www.nprec.us
 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

-

Commissioners 

Reggie B. Walton, Chair 

John A. Kaneb, Vice Chair 

James E. Aiken 

Jamie Fellner 

Pat Nolan 

Gustavus A. Puryear IV 

Brenda V. Smith 

Cindy Struckman Johnson 

References for quotations and other source materials 

mentioned in this executive summary are provided in the 

Commission’s full report.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y 1

Executive Summary

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

sexual abuse as an inevitable feature of confinement. Even as 

courts and human rights standards increasingly confirmed that 

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

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

and children continued to be sexually victimized by other prisoners and 

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

Congress affirmed the duty to protect incarcerated individuals from 

sexual abuse by unanimously enacting the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 

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

causes and consequences of sexual abuse in confinement and to develop 

standards for correctional facilities nationwide that would set in motion a 

process once considered impossible: the elimination of prison rape. 

This executive summary briefly discusses the Commission’s nine 

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

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

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

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

the report.

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

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

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

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

Training curricula for corrections staff across the country now include 

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

Sexual abuse is “not part of 

the penalty that criminal 

offenders pay for their 

offenses against society.”

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

Some agencies and facilities have formed sexual assault response teams 

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

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

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

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

baseline everywhere. 

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

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

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

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

environments more dangerous for staff as well as prisoners, consumes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since forming, the Commission has convened public hearings and 

expert committees, conducted a needs assessment that involved site visits 

to 11 diverse correctional facilities, and thoroughly reviewed the relevant 

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

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

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

The Commission used what it learned about the nature and causes 

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

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

Many of the Commission’s 

standards reflect what 

corrections professionals 

acknowledge to be good 

practices—and are already 

operational in some places—

or are requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

requirements under existing laws. If correctional agencies incur new costs 

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

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

the requirements of PREA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

for their offenses against society.”

F I N D I N G 1 

Protecting prisoners from sexual abuse remains a 

challenge in correctional facilities across the country. 

Too often, in what should be secure environments, 

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

incarcerated individuals and corrections staff. 

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

are relatively new. The first study specifically of prevalence—

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

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

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

teens, but none of these are national studies. 

With an explicit mandate from Congress under PREA, the Bureau 

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

national incidence rates of sexual abuse by directly surveying prisoners. 

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

they confirm the urgent need for reform. The Commission recommends 

that BJS continue this important work and that Congress provide the 

necessary funding. 

A 2007 survey of State and 

Federal prisoners suggests 

that an estimated 60,500 

individuals were sexually 

abused during the 12 

months leading up to 

the survey.

Protection from sexual 

abuse should not depend 

on where someone is 

incarcerated or supervised; 

it should be the baseline 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that 12-month period. 

Although sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread, rates vary across 

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

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

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

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

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

percent of inmates surveyed reported that they had been sexually abused 

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

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

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

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

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

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

first nationally representative survey of sexual abuse among adjudicated 

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

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

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

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

they were to report nonconsensual sexual encounters with their peers in 

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

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

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

10 percent of youth in residential placement nationally.

In conducting this research, BJS has taken advantage of evolving 

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

for individuals with limited reading abilities. This method increases the 

likelihood of capturing experiences of sexual abuse among individuals 

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

The sexual abuse of prisoners 

is widespread, but rates vary 

across facilities—from a low of 

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

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

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

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

data for false reports. 

F I N D I N G 2 

Sexual abuse is not an inevitable feature of incarceration. 

Leadership matters because corrections administrators 

can create a culture within facilities that promotes safety 

instead of one that tolerates abuse.

I

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

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

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

in correctional settings. The Commission has defined clear standards that 

corrections administrators can and must champion to prevent sexual abuse 

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

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

To begin with, every correctional agency must have a written 

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

working under contract with the government. Although not mandated 

under the standards, collective bargaining agreements should feature an 

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

ground upon which to build when negotiating the many specific policies 

and procedures to prevent and respond to sexual abuse.

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

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

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

applicants and make promotions contingent on a similarly careful review 

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

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

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

applicants about past misconduct must be mandatory. Rigorous vetting 

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

Leaders need the right staff 

to create a genuine culture 

of zero tolerance. Rigorous 

vetting is crucial; so are 

supporting and promoting 

staff that demonstrate 

commitment to preventing 

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

developing competitive compensation and benefits packages so that they 

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

preventing sexual abuse. 

Even qualified individuals need training on sexual abuse to fulfill 

their job responsibilities. Only through training can staff understand the 

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

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

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

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

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

and that training everywhere meets certain basic criteria. Additionally, 

the Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections 

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

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

this purpose. 

The corollary to staff training is a strong educational program for 

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

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

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

staff before abuse occurs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections 

help correctional agencies advance their use of monitoring technologies 

and that Congress fund this assistance.

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

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

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

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

Direct supervision is the 

most effective mode of 

supervision for preventing 

sexual abuse and should be 

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

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

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

women worked in corrections, but this is rapidly changing. 

The Commission understands that cross-gender supervision can 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the nature of sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

F I N D I N G 3 

Certain individuals are more at risk of sexual abuse than 

others. Corrections administrators must routinely do 

more to identify those who are vulnerable and protect 

them in ways that do not leave them isolated and 

without access to rehabilitative programming. 

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

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

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

This caveat aside, some risk factors do stand out.

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

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

correctional facilities consistently documents the vulnerability of men and 

women with non-heterosexual orientations and transgender individuals. A 

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

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

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

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

Unless facility managers and administrators take decisive steps to 

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

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

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

recommendation to place her in a facility with higher concentrations of 

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

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

raped and beaten by two different cellmates. 

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

use written instruments to screen all incoming prisoners specifically for 

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

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

progress toward this goal by setting baseline requirements for when and 

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

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

about housing and programming. Courts have commented specifically on 

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

The Commission is concerned that correctional facilities may rely 

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

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

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

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

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

only. The Commission also discourages the creation of specialized units 

for vulnerable groups and specifically prohibits housing prisoners based 

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

demoralizing and dangerous labeling.

The Commission is also concerned about the effect of crowding on 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence-based screening 

for risk of sexual abuse 

must become routine 

nationwide, replacing the 

subjective assessments that 

many facilities still rely 

on and filling a vacuum 

in facilities where no 

targeted risk assessments 

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

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

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

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

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

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

crowded conditions often lead to conflict. Meaningful activities will not 

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

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

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

Classification has evolved from little more than ad hoc decisions to 

an increasingly objective, evidence-based process. Although knowledge 

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

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

F I N D I N G 4 

Few correctional facilities are subject to the kind of 

rigorous internal monitoring and external oversight that 

would reveal why abuse occurs and how to prevent it. 

Dramatic reductions in sexual abuse depend on both. 

T

he most effective prevention efforts are targeted interventions that 

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

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

already conduct some type of review. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

for opening up correctional facilities to outside review. The Commission 

Crowded facilities are harder 

to supervise, and crowding 

systemwide makes it difficult 

to carve out safe spaces for 

vulnerable prisoners that are 

less restrictive than solitary 

confinement and other 

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

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

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

Commission recommends that the National Institute of Corrections design 

and develop a national training program for auditors and that Congress 

provide funding specifically for this purpose. 

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

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

report on the conditions in correctional facilities operating within their 

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

the Commission’s standards. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

again.” The Commission recommends that Congress amend two aspects 

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

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

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

exhausted their administrative remedies within 90 days after the abuse is 

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

reports the incident and when it allegedly occurred.

Corrections administrators need robust mechanisms and systems 

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

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

nature of correctional environments demands that the government and 

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

Even the most rigorous 

internal monitoring is no 

substitute for opening up 

correctional facilities to 

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

F I N D I N G 5 

Many victims cannot safely and easily report 

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

avail. Reporting procedures must be improved to instill 

confidence and protect individuals from retaliation 

without relying on isolation. Investigations must be 

thorough and competent. Perpetrators must be held 

accountable through administrative sanctions and 

criminal prosecution. 

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

not necessarily taken seriously and communicated to appropriate 

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

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

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

not work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

best way to handle any false allegations. 

Victims and witnesses often are bullied into silence and harmed 

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

International, one prisoner conveyed a chilling threat she received from 

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

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

facilities must give prisoners the option of speaking confidentially with a 

crisis center or other outside agency.

Facilities have a duty to thoroughly investigate every allegation of 

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

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

of PREA, many statewide correctional systems and individual facilities now 

We need to create 

correctional environments 

in which prisoners feel safe 

reporting sexual abuse 

and are confident that 

their allegations will be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

evidence, corrections administrators cannot impose discipline, prosecutors 

will not indict, and juries will not convict abusers. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that stipulates the responsibilities of the forensic examiner and other 

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

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

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

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

in correctional facilities nationwide. 

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

investigators are so unfamiliar with the dynamics inside a correctional 

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

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

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

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

agency specifying its role and responsibilities. Investigators do not work 

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

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

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

of victims while conducting a thorough investigation, these professionals 

must coordinate their efforts.

No national data have been collected on how often correctional 

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

describing the quality of those investigations. But correctional facilities 

Many individuals 

responsible for 

investigating allegations 

of sexual abuse lack the 

training to be effective. 

Unless investigations 

produce compelling 

evidence, corrections 

administrators cannot 

impose discipline, 

prosecutors will not 

indict, and juries will 

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

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

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

allegations of sexual violence, misconduct, and harassment investigated 

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

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

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

rate nationally. Standards that mandate investigations and improve their 

quality should increase the proportion of allegations in which the finding 

is definitive and perpetrators can be held accountable.

Despite that fact that most incidents of sexual abuse constitute 

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

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

cases are referred to prosecutors, and the Commission repeatedly heard 

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

investigations do not produce evidence capable of supporting a successful 

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

not view incarcerated individuals as members of the community and as 

deserving of their services as any other victim of crime. 

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

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

only to administrative discipline, making sanctions especially important. 

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

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

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

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

and appropriate sanctions for staff perpetrators. Prisoners should never be 

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

consensual. The power imbalance between staff and prisoners vitiates the 

possibility of meaningful consent, and the threat of punishment would 

deter prisoners from reporting sexual misconduct by staff. 

Everyone who engages in sexual abuse in a correctional setting 

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

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

encourage incarcerated individuals and staff to report abuse and require 

correctional facilities to protect those who speak out, conduct effective 

investigations, and ensure appropriate punishment.

Until more cases are 

successfully prosecuted, 

abusers will be subject 

only to administrative 

discipline, making it especially 

important for these sanctions 

to be fair and sufficiently 

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

F I N D I N G 6

Victims are unlikely to receive the treatment and 

support known to minimize the trauma of abuse. 

Correctional facilities need to ensure immediate and 

ongoing access to medical and mental health care and 

supportive services.

As corrections administrators work to create a protective environment 

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

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

difficult; without adequate treatment, recovery may never occur. 

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

After Sunday Daskalea was abused on multiple occasions by staff and 

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

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

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

struggled with eating disorders, and spent months emotionally debilitated, 

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

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

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

Martin told the Commission. 

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

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

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

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

immune system. Studies indicate that sexual abuse victims have poorer 

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

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

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

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

study found that internal injuries and being knocked unconscious were 

more common outcomes of sexual abuse than of other violent encounters 

in prison.

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

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

The psychological effects 

of sexual abuse can 

re-traumatize victims for 

years following an assault, 

and studies show that 

victims have more physical 

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

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

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

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

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

in a variety of ways, including sexual contact. 

Because of the disproportionate representation of minority men and 

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

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

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

transmitted infections.

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

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

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

population. Correctional health care is underfunded nearly everywhere, 

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

health care practitioners. Recently, independent researchers analyzed the 

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

State and Federal prisoners and found that many prisoners with persistent 

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

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

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

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

20 percent of State prisoners. 

Given the potentially severe and long-lasting medical and mental 

health consequences of sexual abuse, facilities must ensure that victims 

have unimpeded access to emergency treatment and crisis intervention 

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

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

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

physical health problems might indicate that abuse has occurred. 

Health care practitioners working in correctional facilities, like all 

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

prisoners about their duty before providing treatment. Confidential treatment 

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

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

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

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

Correctional health care 

is underfunded nearly 

everywhere, and most 

facilities are in dire need 

of additional skilled and 

compassionate health 

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

Because some victims will never feel comfortable or safe disclosing 

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

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

Collaborations with community-based service providers can also increase 

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

from a correctional facility back to their home communities. 

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

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

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

standards, agencies must provide emergency care to victims of sexual 

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

chronic conditions and to exempt them from fees. 

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

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

sexual abuse. Similarly, grants administered under the Violence Against 

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

abuse need and deserve treatment and support services. The Commission 

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

Unimpeded access to treatment by qualified medical and mental 

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

F I N D I N G 7 

Juveniles in confinement are much more likely than 

incarcerated adults to be sexually abused, and they 

are particularly at risk when confined with adults. To 

be effective, sexual abuse prevention, investigation, 

and treatment must be tailored to the developmental 

capacities and needs of youth.

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

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

Victims are entitled to 

treatment whether or not 

they name the perpetrator 

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

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

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

jails, with modifications to reflect the developmental capacities and needs 

of youth. 

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

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

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

consequences that can include persistent mental illness and tendencies 

toward substance abuse and criminality. Juvenile justice agencies thus 

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

long-term consequences for victims. 

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

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

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

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

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

nationally representative survey of confined youth.

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

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

physical violence and sexual abuse in a juvenile correctional facility in 

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

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

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

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

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

100 pounds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth who are sexually 

abused may live with 

lifelong consequences 

that can include 

persistent mental illness 

and tendencies toward 

substance abuse and 

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

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

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

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

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

Staff training and supervision are crucial. Staff need to understand 

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

potential consequences. Their responsibilities—including a duty to report 

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

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

is promptly investigated.

Although research has yet to pinpoint the characteristics of youth 

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

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

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

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

being abused. This message, combined with affirmative statements about 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

provide parents and lawyers with information about the rights of residents 

and internal grievance procedures. Because many youth fail to recognize 

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

improve sexual education programs and sexual abuse prevention curricula. 

Youth who perpetrate sexual violence in juvenile facilities present 

a challenge for facility administrators who must apply developmentally 

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

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

offenses typically have a history of severe family problems. Correctional 

medical and mental health practitioners must be trained to recognize the 

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

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

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

Simply being female is a 

risk factor: girls are over 

represented among young 

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

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

violence perpetrated by prisoners in adult facilities in 2005 were under 

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

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

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

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

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

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

separately from the general population.

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

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

necessary precautions and remedies are clear and rehabilitation remains a 

guiding principle in the field of juvenile justice. 

F I N D I N G 8 

Individuals under correctional supervision in the 

community, who outnumber prisoners by more than 

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

consequences of the abuse are no less severe, and it 

jeopardizes the likelihood of their successful reentry. 

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

correctional supervision in the community, either on probation 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Community corrections encompasses a diverse array of agencies, 

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

Supervision can occur in halfway houses, prerelease centers, treatment 

facilities, and other residential settings. Nonresidential supervision can 

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

abuse treatment, court diversionary programs, day-reporting centers, 

Community corrections 

agencies, just like prisons 

and jails, have a special 

responsibility to protect the 

individuals they supervise 

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

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

As in other correctional settings, courts have found that sexual 

abuse in community corrections violates the Eighth Amendment of the 

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

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

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

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

whether the circumstances in which the abuse occurred were under the 

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

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

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

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

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

the dynamics of supervision make them particularly vulnerable to abuse 

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

also have virtually unlimited access to the individuals they supervise, 

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

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

instead requested and had sex with her. 

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

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

counselors and social workers. Drawing and maintaining boundaries is a 

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

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

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

sexual abuse coupled with good training can mitigate these dangers by 

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

appropriate relationships with the individuals they supervise. Of course, 

preventing sexual abuse begins with hiring the right staff.

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

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

access to skilled professionals and other resources that are beyond the 

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

Drawing and maintaining 

boundaries is a challenge 

even for community 

corrections staff with the 

best intentions, and the 

autonomous nature of their 

work makes it easier to 

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

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

with local correctional agencies. Partnerships with victim advocates and 

counselors in the community also ensure that people under correctional 

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

abuse that occurred while they were incarcerated. Agencies must report 

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

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

records and provide insights on reasons incarcerated victims of sexual 

abuse remain silent.

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

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

part of that mission. 

F I N D I N G 9

A large and growing number of detained immigrants are 

at risk of sexual abuse. Their heightened vulnerability 

and unusual circumstances require special interventions. 

Preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse of immigrants 

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

houses individuals detained solely because their right to remain in the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of immigration detainees includes adults, thousands of “unaccompanied” 

children, and whole families confined together. 

The prevalence of sexual abuse among immigration detainees is 

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

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

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

or in combination—make immigration detainees especially vulnerable to 

For the 2009 fiscal year, ICE 

expects to detain 33,400 

people on any given night 

and more than 400,000 

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

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

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

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

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

to be abused. 

Preventing abuse requires precautions beyond those mandated for 

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

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

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

in segregation. Depending on the conditions in protective custody cells 

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

common among immigration detainees and lead to depression and other 

problems.

Families who are in ICE custody are currently detained in several 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because immigration detainees are confined by the agency with the 

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

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

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

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

retaliation. After women detainees at the Krome immigration detention 

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

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

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

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

derail the complaint process, which has lasting consequences for victims 

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

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

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

The fear of deportation 

is a tool in the hands 

of abusive officers, 

both to coerce sex and 

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

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

impossibly complex, especially for detainees who speak languages other 

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

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

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

Although detainees have periodic contact with immigration judges, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

citizenship, along with a list of those phone numbers. 

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

outside organizations with experience counseling immigrant victims of 

crime and assurances that their communications with outside advocates 

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

culturally appropriate ways to sexual abuse. 

Protection for all immigration detainees and services for victims of 

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

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

responding to sexual abuse is especially challenging.

T

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

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

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

the Attorney General is required to promulgate national standards for

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

sexual abuse. 

The Commission recommends that the Attorney General establish 

a PREA Advisory Committee pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 

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

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

More than other incarcerated 

victims of sexual abuse, 

immigration detainees depend 

on outside entities for help—

from consulates to counselors 

who specialize in assisting 

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

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

the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant would have primary 

responsibility for ensuring the implementation of the standards as central 

to the national effort of eliminating prison rape. 

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

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

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

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

fundamental protections are available in every correctional and detention 

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

The Commission has seen 

ideas transformed 

into actions that 

have the potential to 

improve safety. This is 

just the beginning.
www.nprec.us
 
 

 

 

 

 -

 

 

 

-

Commissioners 

Reggie B. Walton, Chair 

John A. Kaneb, Vice Chair 

James E. Aiken 

Jamie Fellner 

Pat Nolan 

Gustavus A. Puryear IV 

Brenda V. Smith 

Cindy Struckman Johnson 

References for quotations and other source materials 

mentioned in this executive summary are provided in the 

Commission’s full report.