3 4.1 2.1 7.8

Washington

Clallam Bay Corr. Ctr. 2.3% 0.9% 6.1% 2.8% 1.2% 6.5%

Monroe Corr. Complex 1.9 0.6 6.0 1.0 0.3 3.5

Washington State Penitentiary 1.7 0.5 6.2 3.5 1.2 9.9

West Virginia

Huttonsville Corr. Ctr. 2.2% 0.8% 6.1% 5.9% 2.8% 12.1%

Wisconsin

Green Bay Corr. Inst. 1.8% 0.8% 4.2% 2.9% 1.5% 5.6%

Oshkosh Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.7 4.0 3.1 1.5 6.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 66

Appendix table 4 (continued)

Percent of prison inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Wyoming

Wyoming Honor Farm 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 2.9% 1.5% 5.5%

Federal facilities (Bureau of Prisons)

CI Edeng 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0%

CI Reeves I and IIg 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1

CI Reeves IIIg 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

CI Riversg 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.9 0.2 4.7

FCI Allenwood Low 0.5 0.1 2.8 1.4 0.4 4.5

FCI Big Spring Camp 0.0 0.0 5.2 1.2 0.3 5.0

FCI Butner Med. I Camp 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7

FCI Butner Med. II 1.4 0.3 7.0 0.8 0.2 2.7

FCI Forrest City Med. 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 2.9

FCI Greenville Campe 3.3 1.5 7.0 0.8 0.2 3.2

FCI Jesup 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 2.8

FCI Lompoc 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.6 0.1 2.8

FCI Manchester Camp 0.9 0.2 4.1 0.0 0.0 3.4

FCI Marianna Campe 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.2

FCI Milan 1.0 0.3 3.2 1.5 0.4 4.9

FCI Seagoville 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.1 0.4 3.1

FCI Tallahasseee 1.7 0.6 4.5 4.1 2.0 8.3

FCI Terre Haute 0.0 0.0 4.0 2.1 0.5 8.2

FDC Philadelphiaf 0.6 0.1 3.0 1.2 0.4 4.0

FMC Carswelle 2.3 1.1 5.1 1.8 0.8 4.4

FMC Devens 1.3 0.4 4.1 1.4 0.5 3.8

FMC Lexington Campe 0.8 0.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 2.5

FPC Aldersone 2.2 0.9 5.3 0.5 0.1 2.4

Limestone Co. Det. Ctr.g 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.6 0.1 3.1

MCFP Springfield 1.8 0.6 5.2 0.0 0.0 4.6

USP Hazelton - Femalee 2.0 0.6 6.2 3.2 1.4 7.3

USP Lee 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.7 0.5 5.7

USP Tucson 2.6 0.9 7.8 4.7 2.2 9.8

Note: Detail may not sum to total 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, hand jobs, and other sexual acts 

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

bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or unwilling contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in 

a sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time served. (See Methodology.) 

eFemale facility.

f

Facility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

gPrivately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 67

Appendix table 5

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Total 279,129 54,118 60.6% 3.2% 2.9% 3.5%

Alabama

Barbour Co. Jail 95 47 65.9% 2.4% 0.7% 7.5%

Dallas Co. Jail 197 114 72.6 1.5 0.7 3.5

Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr. 384 165 79.9 2.9 1.6 5.2

Marshall Co. Jail 206 122 70.8 5.0 3.1 8.0

Tuscaloosa Co. Jail 626 216 77.1 3.5 2.0 5.9

Arizona

Maricopa Co. Estrella Jailg 925 205 63.5% 3.7% 2.0% 6.8%

Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail 1,927 193 52.0 1.5 0.5 4.3

Maricopa Co. Towers Jail 167 85 63.9 5.4 3.0 9.5

Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail 1,989 234 52.8 4.3 2.4 7.7

Santa Cruz Co. Jail 228 52 34.7 0.0 0.0 6.9

Yuma Co. Det. Ctr. 620 162 57.5 2.1 0.8 5.1

Arkansas

Crittenden Co. Jail 268 114 73.6% 6.3% 4.0% 9.9%

Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr. 177 86 67.1 0.9 0.3 2.8

Pope Co. Det. Ctr. 179 48 36.6 5.9 2.4 14.0

Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr. 1,235 198 63.3 6.0 3.1 11.4

Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 394 153 54.3 1.1 0.4 2.8

California

Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 3,506 281 60.9% 3.0% 1.6% 5.5%

Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac. 766 143 42.5 7.0 4.1 11.7

Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South 1,883 190 51.9 3.5 1.8 6.7

Imperial Co. Jail 708 202 63.5 1.0 0.4 2.8

Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 1,287 163 46.7 3.8 1.8 8.0

Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 3,406 199 44.1 8.0 4.8 13.0

Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail 5,246 188 42.0 6.9 4.1 11.2

Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac. 3,980 190 47.5 2.8 1.2 6.4

Napa Co. Jail 325 112 46.5 3.8 2.0 7.3

Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 2,525 169 53.6 1.4 0.4 4.7

Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac. 2,999 241 58.4 4.7 2.5 8.7

Riverside Co. Indio Jail 387 133 56.3 2.8 1.3 5.8

Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 1,454 204 57.5 5.1 2.9 8.8

Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.h 888 149 46.8 0.6 0.1 3.0

Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 2,049 258 73.3 4.9 3.0 8.0

San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac. 350 138 58.4 2.4 1.0 5.6

San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 1,742 175 49.5 5.2 2.7 9.8

San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac. 876 153 47.8 3.8 2.1 7.0

San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3 363 73 34.3 4.0 1.5 9.9

Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med. 1,920 219 54.4 2.4 1.1 5.4

Santa Clara Co. Main Jail 1,356 130 37.4 9.2 5.2 15.8

Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.g 518 141 50.3 2.1 0.9 5.2

Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac. 660 195 71.6 5.2 3.1 8.4

Tulare Co. Jail 1,487 187 51.6 1.0 0.3 3.8

Ventura Co. Jail 722 199 65.0 2.8 1.4 5.3

Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr. 77 44 73.1 2.1 0.7 6.0

Yuba Co. Jail 375 138 62.4 2.0 0.9 4.5

Colorado

Chaffee Co. Jail 70 33 61.5% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4%

Denver Co. Jail 751 205 68.8 3.7 2.1 6.3

Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr. 1,211 158 44.0 2.1 0.8 5.6

Douglas Co. Jail 352 128 61.7 2.8 1.4 5.8

Fremont Co. Jail 205 105 63.8 3.0 1.6 5.7

Jefferson Co. Jail 1,165 205 62.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Park Co. Jail 95 56 67.4 0.0 0.0 6.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 68

Florida

Collier Co. Jail 939 154 45.9% 5.1% 2.6% 9.5%

Dixie Co. Jail 72 39 73.0 8.2 4.1 15.5

Escambia Co. Jail 1,562 222 54.3 2.5 1.2 5.2

Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 488 179 68.8 2.4 1.1 4.9

Lake Co. Jail 920 172 54.8 2.8 0.8 9.4

Lee Co. Community Programs Unit 266 134 65.4 3.1 1.6 5.8

Leon Co. Det. Fac. 1,049 252 67.6 4.9 3.0 8.0

Manatee Co. Jail 1,141 226 64.5 5.2 3.1 8.5

Martin Co. Jail 569 165 60.2 3.1 1.5 6.3

Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp 65 56 98.4 0.0 0.0 7.4

Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 2,091 218 58.4 2.6 1.3 5.1

Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr. 1,117 174 53.4 1.0 0.3 3.2

Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 885 208 58.8 1.0 0.3 3.0

Okeechobee Co. Jail 232 105 57.7 1.1 0.3 3.9

Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 2,896 278 66.2 3.5 1.7 6.9

Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr. 711 43 42.7 2.9 1.2 6.8

Osceola Co. Jail 1,032 238 71.0 0.9 0.3 3.1

Palm Beach Co. Stockade 824 155 54.8 2.4 1.0 5.6

Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 938 155 48.4 2.4 0.9 6.4

Pinellas Co. South Division 1,294 181 48.3 3.2 1.5 7.0

Polk Co. - South Co. Jail 1,268 216 62.0 5.1 3.0 8.5

Sarasota North Co. Jail 952 207 65.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

Suwanee Co. Jail 155 83 64.7 0.9 0.3 3.0

Taylor Co. Jail 78 25 40.8 0.0 0.0 13.3

Georgia

Candler Co. Jail 40 27 84.2% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5%

Carroll Co. Prison 203 150 82.7 2.7 1.6 4.3

Clayton Co. Jail 1,924 265 67.8 4.7 2.8 7.7

Dekalb Co. Jail 3,825 300 61.6 3.2 1.7 5.9

Douglas Co. Jail 908 272 66.1 2.8 1.5 5.1

Floyd Co. Jail 724 234 80.0 3.6 2.1 6.0

Floyd Co. Prison 351 180 75.7 2.8 1.5 5.0

Fulton Co. Jail 3,288 169 41.6 4.9 2.5 9.3

Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr. 2,811 267 50.8 0.8 0.2 2.6

Hall Co. Det. Ctr. 1,350 193 57.3 3.0 1.5 6.0

Houston Co. Jail 524 176 71.2 7.1 4.6 10.8

Irwin Co. Jail 876 189 62.6 1.1 0.4 2.9

Murray County Jail 148 83 75.4 3.3 1.7 6.2

Newton Co. Jail 679 199 65.5 3.7 2.0 6.6

Screven Co. Jail 114 64 82.1 3.9 2.2 6.6

South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail 151 43 37.5 4.7 1.6 12.8

Spalding Co. Jail 507 138 50.6 5.1 2.7 9.2

Troup Co. Jail 440 174 68.7 2.2 1.0 4.4

Upson Co. Jail 160 108 82.3 2.6 1.5 4.6

Ware Co. Jail 429 201 84.3 2.2 1.2 3.9

Wilkinson Co. Jail 35 19 57.1 6.5 1.9 20.0

Idaho

Bannock Co. Jail 298 114 55.8% 3.0% 1.3% 6.8%

Illinois

Champaign Co. Satellite Jailh 313 58 42.5% 2.0% 0.5% 8.4%

Cook Co. - Division 1 1,206 284 82.5 4.3 2.7 6.9

Cook Co. - Division 11 1,552 289 75.6 7.7 5.3 11.0

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 69

Cook Co. - Division 2 1,579 213 52.7% 5.8% 3.5% 9.4%

Cook Co. - Division 5 1,177 247 72.9 3.5 2.0 6.2

Cook Co. - Division 6 995 273 83.3 2.2 1.2 4.2

Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr. 590 167 58.6 2.9 1.4 6.0

Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr. 510 206 75.7 3.4 1.9 5.9

Kendall Co. Jail 111 61 68.4 5.1 2.8 9.2

McHenry Co. Jail 558 150 60.2 1.1 0.4 3.3

Sangamon Co. Jail 342 174 74.1 3.9 2.5 6.0

Indiana

Bartholomew Co. Jail 183 120 79.9% 3.2% 1.9% 5.2%

Clinton Co. Jail 169 97 73.9 2.4 1.1 5.2

Dearborn Co. Jail 235 125 64.4 1.8 0.8 4.3

Delaware Co. Justice Ctr. 292 100 47.1 1.8 0.7 4.6

Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr. 941 275 79.2 3.6 2.1 6.1

Hamilton Co. Jail 301 137 67.4 1.5 0.6 3.8

Jackson Co. Jail 169 91 63.5 1.0 0.3 3.4

Marion Co. Jail IIi 1,223 197 58.8 3.4 1.4 8.1

Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 225 62 43.3 7.7 3.4 16.3

Noble Co. Jail 156 105 82.3 0.9 0.3 2.3

Ripley Co. Jail 84 52 89.2 7.9 5.1 11.9

Tippecanoe Co. Jail 271 119 55.7 2.5 1.1 5.7

Iowa

Des Moines Co. Jail 75 30 58.9% 2.1% 0.6% 7.1%

Scott Co. Jail and Annex 301 141 66.7 3.2 1.6 6.1

Kansas

Finney Co. Jail 124 73 78.4% 4.0% 2.3% 6.9%

Wilson Co. Jail 85 36 73.8 5.6 1.7 16.5

Kentucky

Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr. 262 144 74.3% 1.3% 0.6% 3.2%

Boyle Co. Det. Ctr. 308 150 84.5 1.9 0.6 5.7

Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 628 202 69.3 3.6 2.1 6.2

Grayson Co. Det. Ctr. 497 213 76.8 2.2 1.2 4.1

Kenton Co. Det. Ctr. 524 137 53.9 1.1 0.4 3.0

Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division 1,113 191 53.5 4.3 2.2 7.9

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 263 139 67.2 3.8 2.3 6.2

McCracken Co. Jail 448 183 79.4 3.1 1.8 5.4

Meade Co. Jail 137 83 80.5 1.3 0.5 3.6

Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr. 269 97 57.2 1.6 0.6 4.2

Woodford Co. Det. Ctr. 100 34 50.7 0.1 0.0 0.6

Louisiana

Assumption Parish Det. Ctr. 91 65 82.8% 4.6% 2.7% 7.9%

Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac. 349 177 74.8 0.9 0.4 2.3

Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac. 441 190 73.5 2.3 1.2 4.4

Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr. 1,285 273 80.5 2.0 0.9 4.2

East Baton Rouge Parish Prison 1,779 220 60.4 2.3 1.0 5.1

Iberia Parish Jail 546 198 67.5 3.9 2.3 6.6

Lafayette Parish Jail 972 213 63.6 3.2 1.7 6.0

Livingston Parish Det. Ctr. 560 219 78.7 1.4 0.6 3.2

Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III 414 207 85.7 1.9 1.0 3.6

St. Landry Parish Jail 273 114 59.7 0.7 0.2 2.5

St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1 179 78 60.1 3.8 1.8 8.1

Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac. 464 192 78.1 3.3 1.9 5.8

Maine

Penobscot Co. Jail 178 61 51.0% 4.3% 1.6% 11.4%

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 70

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 170 46 36.1% 2.3% 0.5% 9.6%

Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr. 553 106 38.0 0.9 0.2 4.4

Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 2,574 268 65.9 6.7 4.3 10.2

Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 649 186 62.8 2.7 1.3 5.5

Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr. 325 147 73.5 0.6 0.2 2.1

Massachusetts

Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr. 1,095 236 68.9% 1.9% 0.7% 5.0%

Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr. 1,204 232 70.1 2.1 0.9 4.7

Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 1,365 182 49.8 2.0 0.8 4.7

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1,510 228 65.5 6.2 3.8 9.9

Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail 775 150 48.7 1.9 0.7 4.9

Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr. 1,172 266 77.0 4.4 2.7 7.3

Michigan

Berrien Co. Jail 503 213 79.7% 4.3% 2.9% 6.5%

Calhoun Co. Jail 547 167 46.8 5.1 2.7 9.6

Huron Co. Jail 52 29 70.2 0.0 0.0 12.1

Kalamazoo Co. Jail 355 164 71.9 5.7 3.7 8.7

Macomb Co. Jail 1,154 157 40.6 1.9 0.8 4.5

Oakland Co. East Annex 443 177 71.9 2.5 1.3 5.0

Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex 779 151 48.7 7.3 4.1 12.6

Ottawa Co. Jail 344 120 53.3 0.6 0.2 2.5

Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 1,354 127 32.4 4.1 2.0 8.3

Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III 996 175 54.2 0.4 0.1 2.1

Minnesota

Anoka Co. Jail 220 95 58.7% 2.0% 0.9% 4.5%

Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 793 156 51.7 1.5 0.6 3.8

Mille Lacs Co. Jail 70 35 64.9 1.8 0.6 5.5

Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac. 383 167 71.6 0.9 0.3 2.2

Mississippi

Covington Co. Jail 35 11 44.4% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9%

Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 909 258 73.7 5.1 3.0 8.7

Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr. 161 92 79.5 3.0 1.6 5.6

Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr. 684 209 69.8 5.2 3.1 8.6

Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 359 147 64.6 2.5 1.1 5.6

Madison Co. Jail 325 146 65.7 3.2 1.7 5.9

Marshall Co. Jail 87 47 64.2 0.0 0.0 7.6

Pike Co. Jail 144 92 75.2 0.0 0.0 4.1

Missouri

Boone Co. Jail 219 71 47.1% 4.0% 1.6% 9.9%

LaClede Co. Jail 133 90 90.3 7.6 5.2 10.8

St. Charles Co. Jail 448 150 60.1 6.0 3.5 10.1

St. Louis Co. Jail 1,424 212 61.8 3.5 1.7 7.0

St. Louis Med. Security Inst. 837 224 57.6 6.7 4.2 10.4

Washington Co. Jail 41 20 59.0 3.3 0.9 11.3

Montana

Cascade Co. Regional Jail 377 167 62.8% 5.2% 3.3% 8.3%

Hill Co. Jail 53 27 60.9 0.0 0.0 12.5

Missoula Co. Jail 350 155 67.7 2.5 1.3 4.9

Nebraska

Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr. 1,517 207 55.5% 4.0% 1.9% 8.3%

Saline Co. Jail 93 63 73.0 4.0 1.9 8.1

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 71

Nevada

Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 3,967 240 55.6% 1.0% 0.3% 2.8%

Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump 44 14 43.9 0.0 0.0 21.5

Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1,100 210 62.1 3.2 1.6 6.4

New Hampshire

Coos Co. Jail 36 19 63.9% 4.4% 1.2% 14.3%

Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 618 132 38.3 6.0 3.3 10.6

New Jersey

Bergen Co. Jail 785 238 79.1% 2.7% 1.5% 4.8%

Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr. 203 61 48.6 0.0 0.0 5.9

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 2,620 174 34.1 2.2 0.9 4.9

Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 2,068 279 57.4 2.0 0.9 4.1

Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 910 145 55.6 7.3 4.3 12.0

Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr. 1,111 256 75.5 1.3 0.5 2.9

Ocean Co. Justice Complex 643 149 67.5 2.0 0.8 5.1

Passaic Co. Jail 1,020 197 61.1 2.6 1.3 5.0

Salem Co. Corr. Fac. 359 115 51.4 2.5 1.0 5.7

New Mexico

Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr. 849 212 66.4% 4.8% 2.9% 7.9%

San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 693 140 45.1 3.0 1.3 6.9

Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.i 496 136 47.0 3.5 1.6 7.5

New York

Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 702 193 60.6% 4.2% 2.4% 7.2%

Allegany Co. Jail 138 69 56.8 4.6 2.1 9.6

Broome Co. Jail 536 167 54.7 5.3 2.8 9.7

Dutchess Co. Jail 305 129 60.3 1.5 0.5 3.8

Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 892 205 61.3 4.3 2.3 7.7

Erie Co. Holding Fac. 850 71 38.5 4.5 0.9 19.6

Jefferson Co. Jail 186 78 52.9 5.2 2.5 10.5

New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 2,739 161 42.1 5.6 3.1 10.0

New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr. 1,424 220 57.0 5.3 3.2 8.8

New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 1,780 175 43.6 6.2 3.3 11.1

New York City Robert N Davoren Complex 2,166 273 50.2 3.4 1.8 6.3

New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.g 1,004 215 63.4 8.6 5.8 12.6

Niagara Co. Jail 490 170 61.2 1.8 0.7 4.1

Oneida Co. Corr. Fac. 510 158 59.6 3.1 1.4 6.5

Orange Co. Corr. Fac. 611 199 62.6 1.9 0.9 4.2

Putnam Co. Corr. Fac. 129 68 63.4 1.1 0.3 3.7

Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr. 253 146 68.0 4.1 2.1 7.9

Schenectady Co. Jail 353 173 67.6 4.8 3.1 7.6

Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 79 56 81.3 4.9 2.8 8.5

Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 332 159 67.9 6.9 4.3 11.0

Washington Co. Corr. Fac. 102 63 72.9 0.0 0.0 5.8

Westchester Co. Jail 938 150 43.0 2.9 1.3 6.4

Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr. 569 167 59.9 2.2 1.0 4.4

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 72

North Carolina

Buncombe Co. Det. Fac. 433 154 63.6% 1.9% 0.8% 4.3%

Cherokee Co. Jail 81 45 65.8 2.5 0.8 7.8

Durham Co. Jail 538 180 76.4 2.3 1.1 4.8

Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr. 249 138 67.2 6.3 4.2 9.5

Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 705 153 40.5 3.2 1.5 6.8

Granville Co. Det. Ctr. 83 35 52.1 6.5 2.3 17.1

Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac. 329 162 57.8 1.1 0.4 2.7

Guilford Co. Prison Farm 60 36 66.1 0.0 0.0 9.6

Mecklenburg Co. Jail North 510 146 45.5 2.0 0.8 4.9

New Hanover Det. Fac. 415 155 60.1 1.9 0.8 4.3

Robeson Co. Jail 488 147 52.4 7.5 4.8 11.5

Scotland Co. Jail 187 93 58.2 5.4 3.1 9.3

Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr. 1,380 200 57.1 4.2 1.9 8.8

North Dakota

Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr. 151 82 75.2% 3.5% 1.9% 6.5%

Ohio

Bedford Heights City Jail 143 35 34.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9%

Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr. 2,321 315 72.3 2.4 1.3 4.4

Delaware Co. Jail 214 108 61.1 0.0 0.0 3.4

Franklin Co. Jail 628 155 53.4 4.1 2.1 7.9

Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 1,245 219 64.9 1.8 0.8 4.3

Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac. 183 105 70.7 2.4 1.3 4.3

Lorain Co. Jail 432 174 66.4 2.2 1.1 4.3

Miami Co. Jail 125 68 73.8 0.0 0.0 5.3

Montgomery Co. Jail 942 202 59.2 1.3 0.5 3.3

Richland Co. Jail 226 130 75.8 2.9 1.7 4.7

Oklahoma

Dewey Co. Jail 14 13 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22.8%

Kay Co. Jail 182 110 75.6 2.6 1.4 4.9

Nowata Co. Jail 53 24 63.8 2.4 0.7 8.3

Oregon

Lane Co. Jail 489 171 72.9% 0.8% 0.3% 2.1%

Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 597 212 77.3 1.9 0.9 3.8

Washington Co. Jail 604 153 49.4 0.5 0.1 2.4

Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac. 235 127 77.8 4.7 2.8 7.7

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 2,792 233 50.1% 3.0% 1.6% 5.6%

Blair Co. Prison 335 100 45.3 5.3 2.3 11.5

Fayette Co. Prison 310 97 39.3 4.9 2.6 9.1

Indiana Co. Jail 229 70 44.8 3.9 1.5 9.4

Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac. 727 181 52.2 3.0 1.6 5.7

Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac. 1,838 236 66.4 3.7 2.0 6.6

Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac. 768 173 55.0 0.8 0.3 2.5

Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 3,217 221 54.8 4.5 2.5 7.9

Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 1,052 241 68.7 9.5 6.4 13.7

Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.g 801 195 58.4 8.6 5.7 12.9

Schuykill Co. Prison 292 136 74.3 2.7 1.4 5.0

Westmoreland Co. Prison 566 145 51.3 3.3 1.5 7.0

York Co. Prison 2,559 237 59.6 5.4 3.1 9.1

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 73

South Carolina

Charleston Co. Det. Ctr. 1,450 213 55.7% 1.9% 0.9% 4.3%

Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 389 165 74.9 1.2 0.5 3.1

Lexington Co. Jail 781 193 59.9 1.6 0.6 4.0

Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac. 908 212 66.7 1.1 0.4 3.5

Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr. 364 149 67.3 5.1 3.0 8.4

York Co. Det. Ctr. 397 133 48.7 2.1 0.8 5.3

South Dakota

Pennington Co. Jail 399 154 68.0% 2.5% 1.2% 5.1%

Tennessee

Lincoln Co. Jail 117 78 80.0% 3.0% 1.4% 6.1%

Madison Co. Jail 404 186 80.7 5.3 2.8 10.0

McMinn Co. Jail 248 161 78.4 3.4 2.2 5.2

Montgomery Co. Jail 542 122 45.8 0.7 0.2 3.3

Obion Co. Jail 154 98 75.0 0.0 0.0 3.8

Robertson Co. Det. Ctr. 398 171 71.7 2.8 1.5 5.3

Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 2,564 276 76.1 3.4 1.9 5.9

Shelby Co. Jail 2,715 286 72.6 1.8 0.8 3.7

Sumner Co. Jail 730 220 73.0 6.1 3.9 9.4

Tipton Co. Jail 137 74 64.6 1.5 0.5 5.0

Van Buren Co. Jail 30 15 77.8 0.0 0.0 20.4

Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 592 243 77.9 2.9 1.6 5.0

Texas

Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 3,557 201 42.3% 5.1% 2.6% 9.5%

Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 643 174 55.9 2.5 1.2 5.5

Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr. 761 222 69.6 0.9 0.3 2.6

Brown Co. Jail 147 78 70.3 0.0 0.0 4.7

Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr. 1,518 286 72.1 0.3 0.1 1.6

Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac. 2,120 212 57.0 2.1 0.9 4.6

Denton Co. Det. Ctr. 1,176 274 76.1 2.4 1.2 4.8

Eastland Co. Jail 58 36 90.2 0.0 0.0 9.9

El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex 1,354 195 52.0 2.9 1.4 5.9

El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac. 1,014 173 55.4 3.0 1.2 7.6

Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr. 428 186 75.3 3.6 2.2 5.9

Gregg Co. Jail 679 238 80.9 1.5 0.7 3.2

Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail 4,602 276 58.3 7.6 4.5 12.5

Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail 454 194 65.5 1.4 0.6 3.1

Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jailh 4,441 296 61.7 3.2 1.7 6.0

Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail 127 64 58.8 1.5 0.4 4.9

Hays Co. Jail 318 93 43.5 3.9 1.6 9.4

Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac. 1,026 241 70.3 2.1 1.1 4.2

Johnson Co. Jail 361 178 83.5 5.2 3.4 7.9

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 1,933 182 60.6 2.9 1.3 6.3

Taylor Co. Jail 513 169 63.9 3.0 1.5 5.9

Titus Co. Jail 162 64 52.7 0.0 0.0 5.7

Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 2,346 121 22.8 2.7 0.9 7.6

Travis Co. Jail 345 25 19.0 0.0 0.0 13.3

Uvalde Co. Jail 50 17 42.6 3.6 0.9 14.1

Victoria Co. Jail 473 41 43.8 1.6 0.4 6.6

Washington Co. Jail 109 77 84.3 2.7 1.4 5.1

Webb Co. Jail 475 110 38.8 0.6 0.1 2.7

Utah

Box Elder Co. Jail 51 40 87.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8%

Davis Co. Jail 652 170 54.4 4.8 2.7 8.4

Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 830 193 60.3 3.7 1.9 6.9

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 74

Virginia

Alexandria Det. Ctr. 470 119 47.8% 0.6% 0.1% 2.6%

Arlington Co. Det. Fac. 472 161 65.3 0.8 0.2 3.2

Bristol City Jail 157 101 79.2 0.8 0.3 2.3

Hampton Corr. Fac. 423 189 76.3 1.0 0.4 2.7

Henrico Co. Regional Jail West 593 177 64.1 2.7 1.4 5.2

Mecklenburg Co. Jail 123 67 77.2 0.0 0.0 5.4

Montgomery Co. Jail 108 60 84.6 0.0 0.0 6.0

Newport News City Jail 525 197 73.7 3.5 2.0 6.0

Piedmont Regional Jail 611 188 64.9 2.3 1.1 4.7

Rappahannock Regional Jail 1,878 266 75.6 4.5 2.7 7.3

Richmond City Jail 1,429 230 68.8 3.4 1.9 6.3

Riverside Regional Jail 1,391 256 75.2 4.9 3.0 8.0

Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr. 1,518 268 73.6 2.4 1.3 4.6

Washington

Benton Co. Jail 820 153 54.7% 2.3% 0.9% 6.0%

Cowlitz Co. Jail 359 173 79.3 1.7 0.8 3.6

King Co. Regional Justice Ctr. 791 179 53.7 1.3 0.5 3.5

Snohomish Co. Jail 1,385 230 64.3 1.0 0.3 3.1

Sunnyside City Jail 55 17 51.4 0.0 0.0 18.4

Whatcom Co. Jail 364 154 65.1 2.9 1.5 5.6

Yakima City Jail 76 39 65.2 1.8 0.5 5.9

West Virginia

Eastern Regional Jail 470 130 50.7% 6.5% 3.7% 11.2%

South Central Regional Jail 622 102 37.8 5.9 3.0 11.2

Western Regional Jail 658 215 68.0 4.8 3.0 7.7

Wisconsin

Brown Co. Jail 470 167 62.4% 4.1% 2.2% 7.8%

Columbia Co. Jail 101 40 50.0 4.1 1.6 10.4

Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South 1,701 207 55.8 4.2 2.3 7.5

Oconto Co. Jail 50 18 45.0 0.0 0.0 18.4

Rock Co. Jail 661 164 60.9 3.3 1.7 6.4

Walworth Co. Jail 188 100 73.3 2.5 1.3 5.0

Washington Co. Jail 110 67 68.3 4.5 2.4 8.6

Wood Co. Jail 69 26 69.0 0.0 0.0 12.9

Wyoming

Lincoln Co. Jail 23 11 81.3% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9% aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

cNumber of inmates in the facility on the day of the roster plus any new inmates admitted prior to the first day of data collection.

dNumber of respondents consenting to the sexual victimization survey on NIS. (See Methodology.) 

eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.

f

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time served. (See Methodology.) 

gFemale facility.

hFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.

i

Privately operated facility. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 5 (continued)

Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 75

Appendix table 6

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Total 1.6% 1.4% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 2.0%

Alabama

Barbour Co. Jail 2.3% 0.7% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%

Dallas Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 3.3

Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr. 2.4 1.3 4.6 1.0 0.4 2.5

Marshall Co. Jail 2.5 1.3 4.9 3.4 1.9 6.0

Tuscaloosa Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.3 2.7 1.4 4.9

Arizona

Maricopa Co. Estrella Jaild 3.7% 2.0% 6.8% 0.3% 0.1% 1.5%

Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.9 0.3 3.2

Maricopa Co. Towers Jail 1.1 0.3 3.7 4.3 2.2 8.1

Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail 2.4 1.1 4.9 2.8 1.3 5.9

Santa Cruz Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.9

Yuma Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.9 1.4 0.5 4.2

Arkansas

Crittenden Co. Jail 3.5% 1.9% 6.4% 2.8% 1.4% 5.7%

Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.3 2.8

Pope Co. Det. Ctr. 3.6 1.2 10.3 2.3 0.5 9.6

Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr. 3.5 1.3 9.1 2.5 1.1 5.4

Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.6 0.1 2.0

California

Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 1.2% 0.5% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 4.3%

Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac. 2.0 0.8 5.1 5.9 3.2 10.4

Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South 1.6 0.7 4.0 1.9 0.8 4.6

Imperial Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.6 0.1 2.6

Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 2.5 1.0 6.1 1.7 0.6 5.1

Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 4.9 2.6 9.1 4.4 2.3 8.5

Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail 4.2 2.1 8.0 3.3 1.6 6.6

Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.6 5.2 2.4 0.9 6.0

Napa Co. Jail 2.3 1.0 5.4 2.5 1.1 5.7

Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 1.4 0.4 4.7 0.7 0.1 3.8

Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac. 3.2 1.4 6.8 1.5 0.5 4.4

Riverside Co. Indio Jail 2.8 1.3 5.8 0.6 0.2 2.5

Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 4.0 2.1 7.5 2.0 0.8 4.8

Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.e 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 3.0

Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 2.6 1.3 5.1 2.6 1.3 5.1

San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac. 1.2 0.3 4.7 1.1 0.4 3.1

San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 4.1 1.9 8.4 1.7 0.6 4.6

San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac. 1.6 0.6 4.3 2.6 1.3 5.2

San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3 2.4 0.8 7.3 1.6 0.3 7.0

Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med. 1.3 0.5 3.6 1.1 0.3 3.7

Santa Clara Co. Main Jail 3.5 1.5 7.9 6.2 3.0 12.5

Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.d 1.4 0.5 4.2 0.7 0.2 3.1

Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac. 2.4 1.2 4.9 3.7 2.1 6.7

Tulare Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.3 3.8

Ventura Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.7 1.9 0.8 4.2

Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr. 2.1 0.7 6.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Yuba Co. Jail 1.5 0.5 3.9 1.2 0.4 3.2

Colorado

Chaffee Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4%

Denver Co. Jail 2.9 1.6 5.4 1.1 0.5 2.8

Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.5 1.6 0.5 5.1

Douglas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.8 1.4 5.8

Fremont Co. Jail 3.0 1.6 5.7 0.8 0.2 2.5

Jefferson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8

Park Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 76

Florida

Collier Co. Jail 2.4% 1.1% 5.5% 2.6% 1.0% 6.8%

Dixie Co. Jail 4.9 2.1 10.8 5.7 2.5 12.6

Escambia Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 4.5 0.5 0.1 2.3

Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.4 3.6 1.6 0.7 3.6

Lake Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.7 2.5 0.6 9.4

Lee Co. Community Programs Unit 2.4 1.1 5.0 1.6 0.7 4.1

Leon Co. Det. Fac. 2.0 1.0 4.3 3.7 2.0 6.5

Manatee Co. Jail 3.4 1.8 6.4 2.3 1.1 4.8

Martin Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.4 2.6 1.2 5.8

Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 7.4

Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.4 1.6 0.7 3.5

Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.3 3.2

Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 2.3

Okeechobee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.7 1.1 0.3 3.9

Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.4 3.7 2.2 0.9 5.3

Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr. 1.0 0.2 3.9 2.9 1.2 6.8

Osceola Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 3.1 0.7 0.1 3.0

Palm Beach Co. Stockade 1.3 0.4 4.3 1.6 0.6 4.2

Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 2.4 0.9 6.4 1.0 0.2 4.8

Pinellas Co. South Division 2.0 0.7 5.4 1.3 0.4 4.1

Polk Co. - South Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 5.0 3.7 2.0 6.8

Sarasota North Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9

Suwanee Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.5

Taylor Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3

Georgia

Candler Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5%

Carroll Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.7 1.6 4.3

Clayton Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 4.7 3.3 1.7 6.1

Dekalb Co. Jail 2.0 0.9 4.5 1.9 0.9 4.0

Douglas Co. Jail 2.3 1.2 4.3 0.5 0.1 2.2

Floyd Co. Jail 2.4 1.3 4.6 1.2 0.5 2.8

Floyd Co. Prison 0.6 0.2 2.0 2.2 1.2 4.3

Fulton Co. Jail 3.3 1.5 7.4 1.6 0.5 4.5

Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.5

Hall Co. Det. Ctr. 3.0 1.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

Houston Co. Jail 2.2 1.1 4.7 6.0 3.7 9.6

Irwin Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1 0.4 2.9

Murray County Jail 2.4 1.1 5.3 0.8 0.3 2.5

Newton Co. Jail 2.2 1.1 4.4 1.5 0.6 4.0

Screven Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 3.5 2.4 1.3 4.7

South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 8.2 4.7 1.6 12.8

Spalding Co. Jail 1.8 0.7 4.5 3.3 1.4 7.2

Troup Co. Jail 2.2 1.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 2.2

Upson Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.4 1.9 0.9 3.7

Ware Co. Jail 1.7 0.9 3.4 0.8 0.3 2.0

Wilkinson Co. Jail 6.5 1.9 20.0 0.0 0.0 16.8

Idaho

Bannock Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 3.0% 1.3% 6.8%

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 77

Illinois

Champaign Co. Satellite Jaile 0.0% 0.0% 6.4% 2.0% 0.5% 8.4%

Cook Co. - Division 1 0.7 0.2 2.1 4.0 2.4 6.5

Cook Co. - Division 11 5.5 3.5 8.4 3.3 1.8 5.7

Cook Co. - Division 2 2.5 1.1 5.4 4.2 2.3 7.5

Cook Co. - Division 5 0.9 0.3 2.7 2.6 1.3 5.1

Cook Co. - Division 6 1.1 0.4 2.7 1.5 0.7 3.3

Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr. 1.5 0.6 3.8 2.1 0.8 5.1

Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.7 3.8 2.6 1.5 4.7

Kendall Co. Jail 2.6 1.1 5.9 2.5 1.1 5.8

McHenry Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 2.2 0.6 0.1 2.6

Sangamon Co. Jail 2.4 1.3 4.2 2.0 1.1 3.5

Indiana

Bartholomew Co. Jail 3.2% 1.9% 5.2% 0.8% 0.3% 2.0%

Clinton Co. Jail 1.6 0.5 4.4 0.8 0.3 2.4

Dearborn Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.4 1.1 0.3 3.5

Delaware Co. Justice Ctr. 0.2 0.0 0.7 1.7 0.6 4.5

Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.7 0.7 3.8 1.9 1.0 3.7

Hamilton Co. Jail 1.5 0.6 3.8 0.9 0.3 3.3

Jackson Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.1

Marion Co. Jail IIf 0.5 0.1 2.5 2.9 1.0 7.7

Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.8 7.7 3.4 16.3

Noble Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.9 0.3 2.3

Ripley Co. Jail 7.9 5.1 11.9 2.0 0.8 4.5

Tippecanoe Co. Jail 2.5 1.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 3.2

Iowa

Des Moines Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 2.1% 0.6% 7.1%

Scott Co. Jail and Annex 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.2 1.6 6.1

Kansas

Finney Co. Jail 1.0% 0.3% 2.9% 3.0% 1.6% 5.7%

Wilson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 9.6 5.6 1.7 16.5

Kentucky

Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr. 1.3% 0.6% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.6%

Boyle Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 0.6 5.7 0.0 0.0 2.5

Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.1 4.2 1.9 0.9 4.1

Grayson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 2.4 1.3 0.6 2.9

Kenton Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.6

Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division 3.1 1.4 6.6 3.3 1.6 6.7

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.1 4.2 1.7 0.8 3.5

McCracken Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 3.2 1.6 0.8 3.5

Meade Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.6 1.3 0.5 3.6

Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.6 4.2 0.8 0.2 2.9

Woodford Co. Det. Ctr. 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.2

Louisiana

Assumption Parish Det. Ctr. 3.1% 1.6% 6.0% 1.5% 0.6% 3.9%

Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac. 0.9 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.2

Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.1 1.5 0.7 3.4

Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 3.0 1.1 0.4 3.0

East Baton Rouge Parish Prison 2.3 1.0 5.1 0.6 0.1 3.1

Iberia Parish Jail 2.4 1.2 4.7 2.5 1.3 4.9

Lafayette Parish Jail 1.8 0.8 4.1 2.4 1.1 4.9

Livingston Parish Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.7 0.4 0.1 1.5

Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III 1.4 0.7 3.0 0.5 0.1 1.6

St. Landry Parish Jail 0.7 0.2 2.5 0.7 0.2 2.5

St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1 1.3 0.4 4.6 2.6 1.0 6.4

Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.9 3.6 2.1 1.0 4.5

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 78

Maine

Penobscot Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% 4.3% 1.6% 11.4%

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 2.3% 0.5% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%

Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.9 0.2 4.4

Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.4 6.7 4.3 10.2

Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.7 4.5 1.6 0.6 4.1

Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.5

Massachusetts

Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.9% 0.7% 5.0%

Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr. 1.5 0.5 4.0 0.6 0.2 2.1

Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.1 2.9 2.0 0.8 4.7

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 4.1 2.2 7.6 3.5 1.9 6.6

Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail 0.6 0.1 2.7 1.3 0.4 4.2

Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr. 1.9 0.9 4.0 2.9 1.5 5.5

Michigan

Berrien Co. Jail 0.9% 0.4% 2.3% 3.4% 2.1% 5.3%

Calhoun Co. Jail 2.7 1.1 6.5 3.5 1.7 7.3

Huron Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 12.1

Kalamazoo Co. Jail 3.6 2.0 6.5 3.5 2.0 5.8

Macomb Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.6 1.2 0.4 3.3

Oakland Co. East Annex 1.9 0.9 4.2 1.2 0.5 3.2

Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex 3.0 1.4 6.5 5.9 3.0 11.1

Ottawa Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.2 2.5

Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 4.1 2.0 8.3 0.5 0.1 2.5

Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.4 0.1 2.1

Minnesota

Anoka Co. Jail 1.5% 0.6% 3.9% 1.1% 0.4% 2.8%

Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 2.8 0.6 0.1 2.7

Mille Lacs Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 9.9 1.8 0.6 5.5

Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.3 2.2

Mississippi

Covington Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 25.9% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9%

Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 1.9 4.4 2.4 8.0

Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.2 1.5 2.4 1.2 5.0

Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr. 2.5 1.1 5.5 3.6 1.9 6.8

Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.2 3.6 1.5 0.6 4.1

Madison Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.7 3.2 1.7 5.9

Marshall Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6

Pike Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.1

Missouri

Boone Co. Jail 3.1% 1.0% 9.2% 0.9% 0.2% 3.5%

LaClede Co. Jail 3.1 1.8 5.3 4.5 2.7 7.3

St. Charles Co. Jail 2.0 0.8 4.7 4.5 2.4 8.3

St. Louis Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.2 2.4 0.9 5.7

St. Louis Med. Security Inst. 0.8 0.3 2.3 6.3 3.9 10.0

Washington Co. Jail 3.3 0.9 11.3 0.0 0.0 16.1

Montana

Cascade Co. Regional Jail 3.3% 1.9% 5.8% 3.6% 2.0% 6.3%

Hill Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5

Missoula Co. Jail 1.8 0.8 4.0 1.4 0.5 3.5

Nebraska

Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr. 0.7% 0.1% 3.6% 3.3% 1.4% 7.4%

Saline Co. Jail 1.6 0.6 4.5 2.3 0.9 6.2

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 79

Nevada

Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6% 0.2% 1.9% 0.4% 0.1% 2.2%

Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5

Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.3 3.5 2.1 0.9 4.9

New Hampshire

Coos Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 16.8% 4.4% 1.2% 14.3%

Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 4.1 1.9 8.5 3.3 1.6 6.6

New Jersey

Bergen Co. Jail 1.6% 0.7% 3.3% 1.5% 0.7% 3.2%

Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr. 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.9

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.2 2.8 1.7 0.7 4.2

Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.4 2.7 1.7 0.8 3.8

Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 4.1 2.0 8.2 5.1 2.8 9.2

Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.5 0.7 0.2 2.2

Ocean Co. Justice Complex 1.2 0.4 3.7 0.8 0.2 3.6

Passaic Co. Jail 1.6 0.7 3.8 2.6 1.3 5.0

Salem Co. Corr. Fac. 0.7 0.2 3.0 1.7 0.6 4.8

New Mexico

Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr. 3.0% 1.7% 5.4% 2.5% 1.2% 5.3%

San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 3.0 1.3 6.9 1.8 0.6 5.5

Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.f 2.3 1.0 5.3 1.8 0.6 5.5

New York

Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 2.7% 1.4% 5.2% 2.4% 1.2% 5.0%

Allegany Co. Jail 3.0 1.2 7.5 1.5 0.4 5.3

Broome Co. Jail 2.9 1.3 6.5 3.4 1.5 7.6

Dutchess Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.7 1.4 0.5 3.8

Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.0 3.9 2.0 7.2

Erie Co. Holding Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.5 0.9 19.6

Jefferson Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.9 4.2 1.8 9.4

New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 2.4 1.0 6.0 3.7 1.8 7.4

New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.6 4.0 2.2 7.1

New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.1 3.0 5.6 2.9 10.5

New York City Robert N Davoren Complex 0.3 0.1 1.8 3.1 1.6 5.8

New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.d 5.0 2.9 8.4 5.9 3.7 9.4

Niagara Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.8 1.1 0.4 3.0

Oneida Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.5 3.0 1.4 6.5

Orange Co. Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.5 1.4 0.6 3.4

Putnam Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.4 1.1 0.3 3.7

Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.1 0.7 6.5 2.0 1.1 3.6

Schenectady Co. Jail 4.4 2.7 7.0 2.9 1.7 5.0

Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 3.6 1.8 7.0 3.3 1.6 6.6

Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 1.5 0.7 3.5 6.1 3.6 10.2

Washington Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.8

Westchester Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 2.3 2.5 1.0 5.9

Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr. 0.9 0.3 2.5 1.3 0.5 3.3

North Carolina

Buncombe Co. Det. Fac. 0.7% 0.2% 2.5% 1.3% 0.5% 3.4%

Cherokee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.5 0.8 7.8

Durham Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.7 1.6 0.7 3.7

Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr. 2.6 1.4 4.8 3.8 2.2 6.5

Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.3 3.8 2.9 1.2 6.5

Granville Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.7 6.0 2.0 16.9

Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 0.4 2.7

Guilford Co. Prison Farm 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 80

Mecklenburg Co. Jail North 0.6% 0.1% 2.4% 2.0% 0.8% 4.9%

New Hanover Det. Fac. 0.6 0.2 2.6 1.2 0.4 3.4

Robeson Co. Jail 2.4 1.1 5.0 5.2 3.0 8.7

Scotland Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.5 4.4 2.4 8.1

Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr. 3.4 1.4 8.1 1.4 0.5 3.7

North Dakota

Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 3.5% 1.9% 6.5%

Ohio

Bedford Heights City Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9%

Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.5 2.8 1.2 0.5 2.9

Delaware Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4

Franklin Co. Jail 3.1 1.5 6.4 1.0 0.2 4.3

Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.8 4.3

Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac. 2.1 1.1 4.0 0.3 0.1 0.9

Lorain Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 2.9 1.1 0.4 2.8

Miami Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.9 0.3 2.7

Richland Co. Jail 1.4 0.7 2.9 1.4 0.7 2.9

Oklahoma

Dewey Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 22.8% 0.0% 0.0% 22.8%

Kay Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.7 0.9 0.3 2.5

Nowata Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 13.8 2.4 0.7 8.3

Oregon

Lane Co. Jail 0.5% 0.1% 1.9% 0.8% 0.3% 2.1%

Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 1.8 1.4 0.6 3.2

Washington Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.1 2.4

Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac. 4.3 2.5 7.4 0.4 0.1 1.0

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 2.0% 0.9% 4.3% 1.5% 0.6% 3.7%

Blair Co. Prison 3.5 1.2 10.1 1.7 0.6 4.9

Fayette Co. Prison 2.6 1.0 6.1 3.9 1.9 7.7

Indiana Co. Jail 3.9 1.5 9.4 0.0 0.0 5.2

Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.2 4.9 0.6 0.1 2.5

Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac. 1.4 0.6 3.4 2.6 1.3 5.3

Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.8 0.3 2.5

Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.4 3.9 3.4 1.8 6.5

Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.8 6.6 6.3 3.9 10.0

Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.d 6.7 4.2 10.7 3.7 2.0 6.8

Schuykill Co. Prison 1.0 0.3 3.2 2.7 1.4 5.0

Westmoreland Co. Prison 2.1 0.8 5.1 2.2 0.8 6.1

York Co. Prison 3.5 1.8 6.8 1.8 0.8 4.4

South Carolina

Charleston Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7% 0.2% 2.3% 1.7% 0.7% 4.0%

Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.2 0.5 3.1

Lexington Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.2 0.6 0.1 2.5

Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.4 3.5

Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.5 4.7 2.7 8.0

York Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.1 0.8 5.3

South Dakota

Pennington Co. Jail 2.0% 0.9% 4.6% 0.9% 0.3% 2.4%

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 81

Tennessee

Lincoln Co. Jail 3.0% 1.4% 6.1% 1.3% 0.5% 3.6%

Madison Co. Jail 1.5 0.7 3.3 4.4 2.1 9.3

McMinn Co. Jail 2.8 1.8 4.5 1.0 0.5 2.1

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.7 0.2 3.3

Obion Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.8

Robertson Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 2.9 1.7 0.8 3.9

Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 3.1 3.1 1.7 5.5

Shelby Co. Jail 0.6 0.2 2.2 1.1 0.5 2.8

Sumner Co. Jail 4.2 2.5 7.1 3.0 1.5 5.6

Tipton Co. Jail 1.5 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 4.9

Van Buren Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 20.4

Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.5 4.9 0.7 0.2 2.1

Texas

Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 1.6% 0.6% 4.0% 4.3% 2.1% 8.6%

Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.7 1.9 0.8 4.7

Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 2.0 0.4 0.1 2.0

Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 4.7

Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.4

Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac. 0.4 0.1 2.2 2.1 0.9 4.6

Denton Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.1 1.7 0.8 3.9

Eastland Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 9.9

El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex 2.2 1.0 4.9 1.0 0.3 3.3

El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac. 1.0 0.3 3.4 2.7 1.0 7.4

Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.9 3.6 1.8 0.9 3.5

Gregg Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.2 0.5 2.8

Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail 6.3 3.4 11.2 1.5 0.7 3.2

Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail 1.0 0.4 2.5 0.5 0.1 1.7

Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jaile 0.9 0.3 2.5 2.9 1.5 5.6

Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.5 0.4 4.9

Hays Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 3.3 3.1 1.1 8.7

Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.4 2.5 1.8 0.8 3.7

Johnson Co. Jail 2.7 1.5 4.8 3.0 1.7 5.3

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.3 3.4 2.3 0.9 5.5

Taylor Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 4.2 1.3 0.4 3.6

Titus Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.7

Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 1.7 0.5 5.9 1.0 0.2 5.3

Travis Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3

Uvalde Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 18.4 3.6 0.9 14.1

Victoria Co. Jail 1.6 0.4 6.6 0.0 0.0 8.6

Washington Co. Jail 2.6 1.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 4.8

Webb Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.6 0.1 2.7

Utah

Box Elder Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8%

Davis Co. Jail 4.0 2.1 7.6 0.8 0.3 2.4

Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.1 5.1 1.8 0.7 4.4

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 82

Virginia

Alexandria Det. Ctr. 0.6% 0.1% 2.6% 0.6% 0.1% 2.6%

Arlington Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.8 0.2 3.2

Bristol City Jail 0.8 0.3 2.3 0.0 0.0 3.7

Hampton Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 1.8 0.5 0.1 2.0

Henrico Co. Regional Jail West 0.7 0.2 2.0 2.0 0.9 4.4

Mecklenburg Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.4

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0

Newport News City Jail 1.0 0.3 2.8 2.5 1.3 4.8

Piedmont Regional Jail 1.4 0.5 3.5 0.9 0.3 2.7

Rappahannock Regional Jail 1.2 0.4 3.2 3.3 1.8 5.8

Richmond City Jail 2.1 1.0 4.5 1.8 0.8 4.2

Riverside Regional Jail 1.6 0.7 3.7 3.7 2.1 6.5

Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.6 1.4 0.6 3.4

Washington

Benton Co. Jail 1.2% 0.3% 5.0% 1.1% 0.4% 3.6%

Cowlitz Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.3 1.0 0.4 2.5

King Co. Regional Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.3 0.5 3.5

Snohomish Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 2.3 0.5 0.1 2.3

Sunnyside City Jail 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 18.4

Whatcom Co. Jail 2.9 1.5 5.6 0.3 0.1 1.0

Yakima City Jail 0.0 0.0 9.0 1.8 0.5 5.9

West Virginia

Eastern Regional Jail 6.0% 3.3% 10.6% 1.5% 0.6% 3.6%

South Central Regional Jail 3.6 1.6 8.1 2.3 0.8 6.4

Western Regional Jail 4.8 3.0 7.7 1.6 0.6 3.8

Wisconsin

Brown Co. Jail 1.7% 0.7% 4.4% 3.9% 2.0% 7.6%

Columbia Co. Jail 2.1 0.6 7.5 2.1 0.6 7.5

Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South 1.3 0.5 3.7 2.9 1.4 5.9

Oconto Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 18.4

Rock Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 5.5 2.0 0.9 4.7

Walworth Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.6 2.5 1.3 5.0

Washington Co. Jail 3.1 1.4 6.9 3.0 1.3 6.5

Wood Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 12.9

Wyoming

Lincoln Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 25.9% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9%

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

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

cWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time served. (See Methodology.) 

dFemale facility.

eFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.

f

Privately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 6 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

95%-confidence intervalb 95%-confidence intervalb

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedc Lower bound

Upper 

bound
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 83

Appendix table 7

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Total 1.2% 1.1% 0.8% 1.2% 0.9%

Alabama

Barbour Co. Jail 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Dallas Co. Jail 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr. 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5

Marshall Co. Jail 2.5 0.0 1.7 3.4 0.0

Tuscaloosa Co. Jail 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.9

Arizona

Maricopa Co. Estrella Jaile 2.3% 2.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

Maricopa Co. Towers Jail 1.1 0.0 1.8 1.8 2.5

Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail 0.7 2.0 1.1 2.1 1.8

Santa Cruz Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Yuma Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.4

Arkansas

Crittenden Co. Jail 2.7% 0.8% 1.9% 1.1% 1.0%

Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0

Pope Co. Det. Ctr. 3.6 1.8 0.0 0.0 2.3

Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr. 3.1 3.0 0.4 1.5 1.5

Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6

California

Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.7% 0.6%

Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac. 1.4 2.0 3.2 5.2 3.7

Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South 1.2 0.5 1.5 1.4 0.4

Imperial Co. Jail 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6

Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 2.5 1.5 0.4 1.4 1.3

Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 4.9 2.0 2.9 2.6 0.3

Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail 1.5 3.6 2.1 2.9 2.1

Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac. 1.4 1.8 1.8 2.4 1.8

Napa Co. Jail 1.6 1.3 1.8 2.5 1.8

Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 0.0 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.0

Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac. 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.1 0.5

Riverside Co. Indio Jail 2.8 2.1 0.6 0.6 0.0

Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 4.0 2.7 1.5 2.0 0.6

Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6

Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 1.4 1.7 0.6 1.7 1.2

San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac. 1.2 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0

San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 3.1 3.5 1.1 1.7 0.0

San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac. 0.7 1.2 1.2 2.1 1.6

San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3 1.0 2.4 0.0 1.6 0.0

Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med. 1.3 0.9 0.4 1.1 0.0

Santa Clara Co. Main Jail 2.1 2.5 4.8 3.6 1.6

Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.e 0.7 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.0

Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac. 1.5 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.3

Tulare Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.3

Ventura Co. Jail 0.4 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.0

Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr. 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Yuba Co. Jail 0.7 1.5 0.5 0.7 0.0

Colorado

Chaffee Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Denver Co. Jail 2.9 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.8

Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.8

Douglas Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.8 1.2

Fremont Co. Jail 3.0 1.4 0.8 0.8 0.0

Jefferson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Park Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 84

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Florida

Collier Co. Jail 1.6% 1.2% 2.6% 2.2% 0.4%

Dixie Co. Jail 2.4 4.9 0.0 2.4 3.3

Escambia Co. Jail 1.6 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 0.9

Lake Co. Jail 0.3 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.4

Lee Co. Community Programs Unit 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.6 0.9

Leon Co. Det. Fac. 1.7 1.1 0.8 1.4 2.3

Manatee Co. Jail 2.4 2.0 2.3 1.9 1.4

Martin Co. Jail 0.7 1.1 2.6 2.2 1.4

Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.2 0.6

Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5

Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Okeechobee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 0.7 1.3 0.6 1.9 0.3

Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr. 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.9

Osceola Co. Jail 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.7

Palm Beach Co. Stockade 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.6 0.0

Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 2.4 1.6 0.0 1.0 0.0

Pinellas Co. South Division 2.0 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.3

Polk Co. - South Co. Jail 2.3 1.8 0.9 2.0 2.3

Sarasota North Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Suwanee Co. Jail 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Taylor Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Georgia

Candler Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Carroll Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 2.0

Clayton Co. Jail 1.8 1.4 2.6 1.4 1.2

Dekalb Co. Jail 2.0 1.4 0.3 1.2 1.3

Douglas Co. Jail 1.1 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.0

Floyd Co. Jail 2.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.4

Floyd Co. Prison 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.7 1.1

Fulton Co. Jail 2.5 2.0 0.6 0.6 1.0

Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hall Co. Det. Ctr. 2.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Houston Co. Jail 2.2 1.0 1.1 3.1 5.4

Irwin Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.7

Murray County Jail 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0

Newton Co. Jail 1.7 1.8 0.3 1.5 0.9

Screven Co. Jail 1.4 1.4 2.4 2.4 1.2

South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 2.3 4.7 4.7

Spalding Co. Jail 0.6 1.2 1.5 1.0 1.8

Troup Co. Jail 0.9 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Upson Co. Jail 0.7 1.7 0.0 1.0 0.9

Ware Co. Jail 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.8 0.0

Wilkinson Co. Jail 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

Idaho

Bannock Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 1.2% 0.0%

Illinois

Champaign Co. Satellite Jailf 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Cook Co. - Division 1 0.7 0.7 1.5 2.2 2.5

Cook Co. - Division 11 4.0 3.3 2.6 2.9 1.4

Cook Co. - Division 2 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.9 2.3

Cook Co. - Division 5 0.4 0.5 1.4 1.6 1.8
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 85

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Cook Co. - Division 6 1.1% 1.1% 0.7% 1.1% 1.1%

Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr. 1.1 1.0 1.3 2.1 0.6

Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr. 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.8

Kendall Co. Jail 1.7 2.6 0.9 0.9 1.7

McHenry Co. Jail 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0

Sangamon Co. Jail 1.9 2.4 0.5 1.6 0.9

Indiana

Bartholomew Co. Jail 1.4% 2.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%

Clinton Co. Jail 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.8

Dearborn Co. Jail 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 0.0

Delaware Co. Justice Ctr. 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.2

Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.6 0.7

Hamilton Co. Jail 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.9

Jackson Co. Jail 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Marion Co. Jail IIg 0.5 0.5 2.1 1.3 1.7

Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 0.0 0.0 3.7 4.9 2.7

Noble Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0

Ripley Co. Jail 5.9 7.9 2.0 2.0 2.0

Tippecanoe Co. Jail 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Iowa

Des Moines Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1%

Scott Co. Jail and Annex 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.9

Kansas

Finney Co. Jail 0.0% 1.0% 3.0% 2.0% 0.0%

Wilson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0

Kentucky

Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr. 1.3% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Boyle Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 1.3 2.1 0.9 1.5 0.9

Grayson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.0

Kenton Co. Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1

Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.7 1.3

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0

McCracken Co. Jail 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 0.6

Meade Co. Jail 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0

Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0

Woodford Co. Det. Ctr. 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Louisiana

Assumption Parish Det. Ctr. 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.5%

Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac. 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac. 1.0 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.5

Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr. 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.4

East Baton Rouge Parish Prison 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.6

Iberia Parish Jail 2.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.5

Lafayette Parish Jail 1.0 1.8 0.0 0.5 1.9

Livingston Parish Det. Ctr. 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4

Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

St. Landry Parish Jail 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.3 2.6

Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac. 1.8 1.4 0.6 0.6 1.5

Maine

Penobscot Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 2.6%
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 86

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9

Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.7 2.8 3.1 5.2

Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.6 0.5 1.2 0.4

Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Massachusetts

Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4%

Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr. 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6

Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 0.6 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.5

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1.8 3.8 1.9 2.0 2.3

Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3

Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr. 1.2 1.2 0.4 2.3 1.2

Michigan

Berrien Co. Jail 0.9% 0.9% 1.3% 3.0% 0.9%

Calhoun Co. Jail 1.3 2.7 3.1 3.5 0.7

Huron Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kalamazoo Co. Jail 3.6 3.1 3.5 1.5 1.0

Macomb Co. Jail 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.3

Oakland Co. East Annex 1.3 1.9 1.2 1.2 0.0

Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex 3.0 1.9 5.2 2.9 2.2

Ottawa Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 4.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.5

Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0

Minnesota

Anoka Co. Jail 1.5% 0.5% 1.1% 0.5% 0.6%

Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.6

Mille Lacs Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8

Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.5

Mississippi

Covington Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.7 0.9 3.4 0.7

Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.1

Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr. 1.9 2.2 0.5 1.5 2.6

Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8

Madison Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.8 1.4

Marshall Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pike Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Missouri

Boone Co. Jail 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0%

LaClede Co. Jail 1.8 1.3 3.0 4.5 0.0

St. Charles Co. Jail 2.0 0.5 3.0 4.0 1.4

St. Louis Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.8

St. Louis Med. Security Inst. 0.4 0.8 3.6 4.0 4.1

Washington Co. Jail 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Montana

Cascade Co. Regional Jail 2.2% 2.2% 1.9% 3.6% 2.4%

Hill Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Missoula Co. Jail 1.2 1.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

Nebraska

Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr. 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 2.8% 1.9%

Saline Co. Jail 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 2.3

Nevada

Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.7 0.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 87

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

New Hampshire

Coos Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.4% 0.0%

Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 3.2 2.3 3.3 2.0 1.0

New Jersey

Bergen Co. Jail 1.6% 1.1% 1.2% 1.5% 0.0%

Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.2 0.8

Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.7 1.0 1.3 0.8

Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 4.1 1.3 2.0 3.1 3.7

Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3

Ocean Co. Justice Complex 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.8 0.0

Passaic Co. Jail 1.2 1.3 2.6 2.3 1.2

Salem Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.7 0.0

New Mexico

Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr. 1.6% 2.5% 1.4% 1.9% 0.8%

San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 3.0 2.5 0.7 0.7 1.8

Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.g 1.2 2.3 0.0 0.6 1.2

New York

Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 2.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 2.0%

Allegany Co. Jail 3.0 3.0 1.5 1.5 0.0

Broome Co. Jail 1.4 2.9 1.5 2.8 1.9

Dutchess Co. Jail 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.0

Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 0.4 0.4 2.8 2.8 2.7

Erie Co. Holding Fac. 0.0 0.0 4.5 4.5 0.0

Jefferson Co. Jail 1.0 1.0 4.2 1.0 1.6

New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 2.4 0.5 1.2 2.1 1.5

New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.8 0.4 1.8 2.1

New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.6 2.7 3.1 4.6

New York City Robert N Davoren Complex 0.3 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.3

New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.e 4.1 2.3 2.3 5.6 2.9

Niagara Co. Jail 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.1 0.0

Oneida Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.0 1.6

Orange Co. Corr. Fac. 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.9

Putnam Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1

Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.0 2.1 1.6 1.6 0.9

Schenectady Co. Jail 2.2 3.1 0.5 2.5 1.4

Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 3.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 2.0

Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 0.7 1.5 3.8 3.5 3.0

Washington Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Westchester Co. Jail 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.6 0.9

Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr. 0.4 0.9 0.5 1.3 0.3

North Carolina

Buncombe Co. Det. Fac. 0.7% 0.0% 0.6% 1.3% 0.0%

Cherokee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.5

Durham Co. Jail 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.1

Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.7 2.9

Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.8 0.4 2.2 1.4 2.0

Granville Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.4 1.2 1.2 4.8

Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

Guilford Co. Prison Farm 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mecklenburg Co. Jail North 0.6 0.6 0.0 1.3 1.4

New Hanover Det. Fac. 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.0

Robeson Co. Jail 2.4 1.3 1.2 3.3 2.6

Scotland Co. Jail 0.0 1.0 1.9 3.0 2.5

Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr. 2.9 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 88

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

North Dakota

Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 3.5% 0.0%

Ohio

Bedford Heights City Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.7 1.2

Delaware Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Franklin Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0

Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.8 0.0

Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac. 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3

Lorain Co. Jail 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0

Miami Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.4 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.0

Richland Co. Jail 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.7 0.7

Oklahoma

Dewey Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Kay Co. Jail 1.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.9

Nowata Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0

Oregon

Lane Co. Jail 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0%

Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.9

Washington Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac. 3.2 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.4

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 1.5% 1.0% 0.2% 1.0% 1.0%

Blair Co. Prison 0.0 3.5 0.0 1.7 0.0

Fayette Co. Prison 1.6 2.6 2.1 2.9 2.3

Indiana Co. Jail 1.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac. 1.5 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.0

Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac. 0.7 1.4 1.0 2.2 0.5

Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.8 0.0

Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.5 1.3 2.0 1.7

Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 3.5 1.9 2.3 3.4 3.4

Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.e 6.7 4.5 3.1 3.2 0.0

Schuykill Co. Prison 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.1

Westmoreland Co. Prison 0.7 1.8 1.0 2.2 0.0

York Co. Prison 2.4 2.2 0.0 1.8 0.0

South Carolina

Charleston Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4% 0.7% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4%

Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7

Lexington Co. Jail 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.0

Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.5

Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 2.4 3.2 3.0

York Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.8 2.1 0.0

South Dakota

Pennington Co. Jail 2.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.9% 0.0%

Tennessee

Lincoln Co. Jail 3.0% 3.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0%

Madison Co. Jail 1.0 0.5 1.7 3.0 1.0

McMinn Co. Jail 1.9 2.8 0.6 0.6 1.0

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7

Obion Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Robertson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.6

Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 1.1 1.1 2.8

Shelby Co. Jail 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.1 0.8

Sumner Co. Jail 3.4 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.0
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 89

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Tipton Co. Jail 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Van Buren Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 1.9 2.2 0.5 0.7 0.0

Texas

Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.8% 1.1% 1.8% 3.1% 1.2%

Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.3

Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0

Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac. 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.2

Denton Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.7 0.4 1.4 1.3

Eastland Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex 2.2 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.6

El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac. 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.3

Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.9 0.5 1.8 0.4

Gregg Co. Jail 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.8

Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail 5.0 2.6 0.4 1.1 0.2

Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0

Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jailf 0.6 0.6 0.3 1.4 1.4

Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

Hays Co. Jail 0.8 0.8 1.8 3.1 1.8

Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.4 0.7

Johnson Co. Jail 2.3 1.6 0.5 2.5 1.1

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.2

Taylor Co. Jail 1.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.7

Titus Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0

Travis Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Uvalde Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0

Victoria Co. Jail 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Washington Co. Jail 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Webb Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

Utah

Box Elder Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Davis Co. Jail 2.2 2.8 0.0 0.8 0.5

Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 1.2 1.6 0.7 1.8 0.5

Virginia

Alexandria Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Arlington Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0

Bristol City Jail 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

Hampton Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0

Henrico Co. Regional Jail West 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.5 0.6

Mecklenburg Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Newport News City Jail 0.4 0.6 1.9 2.5 1.5

Piedmont Regional Jail 0.0 1.4 0.5 0.9 0.5

Rappahannock Regional Jail 1.2 0.0 2.3 1.9 0.6

Richmond City Jail 1.7 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.0

Riverside Regional Jail 0.8 1.6 1.4 3.2 0.9

Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.7 0.7
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 90

Appendix table 7 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmatea Staff sexual misconducta

Facility name

Physically 

forcedb Pressuredc Physically forcedb Pressuredc Without force or pressured

Washington

Benton Co. Jail 0.1% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

Cowlitz Co. Jail 0.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0

King Co. Regional Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 0.8

Snohomish Co. Jail 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0

Sunnyside City Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Whatcom Co. Jail 2.7 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.3

Yakima City Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0

West Virginia

Eastern Regional Jail 4.7% 4.0% 0.9% 1.5% 0.4%

South Central Regional Jail 2.9 3.0 1.7 1.1 0.5

Western Regional Jail 4.4 3.6 0.9 1.6 0.4

Wisconsin

Brown Co. Jail 1.7% 0.5% 2.1% 2.1% 1.4%

Columbia Co. Jail 0.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 0.0

Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South 1.3 1.3 1.4 2.4 1.0

Oconto Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rock Co. Jail 1.3 2.1 0.8 1.3 0.7

Walworth Co. Jail 0.8 0.8 1.7 1.7 2.5

Washington Co. Jail 3.1 3.1 1.4 3.0 3.0

Wood Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wyoming

Lincoln Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bPhysical force or threat of physical force reported. 

cIncludes incidents in which the perpetrator, without using force, pressured the inmate or made the inmate feel that they had to participate. (See Methodology.)

dIncludes incidents in which the staff offered favors or privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact and incidents in which the inmate reported that they willingly had sex or sexual 

contact with staff. 

eFemale facility.

f

Facility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.

gPrivately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 91

Appendix table 8

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Total 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 1.9% 1.7% 2.2%

Alabama

Barbour Co. Jail 2.3% 0.7% 7.5% 0.0% 0.0% 7.6%

Dallas Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.1 0.9 0.3 2.7

Lee Co. W.S. Buck Jones Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.3 1.6 0.8 3.3

Marshall Co. Jail 1.7 0.7 3.8 3.4 1.9 6.0

Tuscaloosa Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.6 1.8 0.8 3.8

Arizona

Maricopa Co. Estrella Jaile 2.9% 1.4% 5.8% 0.8% 0.3% 2.6%

Maricopa Co. Fourth Avenue Jail 0.6 0.1 3.2 0.9 0.3 3.2

Maricopa Co. Towers Jail 2.0 0.8 4.9 3.4 1.6 7.1

Mariopa Co. Lower Buckeye Jail 0.9 0.3 2.9 3.4 1.8 6.6

Santa Cruz Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 0.0 6.9

Yuma Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.1 0.8 5.1

Arkansas

Crittenden Co. Jail 4.5% 2.6% 7.6% 1.9% 0.8% 4.4%

Mississippi Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.8 0.3 2.8

Pope Co. Det. Ctr. 4.1 1.4 11.7 1.8 0.4 7.7

Pulaski Co. Regional Det. Ctr. 5.0 2.4 10.5 1.0 0.3 3.2

Sebastian Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.4 2.8

California

Alameda Co. Santa Rita Jail 0.3% 0.0% 1.3% 2.7% 1.4% 5.2%

Contra Costa Co. Martinez Det. Fac. 0.6 0.1 2.8 6.4 3.7 11.0

Fresno Co. Downtown Det. Fac. - Main, North and South 2.7 1.3 5.7 0.8 0.2 2.7

Imperial Co. Jail 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.3 2.7

Kern Co. Lerdo Pre-Trial Fac. 1.0 0.2 4.9 2.8 1.2 6.3

Los Angeles Co. - Twin Towers Corr. Fac. 3.3 1.5 7.2 4.6 2.4 8.9

Los Angeles Co. Men’s Central Jail 1.3 0.5 3.8 5.6 3.1 9.7

Los Angeles Co. North County Corr. Fac. 0.8 0.2 2.9 1.9 0.7 5.5

Napa Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.8 2.0 7.3

Orange Co. Central Jail Complex 0.6 0.1 3.4 0.7 0.1 3.8

Orange Co. Theo Lacy Fac. 1.7 0.6 4.8 3.0 1.4 6.4

Riverside Co. Indio Jail 2.1 0.9 5.0 0.7 0.2 2.6

Riverside Co. Larry D. Smith Corr. Ctr. 2.3 1.1 5.0 2.7 1.2 6.0

Riverside Co. Southwest Det. Ctr.f 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.6 0.1 3.0

Sacramento Co. Rio Cosumnes Corr. Ctr. 1.8 0.8 3.9 3.1 1.6 5.8

San Diego Co. East Mesa Med. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.4 1.0 5.6

San Diego Co. George F. Bailey Det. Fac. 3.1 1.4 7.0 2.1 0.7 5.8

San Diego Co. Vista Det. Fac. 0.4 0.1 1.7 3.5 1.8 6.6

San Francisco Co. Jail Number 3 0.0 0.0 5.0 4.0 1.5 9.9

Santa Clara Co. Elmwood Fac. - Min. and Med. 1.3 0.5 3.6 1.1 0.3 3.7

Santa Clara Co. Main Jail 6.0 2.8 12.4 3.2 1.4 7.2

Santa Clara Co. Women’s Corr. Ctr.e 1.4 0.5 4.2 0.7 0.2 3.1

Solano Co. Justice Ctr. Det. Fac. 1.5 0.6 3.5 3.7 2.0 6.6

Tulare Co. Jail 0.8 0.1 3.8 0.3 0.1 1.4

Ventura Co. Jail 1.9 0.8 4.2 0.9 0.3 2.7

Yolo Co. Leinberger Ctr. 2.1 0.7 6.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Yuba Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 2.9 1.2 0.4 3.2
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 92

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Colorado

Chaffee Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 10.4% 0.0% 0.0% 10.4%

Denver Co. Jail 2.1 1.0 4.4 1.5 0.7 3.4

Denver Co. Van Cise-Simonet Det. Ctr. 1.3 0.4 4.4 0.8 0.1 3.8

Douglas Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.6 2.2 0.9 5.0

Fremont Co. Jail 2.3 1.1 4.7 0.8 0.2 2.5

Jefferson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.8

Park Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.4

Florida

Collier Co. Jail 2.0% 0.9% 4.2% 3.1% 1.2% 7.6%

Dixie Co. Jail 2.4 0.8 7.4 5.7 2.5 12.6

Escambia Co. Jail 1.4 0.6 3.4 1.1 0.3 3.6

Jacksonville City Montgomery Corr. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 3.1 1.6 0.7 3.6

Lake Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.7 2.5 0.6 9.4

Lee Co. Community Programs Unit 0.7 0.2 2.4 2.4 1.1 5.0

Leon Co. Det. Fac. 2.3 1.1 4.8 2.6 1.3 5.1

Manatee Co. Jail 2.0 0.8 4.6 3.2 1.7 5.9

Martin Co. Jail 1.3 0.4 3.8 1.9 0.7 4.6

Miami-Dade Co. Boot Camp 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 7.4

Miami-Dade Co. Metro West Det. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.6 2.1 1.0 4.4

Miami-Dade Co. Training and Treatment Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.3 3.2

Miami-Dade Co. Turner Guilford Knight Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.4 0.5 0.1 2.2

Okeechobee Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.9 0.0 0.0 3.7

Orange Co. 33rd Street Corr. Ctr. 0.5 0.1 2.6 3.0 1.4 6.3

Orange Co. Booking and Release Ctr. 1.0 0.2 3.9 1.9 0.7 5.4

Osceola Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.2 0.7 0.1 3.0

Palm Beach Co. Stockade 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.9 0.7 5.0

Pinellas Co. Central Division Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.9 6.4

Pinellas Co. South Division 0.8 0.2 3.9 2.4 1.0 5.8

Polk Co. - South Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.2 3.9 2.1 7.1

Sarasota North Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9

Suwanee Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 4.5

Taylor Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3

Georgia

Candler Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.0% 12.5%

Carroll Co. Prison 0.7 0.3 1.7 2.0 1.1 3.5

Clayton Co. Jail 2.1 1.0 4.4 2.5 1.2 5.1

Dekalb Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.4 2.4 1.1 4.8

Douglas Co. Jail 2.2 1.1 4.3 0.7 0.2 1.9

Floyd Co. Jail 2.1 1.0 4.2 1.5 0.7 3.2

Floyd Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.8 1.5 5.0

Fulton Co. Jail 2.9 1.2 6.5 2.0 0.7 5.6

Gwinnett Co. Det. Ctr. 0.8 0.2 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.5

Hall Co. Det. Ctr. 1.4 0.5 3.8 1.6 0.6 4.2

Houston Co. Jail 2.2 1.0 4.6 4.9 2.8 8.3

Irwin Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1 0.4 2.9

Murray County Jail 1.1 0.4 3.3 2.2 1.0 4.7

Newton Co. Jail 1.7 0.8 3.7 2.0 0.9 4.6

Screven Co. Jail 2.7 1.4 5.1 1.2 0.5 3.0

South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail 2.3 0.5 9.5 2.3 0.5 9.5

Spalding Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 3.3 4.0 1.9 8.0

Troup Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 2.9 1.1 0.4 2.9

Upson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.6 1.5 4.6

Ware Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.1 1.4 0.6 2.9

Wilkinson Co. Jail 6.5 1.9 20.0 0.0 0.0 16.8
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 93

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Idaho

Bannock Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 3.0% 1.3% 6.8%

Illinois

Champaign Co. Satellite Jailf 2.0% 0.5% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%

Cook Co. - Division 1 1.1 0.4 2.7 3.3 1.9 5.6

Cook Co. - Division 11 3.3 1.9 5.8 4.4 2.7 7.1

Cook Co. - Division 2 0.6 0.1 3.0 5.1 3.0 8.6

Cook Co. - Division 5 1.2 0.5 3.1 2.3 1.1 4.7

Cook Co. - Division 6 0.4 0.1 1.6 1.9 0.9 3.7

Kane Co. Adult Justice Ctr. 0.8 0.3 2.6 2.1 0.8 5.1

Kankakee Co. Jerome Combs Det. Ctr. 1.7 0.7 3.9 1.7 0.8 3.4

Kendall Co. Jail 3.4 1.7 6.8 1.7 0.5 5.1

McHenry Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 2.6 0.5 0.1 2.2

Sangamon Co. Jail 1.6 0.8 3.0 2.3 1.3 4.1

Indiana

Bartholomew Co. Jail 0.5% 0.2% 1.3% 2.6% 1.5% 4.7%

Clinton Co. Jail 1.6 0.5 4.4 0.8 0.3 2.4

Dearborn Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.8 0.8 4.3

Delaware Co. Justice Ctr. 1.6 0.6 4.4 0.2 0.1 0.9

Elkhart Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.5 3.2 2.4 1.3 4.4

Hamilton Co. Jail 0.5 0.2 1.9 0.9 0.3 3.3

Jackson Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.4 0.0 0.0 4.1

Marion Co. Jail IIg 1.2 0.4 3.3 2.2 0.6 7.3

Marion Co. Jail Intake Fac. 2.7 0.7 10.7 4.9 1.9 12.2

Noble Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.9 0.3 2.3

Ripley Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 7.0 7.9 5.1 11.9

Tippecanoe Co. Jail 2.5 1.1 5.7 0.0 0.0 3.2

Iowa

Des Moines Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% 2.1% 0.6% 7.1%

Scott Co. Jail and Annex 2.4 1.1 5.1 0.8 0.2 2.8

Kansas

Finney Co. Jail 3.0% 1.6% 5.6% 1.0% 0.3% 2.9%

Wilson Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 9.6 5.6 1.7 16.5

Kentucky

Big Sandy Regional Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 2.6% 1.3% 0.6% 3.2%

Boyle Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 0.6 5.7

Daviess Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.3 2.1 2.9 1.5 5.4

Grayson Co. Det. Ctr. 0.8 0.3 2.2 1.4 0.6 3.1

Kenton Co. Det. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.2 2.5

Lexington-Fayette Co. Jail Det. Division 0.6 0.2 2.0 3.6 1.8 7.3

Madison Co. Det. Ctr. 2.1 1.1 4.2 1.7 0.8 3.4

McCracken Co. Jail 1.1 0.4 2.8 2.0 1.0 3.9

Meade Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.4 1.3 0.5 3.6

Pulaski Co. Det. Ctr. 0.9 0.2 3.1 0.8 0.2 2.9

Woodford Co. Det. Ctr. 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 10.2

Louisiana

Assumption Parish Det. Ctr. 1.5% 0.6% 3.9% 3.1% 1.6% 6.0%

Bossier Parish Max. Security Fac. 0.9 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.0 2.2

Bossier Parish Med. Security Fac. 0.4 0.1 1.5 2.0 1.0 4.0

Caddo Parish Corr. Ctr. 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.6 0.7 3.7

East Baton Rouge Parish Prison 1.4 0.5 3.8 0.9 0.3 3.2

Iberia Parish Jail 1.4 0.6 3.2 2.5 1.3 4.9

Lafayette Parish Jail 0.5 0.1 2.2 2.8 1.4 5.4
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 94

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Livingston Parish Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.4% 0.6% 3.2%

Rapides Parish Det. Ctr. III 1.4 0.7 3.0 0.5 0.1 1.6

St. Landry Parish Jail 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.7 0.2 2.5

St. Martin Parish Corr. Ctr. 1 2.6 1.0 6.4 1.3 0.4 4.6

Webster Parish Bayou Dorcheat Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.6 2.6 2.1 1.0 4.5

Maine

Penobscot Co. Jail 1.8% 0.4% 6.7% 2.6% 0.7% 9.6%

Maryland

Allegany Co. Det. Ctr. 2.3% 0.5% 9.6% 0.0% 0.0% 7.7%

Anne Arundel Co. Jennifer Road Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.9 0.2 4.4

Baltimore City Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 3.3 5.5 3.4 8.8

Montgomery Co. Corr. Fac. 1.6 0.6 3.9 1.1 0.4 3.5

Wicomico Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.5

Massachusetts

Hampden Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.9% 0.7% 5.0%

Middlesex Co. Jail and House of Corr. 0.7 0.2 3.5 1.4 0.6 3.2

Plymouth Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.0 0.8 4.7

Suffolk Co. House of Corr. 1.5 0.6 3.5 4.7 2.6 8.3

Suffolk Co. Nashua Street Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 0.7 4.9

Worcester Co. Jail and House of Corr. 0.7 0.2 2.2 3.7 2.1 6.5

Michigan

Berrien Co. Jail 0.8% 0.3% 1.9% 3.5% 2.2% 5.6%

Calhoun Co. Jail 0.3 0.1 1.2 4.8 2.4 9.4

Huron Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 12.1 0.0 0.0 12.1

Kalamazoo Co. Jail 1.6 0.8 3.2 4.1 2.4 7.0

Macomb Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.9 0.8 4.5

Oakland Co. East Annex 1.2 0.5 3.2 1.3 0.5 3.5

Oakland Co. Law Enforcement Complex 3.7 1.8 7.5 3.6 1.5 8.5

Ottawa Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.6 0.2 2.5

Wayne Co. Andrew C. Baird Det. Fac. 2.8 1.2 6.4 1.3 0.4 4.6

Wayne Co. William Dickerson Det. - Division III 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.4 0.1 2.1

Minnesota

Anoka Co. Jail 0.9% 0.3% 3.3% 1.1% 0.4% 2.8%

Hennepin Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.7 0.9 0.3 2.8

Mille Lacs Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 9.9 1.8 0.6 5.5

Ramsey Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.9 0.3 2.2

Mississippi

Covington Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 25.9% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9%

Harrison Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.5 4.1 2.2 7.6

Hinds Co. Jackson Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.8 4.0 1.1 0.4 3.1

Hinds Co. Raymond Det. Ctr. 1.6 0.7 3.9 3.5 1.8 6.6

Holmes-Humphreys Co. Regional Corr. Fac. 1.7 0.6 4.6 0.8 0.2 3.0

Madison Co. Jail 1.8 0.8 3.9 1.4 0.5 3.6

Marshall Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.0 7.6

Pike Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 4.1

Missouri

Boone Co. Jail 1.7% 0.6% 4.6% 2.3% 0.6% 8.8%

LaClede Co. Jail 3.1 1.8 5.3 4.5 2.7 7.3

St. Charles Co. Jail 2.4 1.0 5.6 3.6 1.8 7.0

St. Louis Co. Jail 1.8 0.7 4.8 1.7 0.6 4.4

St. Louis Med. Security Inst. 3.5 1.7 6.8 3.2 1.7 5.9

Washington Co. Jail 3.3 0.9 11.3 0.0 0.0 16.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 95

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Montana

Cascade Co. Regional Jail 1.7% 0.7% 3.7% 3.6% 2.0% 6.3%

Hill Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 12.5

Missoula Co. Jail 1.2 0.4 3.0 1.4 0.5 3.5

Nebraska

Douglas Co. Dept. of Corr. 1.4% 0.4% 4.9% 2.6% 1.1% 6.4%

Saline Co. Jail 2.3 0.9 6.2 1.6 0.6 4.5

Nevada

Clark Co. Det. Ctr. 0.6% 0.2% 1.9% 0.4% 0.1% 2.2%

Nye Co. Jail - Pahrump 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 0.0 21.5

Washoe Co. Det. Ctr. 2.8 1.3 5.9 0.4 0.1 2.1

New Hampshire

Coos Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 16.8% 4.4% 1.2% 14.3%

Hillsborough Co. House of Corr. 2.9 1.2 6.8 3.1 1.4 6.7

New Jersey

Bergen Co. Jail 0.8% 0.3% 2.3% 1.9% 0.9% 3.7%

Burlington Co. Min. Security Jail/Corr. and Work Release Ctr. 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 0.0 5.9

Essex Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 2.4 1.7 0.7 4.2

Hudson Co. Corr. Fac. 1.3 0.5 3.1 0.7 0.2 2.4

Mercer Co. Corr. Ctr. 2.8 1.2 6.5 4.4 2.3 8.4

Middlesex Co. Adult Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.4 1.0 0.4 2.5

Ocean Co. Justice Complex 2.0 0.8 5.1 0.0 0.0 2.5

Passaic Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.1 1.9 0.9 4.2

Salem Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8 0.6 4.9 0.7 0.2 2.8

New Mexico

Dona Ana Co. Det. Ctr. 2.3% 1.2% 4.4% 2.5% 1.2% 5.3%

San Juan Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 1.7 0.5 5.3 1.4 0.4 4.1

Santa Fe Co. Adult Det. Fac.g 3.5 1.6 7.5 0.0 0.0 2.7

New York

Albany Co. Corr. Fac. 1.8% 0.8% 4.1% 2.4% 1.1% 4.9%

Allegany Co. Jail 1.5 0.4 5.3 3.0 1.2 7.5

Broome Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.7 4.3 2.1 8.8

Dutchess Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.4 0.5 3.8

Erie Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.1 4.3 2.3 7.7

Erie Co. Holding Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.3 4.5 0.9 19.6

Jefferson Co. Jail 1.6 0.4 6.0 3.6 1.6 8.2

New York City Anna M. Kross Ctr. 1.9 0.7 5.4 3.7 1.8 7.4

New York City George Motchan Det. Ctr. 1.8 0.7 4.1 3.6 1.9 6.6

New York City Otis Bantum Corr. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.2 6.2 3.3 11.1

New York City Robert N Davoren Complex 0.4 0.1 1.9 3.0 1.6 5.8

New York City Rose M. Singer Ctr.e 2.4 1.1 5.1 6.2 3.9 9.7

Niagara Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.8 0.7 4.1

Oneida Co. Corr. Fac. 0.9 0.2 3.8 2.1 0.9 5.1

Orange Co. Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 2.3 1.4 0.6 3.4

Putnam Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.4 1.1 0.3 3.7

Rockland Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.6 0.2 1.8 3.5 1.7 7.4

Schenectady Co. Jail 1.9 0.9 4.1 2.9 1.7 5.0

Seneca Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 1.6 0.6 4.0 3.3 1.6 6.6

Ulster Co. Law Enforcement Ctr. 0.9 0.3 2.2 6.1 3.6 10.1

Washington Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 5.8

Westchester Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.8 2.1 0.8 5.5

Westchester Co. Penitentiary - Dept. of Corr. 0.4 0.1 1.9 1.7 0.8 3.8
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 96

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

North Carolina

Buncombe Co. Det. Fac. 0.7% 0.2% 2.5% 1.3% 0.5% 3.4%

Cherokee Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 7.9 2.5 0.8 7.8

Durham Co. Jail 0.7 0.2 2.7 1.6 0.7 3.7

Edgecombe Co. Det. Ctr. 3.1 1.8 5.4 3.2 1.7 5.9

Forsyth Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.8 5.1

Granville Co. Det. Ctr. 5.3 1.5 16.5 1.2 0.3 4.4

Guilford Co. High Point Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.1 0.4 2.7

Guilford Co. Prison Farm 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0 0.0 9.6

Mecklenburg Co. Jail North 0.0 0.0 3.1 2.0 0.8 4.9

New Hanover Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.9 0.8 4.3

Robeson Co. Jail 2.4 1.1 5.1 5.1 3.0 8.6

Scotland Co. Jail 4.0 2.0 7.7 1.4 0.5 3.6

Wake Co. John H. Baker, Jr. Public Safety Ctr. 2.3 0.7 7.3 1.8 0.8 4.3

North Dakota

Burleigh Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 3.5% 1.9% 6.5%

Ohio

Bedford Heights City Jail 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9%

Cuyahoga Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.7 0.3 2.0 1.6 0.7 3.6

Delaware Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 3.4

Franklin Co. Jail 2.6 1.2 5.8 1.5 0.5 4.6

Hamilton Co. Justice Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.8 4.3

Hamilton Co. Reading Road Fac. 0.9 0.4 2.1 1.6 0.7 3.3

Lorain Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 2.1 1.6 0.7 3.6

Miami Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 5.3

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.9 0.3 2.7 0.4 0.1 2.0

Richland Co. Jail 1.4 0.7 2.9 1.4 0.7 2.9

Oklahoma

Dewey Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 22.8% 0.0% 0.0% 22.8%

Kay Co. Jail 0.8 0.3 2.4 1.8 0.8 3.8

Nowata Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 13.8 2.4 0.7 8.3

Oregon

Lane Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.8% 0.3% 2.1%

Marion Co. Corr. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 0.9 3.8

Washington Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.5 0.1 2.4

Yamhill Co. Corr. Fac. 2.8 1.4 5.8 1.8 0.9 3.5

Pennsylvania

Allegheny Co. Jail 0.5% 0.1% 1.7% 2.5% 1.2% 5.1%

Blair Co. Prison 3.5 1.2 10.1 1.7 0.6 4.9

Fayette Co. Prison 1.0 0.2 4.1 3.9 1.9 7.7

Indiana Co. Jail 1.7 0.6 4.8 2.1 0.5 8.2

Luzerne Co. Corr. Fac. 2.4 1.2 4.9 0.6 0.1 2.7

Montgomery Co. Prison Corr. Fac. 1.9 0.8 4.1 1.8 0.8 4.3

Philadelphia City Alternative and Special Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.8 0.3 2.5

Philadelphia City Curran/Fromhold Corr. Fac. 1.5 0.5 4.3 3.0 1.5 5.9

Philadelphia City Industrial Corr. Ctr. 2.7 1.2 5.6 6.8 4.3 10.6

Philadelphia City Riverside Corr. Fac.e 4.1 2.3 7.3 4.5 2.5 8.1

Schuykill Co. Prison 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7 1.4 5.0

Westmoreland Co. Prison 2.1 0.8 5.2 1.2 0.3 4.4

York Co. Prison 1.5 0.6 4.2 3.8 2.0 7.1
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 97

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

South Carolina

Charleston Co. Det. Ctr. 0.3% 0.1% 1.3% 1.7% 0.7% 4.0%

Florence Co. Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.2 0.5 3.1

Lexington Co. Jail 1.1 0.3 3.2 0.6 0.1 2.5

Spartanburg Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.1 0.4 3.5

Sumter-Lee Regional Det. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.7 4.1 2.2 7.3

York Co. Det. Ctr. 0.7 0.2 2.7 1.4 0.4 4.6

South Dakota

Pennington Co. Jail 1.6% 0.6% 4.2% 0.9% 0.3% 2.4%

Tennessee

Lincoln Co. Jail 3.0% 1.4% 6.1% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7%

Madison Co. Jail 0.4 0.1 1.4 4.9 2.4 9.7

McMinn Co. Jail 1.0 0.5 2.0 2.4 1.4 4.1

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.7 0.2 3.3

Obion Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.8

Robertson Co. Det. Ctr. 1.1 0.4 2.9 1.7 0.8 3.9

Shelby Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.3 0.1 1.6 3.1 1.7 5.5

Shelby Co. Jail 0.2 0.0 0.9 1.6 0.7 3.5

Sumner Co. Jail 3.1 1.7 5.7 2.9 1.5 5.6

Tipton Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.9 1.5 0.5 5.0

Van Buren Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.0 0.0 20.4

Washington Co. Det. Ctr. 1.5 0.7 3.4 1.4 0.6 2.9

Texas

Bexar Co. Adult Det. Ctr. 4.6% 2.3% 9.0% 0.4% 0.1% 2.4%

Bowie Co. Corr. Ctr. 1.2 0.4 3.6 1.3 0.4 3.8

Brazoria Co. Jail and Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.9 0.3 2.6

Brown Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 4.7

Cameron Co. Carrizales-Rucker Det. Ctr. 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.3 0.1 1.6

Dallas Co. Kays Det. Fac. 0.7 0.2 2.6 1.3 0.5 3.7

Denton Co. Det. Ctr. 1.3 0.5 3.3 1.1 0.4 2.9

Eastland Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 9.9

El Paso Co. Det. Fac. Annex 1.4 0.5 3.9 1.5 0.5 4.0

El Paso Co. Downtown Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.2 3.0 1.2 7.6

Ellis Co. Wayne McCollum Det. Ctr. 1.3 0.6 2.9 2.3 1.2 4.3

Gregg Co. Jail 1.0 0.4 2.4 0.5 0.1 2.0

Harris Co. Jail - 1200 Baker Street Jail 5.1 2.6 9.8 2.5 1.2 5.2

Harris Co. Jail - 1307 Baker Street Jail 0.4 0.1 1.7 1.0 0.4 2.5

Harris Co. Jail - 701 North San Jacinto Street Jailf 0.3 0.1 1.5 2.9 1.5 5.6

Harris Co. Jail - 711 North San Jacinto Jail 1.5 0.4 4.9 0.0 0.0 5.7

Hays Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 3.3 3.1 1.1 8.7

Jefferson Co. Corr. Fac. 0.3 0.1 1.6 1.8 0.8 3.7

Johnson Co. Jail 2.4 1.2 4.5 2.8 1.6 5.0

Tarrant Co. Corr. Ctr. 0.9 0.3 3.1 1.9 0.7 5.2

Taylor Co. Jail 0.6 0.1 2.7 2.4 1.1 5.1

Titus Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.7

Travis Co. Corr. Fac. 2.7 0.9 7.6 0.0 0.0 3.5

Travis Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 13.3

Uvalde Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 18.4 3.6 0.9 14.1

Victoria Co. Jail 1.6 0.4 6.6 0.0 0.0 8.6

Washington Co. Jail 1.3 0.5 3.2 1.4 0.5 3.5

Webb Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.6 0.1 2.7
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 98

Appendix table 8 (continued) 

Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Nonconsensual sexual actsa Abusive sexual contacts onlyb

95%-confidence intervalc 95%-confidence intervalc

Facility name

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Percent 

victimizedd

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Utah

Box Elder Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 8.8% 0.0% 0.0% 8.8%

Davis Co. Jail 3.2 1.5 6.7 1.6 0.7 3.6

Weber Co. Corr. Fac. 1.2 0.5 3.1 2.5 1.1 5.5

Virginia

Alexandria Det. Ctr. 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 0.6% 0.1% 2.6%

Arlington Co. Det. Fac. 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.8 0.2 3.2

Bristol City Jail 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.8 0.3 2.3

Hampton Corr. Fac. 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.5 0.1 1.8

Henrico Co. Regional Jail West 1.8 0.8 3.9 0.9 0.3 2.8

Mecklenburg Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 5.4

Montgomery Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 6.0

Newport News City Jail 2.0 0.9 4.2 1.5 0.6 3.4

Piedmont Regional Jail 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.3 1.1 4.7

Rappahannock Regional Jail 2.4 1.2 4.8 2.1 1.0 4.2

Richmond City Jail 0.9 0.3 2.8 2.6 1.3 5.2

Riverside Regional Jail 1.8 0.8 4.3 3.1 1.7 5.6

Virginia Beach Municipal Corr. Ctr. 1.0 0.4 2.6 1.4 0.6 3.3

Washington

Benton Co. Jail 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 2.3% 0.8% 6.0%

Cowlitz Co. Jail 1.1 0.5 2.8 0.6 0.2 2.0

King Co. Regional Justice Ctr. 0.6 0.1 2.7 0.8 0.2 2.4

Snohomish Co. Jail 1.0 0.3 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.6

Sunnyside City Jail 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 18.4

Whatcom Co. Jail 0.5 0.1 1.8 2.5 1.2 5.1

Yakima City Jail 0.0 0.0 9.0 1.8 0.5 5.9

West Virginia

Eastern Regional Jail 3.3% 1.4% 7.5% 3.2% 1.6% 6.6%

South Central Regional Jail 1.8 0.6 4.8 4.2 1.8 9.2

Western Regional Jail 2.9 1.6 5.3 1.9 0.9 4.2

Wisconsin

Brown Co. Jail 1.2% 0.4% 3.9% 2.9% 1.4% 6.1%

Columbia Co. Jail 2.1 0.6 7.5 2.1 0.6 7.5

Milwaukee Co. Corr. Fac. South 1.0 0.3 3.2 3.2 1.6 6.3

Oconto Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 18.4

Rock Co. Jail 0.8 0.2 3.0 2.5 1.2 5.3

Walworth Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.5 1.3 5.0

Washington Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 5.4 4.5 2.4 8.6

Wood Co. Jail 0.0 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0 12.9

Wyoming

Lincoln Co. Jail 0.0% 0.0% 25.9% 0.0% 0.0% 25.9% aIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, and other sexual acts 

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

bIncludes all inmates who reported unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or vagina in a 

sexual way occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter.

cIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

dWeights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, sentence length, and 

time served. (See Methodology.) 

eFemale facility.

f

Facility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.

gPrivately operated facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 99

Appendix table 9

Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 

2011–12

Inmates reporting sexual 

victimizationa

95%-confidence intervalb

Special correctional facilities

Number of inmates 

in custodyc Respondents to sexual victimization surveyd Response ratee Percentf

Lower 

bound

Upper 

bound

Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities 

El Centro SPC (CA) 386 115 47.8% 0.8% 0.2% 3.4%

Jena/LaSalle Det. Fac. (LA)g 767 97 39.6 1.1 0.2 5.4

Krome North SPC (FL) 584 60 22.9 3.8 1.2 11.9

Otero Co. Processing Ctr. (NM) 618 140 59.0 1.7 0.6 4.4

Port Isabel Processing Ctr. (TX) 1173 161 39.3 2.3 1.0 5.6

Military facilities 

Midwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac., Fort Leavenworth (KS) 188 82 56.2% 3.9% 1.9% 7.9%

Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston (SC) 138 94 80.7 4.4 2.6 7.4

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar (CA)h 312 121 64.1 6.6 3.8 11.2

Northwest Joint Regional Corr. Fac. (WA) 140 85 71.0 6.6 2.9 14.1

United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth (KS) 464 157 69.5 2.6 1.2 5.6

Indian country jails

Hualapai Adult Det. Ctr. (AZ)g 15 7 60.0% : : :

Laguna Det. Ctr. (NM)g 38 26 73.7 0.0% 0.0% 12.9%

Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Fac. (SD)g 115 56 51.8 10.8 6.2 17.9

San Carlos Dept. of Corr. and Rehabilitation - Adult and 

 Juvenile Det. (AZ)g 133 79 83.8 1.6 0.6 4.2

Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Det. Ctr. (ND)g 35 7 72.7 : : :

: Not calculated.

aIncludes all types of sexual victimization, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, hand jobs, touching of the inmate’s butt, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way, and other 

sexual acts occurring in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if shorter. 

bIndicates that different samples in the same facility would yield prevalence rates falling between the lower and upper bound estimates 95 out of 100 times. 

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

dNumber of respondents completing to the sexual victimization survey. (See Methodology.) 

eResponse rate is equal to the number of respondents divided by the number of eligible inmates sampled times 100 percent.

f

Weights were applied so that inmates who responded accurately reflected the entire population of each facility on select characteristics, including age, sex, race, time served, and 

sentence length. (See Methodology.) 

gFacility housed both males and females; both were sampled at this facility.

hFacility housed both males and females; only males were sampled at this facility.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 10

Standard errors for table 2: Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National Inmate 

Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12

Percent of prison inmates Percent of jail inmates

NIS-1 

2007

NIS-2 

2008–09

NIS-3 

2011–12

NIS-1 

2007

NIS-2 

2008–09

NIS-3 

Type of incident 2011–12 c

Total 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Inmate-on-inmate 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Abusive sexual contacts only 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Staff sexual misconduct 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Unwilling activity 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Excluding touching 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Touching only 0.1 0.1 0.1 -- -- --

Willing activity 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Excluding touching 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Touching only -- -- -- -- -- --

--Less than 0.05%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 100

Appendix table 11

Standard errors for table 7: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization

Characteristic

Number of 

inmates Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

inmates Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Sex

Male 85,500 0.1% 0.2% 31,500 0.1% 0.1%

Female 8,900 0.7 0.3 6,800 0.3 0.2

Race/Hispanic origin

White 29,400 0.3% 0.2% 11,700 0.2% 0.1%

Black 38,500 0.1 0.2 16,400 0.1 0.2

Hispanic 30,900 0.2 0.4 13,500 0.3 0.1

Other 3,500 0.4 0.7 1,800 0.3 0.4

Two or more races 8,500 0.5 0.6 2,800 0.4 0.4

Age

18–19 2,300 0.7% 0.6% 1,900 0.3% 0.4%

20–24 12,100 0.3 0.4 7,300 0.2 0.2

25–34 26,800 0.2 0.3 11,900 0.2 0.2

35–44 27,900 0.2 0.4 7,800 0.2 0.1

45–54 18,900 0.3 0.2 6,500 0.2 0.1

55 or older 9,900 0.2 0.2 2,000 0.4 0.1

Education

Less than high school 48,900 0.2% 0.2% 17,900 0.2% 0.1%

High school graduate 19,700 0.3 0.4 8,600 0.1 0.2

Some college 15,900 0.3 0.2 7,100 0.2 0.2

College degree or more 6,000 0.4 0.4 3,200 0.4 0.4

Marital status

Married 16,100 0.2% 0.3% 7,900 0.1% 0.2%

Widowed, divorced, or separated 23,700 0.2 0.2 8,600 0.3 0.2

Never married 47,400 0.2 0.2 19,500 0.2 0.1

Body Mass Index

Underweight 1,200 1.1% 1.3% 600 0.9% 0.5%

Normal 21,600 0.2 0.2 12,400 0.1 0.1

Overweight 37,500 0.1 0.2 14,300 0.1 0.1

Obese 22,700 0.2 0.2 6,900 0.3 0.2

Morbidly Obese 2,700 0.6 0.9 900 0.6 0.7

--Less than 0.05%. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 101

Appendix table 12

Standard errors for table 8: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics, 

National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization

Sexual characteristic

Number of 

inmates Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Number of 

inmates Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 78,900 0.1% 0.2% 31,700 0.1% 0.1%

Non-heterosexual 7,400 0.8 0.7 3,300 0.9 0.5

Number of sexual partners

0–1 17,000 0.2% 0.2% 6,300 0.3% 0.2%

2–4 9,700 0.3 0.3 5,400 0.2 0.2

5–10 15,300 0.2 0.2 5,800 0.2 0.1

11–20 12,500 0.3 0.4 6,000 0.3 0.2

21 or more 29,600 0.2 0.3 12,100 0.2 0.2

Prior sexual victimization

Yes 12,900 0.7% 0.5% 5,700 0.8% 0.4%

No 75,600 0.1 0.2 30,300 -- 0.1

--Less than 0.05%. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 13

Standard errors for table 9: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and 

history, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting 

sexual victimization

Jail inmates reporting 

sexual victimization

Criminal justice status and history 

Number of prison 

inmates Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Number of jail 

inmates Inmate-on-inmate

Staff sexual 

misconduct

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense 25,500 0.4% 0.3% 1,900 0.6% 0.4%

Other violent 34,200 0.2 0.2 7,500 0.3 0.3

Property 16,000 0.3 0.3 8,300 0.2 0.2

Drug 22,000 0.1 0.2 7,400 0.1 0.1

Other 11,600 0.4 0.5 10,500 0.1 0.2

Sentence length

Less than 1 year 6,100 0.4% 0.4% : : :

1–4 years 23,400 0.2 0.1 : : :

5–9 years 16,500 0.2 0.3 : : :

10–19 years 23,700 0.2 0.2 : : :

20 years or more 30,000 0.4 0.4 : : :

Life/death 14,300 0.4 0.4 : : :

Time in a correctional facility prior to current facility

Less than 1 month 17,300 0.2% 0.2% 10,500 0.2% 0.1%

1–5 months 9,700 0.3 0.4 6,300 0.2 0.1

6–11 months 6,900 0.2 0.3 3,400 0.2 0.3

1–4 years 22,700 0.2 0.2 7,800 0.1 0.2

5 years or more 30,100 0.2 0.2 8,300 0.3 0.3

Number of times arrested

1 time 13,800 0.3% 0.2% 4,700 0.4% 0.2%

2–3 times 28,500 0.2 0.2 9,800 0.2 0.2

4–10 times 34,700 0.2 0.2 13,600 0.1 0.1

11 or more times 13,400 0.2 0.3 8,300 0.2 0.2

Time since admission

Less than 1 month 6,500 0.4% 0.2% 12,300 0.1% 0.1%

1–5 months 22,100 0.2 0.2 16,100 0.1 0.1

6–11 months 21,100 0.2 0.3 5,300 0.5 0.3

1–4 years 35,300 0.2 0.2 4,800 0.3 0.4

5 years or more 24,400 0.5 0.4 200 1.3 1.6

: Not calculated.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 102

Appendix table 14

Standard errors for table 10: Juvenile inmates reporting 

sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Standard errors

Type of incident All facilities Prisons Jails

Total 0.7% 1.2% 0.9%

Inmate-on-inmate 0.5% 0.8% 0.6%

Nonconsensual sexual acts 0.2 0.8 0.1

Abusive sexual contacts only 0.4 0.2 0.5

Staff sexual misconduct 0.6% 1.0% 0.7%

Unwilling activity 0.4 0.3 0.5

Excluding touching 0.4 0.3 0.5

Touching only 0.1 0.0 0.2

Willing activity 0.5 1.0 0.6

Excluding touching 0.5 1.0 0.6

Touching only 0.0 0.0 0.0

Number of inmates : : :

: Not calculated.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 15

Standard errors for table 11: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate 

Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates Jail inmates

Age Number Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct Number Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

16–17 360 0.8% 1.0% 950 0.6% 0.7%

18–19 2,280 0.7 0.6 6,080 0.3 0.4

20–24 12,070 0.3 0.4 22,240 0.2 0.2

25–34 26,820 0.2 0.3 38,050 0.2 0.2

35–44 27,890 0.2 0.4 23,090 0.2 0.1

45–54 18,890 0.3 0.2 16,170 0.2 0.1

55 or older 9,910 0.2 0.2 4,750 0.4 0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 103

Appendix table 17

Standard errors for table 13: Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 

20–24, by type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Victims in prisons and jails

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24 Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24

Number of victims 40 190 710 50 220 1,110

Number of incidents

1 17.6% 9.4% 5.4% 8.0% 4.4% 5.4%

2 or more 17.6 9.4 5.4 8.0 4.4 5.4

Type of coercion or force

Without pressure or force ~ ~ ~ 7.7% 5.9% 3.9%

Pressured 11.7% 7.8% 3.0% 9.8 6.4 4.9

Force/threat of force 9.4 9.1 3.7 9.9 5.5 4.0

Ever injured 12.8 % 7.4% 2.2% 4.2% 3.8% 3.5%

Ever report an incident 6.8% 6.9% 2.5% 3.4% 3.6% 3.5%

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 16

Standard errors for table 12: Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 

20–24, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison and jail inmates reporting sexual victimization

Number of inmates Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Characteristic Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24 Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24 Ages 16–17 18–19 20–24

All inmates 790 5,020 25,500 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2%

Sex

Male 740 4,750 23,760 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

Female 110 510 2,790 1.7 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4

Race/Hispanic origin

White 150 1,210 6,410 3.2% 1.1% 0.4% 1.8% 0.7% 0.3%

Black 450 2,410 10,650 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.3

Hispanic 350 1,560 8,030 0.4 0.5 0.3 1.5 0.6 0.7

Other 20 230 1,120 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 1.3 1.9

Two or more races 110 610 2,650 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1 0.8

Body Mass Index

Underweight 80 190 470 5.7% 1.7% 1.1% 5.7% 1.0% 1.9%

Normal 470 3,070 11,840 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.2

Overweight 180 1,570 9,500 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5

Obese 100 480 3,360 3.8 0.9 0.6 2.8 0.5 0.7

Morbidly obese 30 80 480 0.0 3.4 1.8 0.0 4.3 1.9

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 740 4,680 23,100 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2%

Non-heterosexual 50 410 2,300 3.1 4.1 1.4 0.8 1.5 2.0

Most serious offense

Violent sexual 30 320 2,480 4.3% 5.0% 1.4% 4.7% 1.5% 0.6%

Other violent 360 1,790 8,710 0.5 0.4 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.5

Property 280 1,870 6,100 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3

Drug 110 770 4,830 4.2 0.6 0.3 2.9 0.6 0.3

Other 120 820 4,410 2.2 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.4

 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 104

Appendix table 18

Standard errors for table 14: Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status and history of mental health 

problems among inmates, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Adult prison inmates Adult jail inmates

Number Percent

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct Number Percent

Inmate-oninmateStaff sexual 

misconduct

Current mental health status

No mental illness 57,200 0.8% 0.1% 0.1% 17,000 0.6% 0.1% 0.1%

Anxiety-mood disorder 13,600 0.4 0.3 0.4 7,700 0.3 0.2 0.1

Serious psychological distress 12,400 0.5 0.6 0.4 10,400 0.5 0.3 0.2

History of mental health problems

Ever told by mental health 

 professional had disorder

Yes 27,600 1.2% 0.3% 0.2% 16,300 0.8% 0.3% 0.2%

No 57,900 1.2 0.1 0.1 19,100 0.8 0.1 0.1

Had overnight stay in hospital in 

 year before current admission

Yes 8,000 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 5,900 0.4% 0.5% 0.3%

No 74,100 0.4 0.1 0.1 28,700 0.4 0.1 0.1

Used prescription medications at 

 time of current offense

Yes 11,600 0.8% 0.4% 0.3% 8,600 0.6% 0.3% 0.2%

No 72,900 0.8 0.1 0.1 26,200 0.6 0.1 0.1

Ever received professional mental 

 health therapy

Yes 27,600 1.0% 0.3% 0.3% 14,100 0.6% 0.3% 0.2%

No 55,900 1.0 0.1 0.1 20,800 0.6 0.1 0.1

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 19

Standard errors for table 15: Prevalence of serious 

psychological distress among adults in prisons, jails, and 

the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 2011–12

Percent with serious psychological distress

U.S. noninstitutional 

adult population

Inmates age 

18 or older

Demographic characteristic Prison Jail

Total 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

Sex

Male 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%

Female 0.2 1.1 0.9

Race/Hispanic origin

White 0.2% 0.6% 0.7%

Black 0.3 0.6 0.8

Hispanic 0.4 0.8 0.8

Age

18–44 0.2% 0.6% 0.5%

45–64 0.3 0.8 0.8

65 or older 0.3 1.4 3.5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12; and Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, National Health Interview Survey, 2012.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 105

Appendix table 20

Standard errors for table 16: Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate victimization, by current mental health status and inmate 

characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization

Characteristic No mental illness

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress No mental illness

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

Sex

Male 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4%

Female 0.4 1.1 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.7

Race/Hispanic origin

White 0.2% 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4%

Black 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4

Hispanic 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.7

Age

18–24 0.1% 0.8% 1.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4%

25–34 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.4

35–44 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.7

45 or older 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.8

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual -- 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Non-heterosexual 0.8% 1.5 2.2 0.8 0.8 2.0

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense 0.3% 0.7% 1.4% 0.6% 1.5% 1.2%

Other violent 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.5 0.5

Property 0.1 0.6 1.1 0.1 0.3 0.6

Drug 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.4

Other 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.4

--Less than 0.05%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 21

Standard errors for table 17: Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate 

characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Prison inmates reporting sexual victimization Jail inmates reporting sexual victimization

Characteristic No mental illness

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress No mental illness

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

Sex

Male 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

Female 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.3

Race/Hispanic origin

White 0.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

Black 0.2 1.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.5

Hispanic 0.2 0.4 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.5

Age

18–24 0.3% 0.7% 1.5% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5%

25–34 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.4

35–44 0.2 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.4

45 or older 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.3

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 0.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2%

Non-heterosexual 0.6 0.9 2.0 0.7 0.6 0.8

Most serious offense

Violent sexual offense 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% 0.4% 1.1%

Other violent 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.6

Property 0.2 0.6 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.4

Drug 0.1 1.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4

Other 0.3 0.5 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.5

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 106

Appendix table 22

Standard errors for table 18: Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health status 

and type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Victims in prisons and jails

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance

No mental 

illness

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

No mental 

illness

Anxiety-mood 

disorder

Serious 

psychological 

distress

Number of victims 860 790 1,450 1,250 1,260 1,200

Number of incidents

1 4.5% 6.0% 2.5% 2.6% 2.7% 2.3%

2 or more 4.5 6.0 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.3

Type of coercion or force

Without pressure or force ~ ~ ~ 3.2% 3.5% 2.9%

Pressured 3.4% 2.5% 2.5% 3.0 4.4 2.7

Force/threat of force 3.4 3.5 2.2 2.7 4.7 2.9

Ever injured 2.0% 2.3% 2.2% 1.4% 1.6% 2.4%

Ever report an incident 3.0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.8% 2.6%

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.

Appendix table 23

Standard errors for table 19: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, National 

Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Characteristic Heterosexual Non-heterosexual Heterosexual Non-heterosexual

Sex

Male 0.1% 0.9% 0.2% 0.7%

Female 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.4

Race/Hispanic origin

White 0.1% 1.1% 0.1% 0.5%

Black 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.9

Hispanic 0.1 1.2 0.3 1.6

Age

18–24 0.1% 1.5% 0.2% 1.8%

25–44 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.5

45 or older 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.7

Education

Less than high school 0.1% 0.9% 0.2% 0.5%

High school graduate 0.2 1.4 0.3 1.5

Some college or more 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.6

Mental health problems

None -- 0.6% 0.1% 0.5%

Anxiety-mood disorder 0.1% 1.1 0.3 0.6

Serious psychological distress 0.2 1.5 0.2 1.3

--Less than 0.05%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 | May 2013 107

Appendix table 24

Standard errors for table 20: Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and nonheterosexual inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12

Victims in prisons and jails

Inmate-on-inmate Staff sexual misconduct

Circumstance Heterosexual Non-heterosexual Heterosexual Non-heterosexual

Number of victims 1,530 1,490 3,680 1,000

Number of incidents

1 3.5% 3.2% 1.8% 2.5%

2 or more 3.5 3.2 1.8 2.5

Type of coercion or force

Without pressure or force ~ ~ 1.9% 5.0%

Pressured 2.4% 1.9% 1.7 6.7

Force or threat of force 2.5 2.3 1.9 5.0

Ever injured 2.0% 2.2% 1.4% 3.3%

Ever report an incident 2.2% 2.2% 1.7% 4.3%

~Not applicable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12.
Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

NCJ241399