# U n it ed S t at es D ep art me n tof Ju s t ic e
In itial R egulatory Imp act A nalysis for Noti ce of Pr opo sed Rul em aki ng
Pr opo sed Na tio nal Standa rds to Pre ve nt, Dete ct, a nd Respo nd to Pr iso n Rape Un der t he Pris on R ape Eliminat ion A ct ( PREA )

D oc k etN o. OA G- 131 RIN 110 5- A B3 4 Jan ua ry24, 201 1

### T AB LE OF 

### C ONTENTS

P age

In tr o d u c t i o nan d

S um m ar y
. ................................................. 1

I. D e t e r

m i n i n gth e B a s e l i n e
. .................................................. 4

I I

. Estimating the Qua nti fi able Unit B enef

it of Avoiding a

Prison Rape or Sexual A s s a u l t

................................................................ 1 6

I I I

. The Total Expected Mone tary Be nefit of a

1% Reduction in Prison Rape.

. . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

IV. Desc ribingand Assessingthe Non-qua ntifiable B enef

its of Prison R ape A v o i d an c e
. ............................................................ 2 7
V. I dentifying a

nd Monetizi ngthe Estimated Costs of Compl ying w ith the Proposed D O J S t an d ar d s
. . ........................................................ 3 0
V I

. C o s tJ u s t i f

i c at i o nA n a l y s i s
. ................................................ 6 0
V I I

. C o n c l u s i o n s
. ........................................................... 6 5

### L IST OF 

### T ABLES

Tabl e Caption P age
1 Ba seline Preva lence of P rison Rape and Sex ual Abuse by Ty pe of I ncident and T y

pe o f F a c i l i ty , 2 0 0 8

. ........................................................ 1 5
2 Victim Compensation Cost s of R ape a nd Abusive Sexual Cont act, pe r Victim in the G e n e r a l P o p u l at i o n
. ...................................................... 2 1
3 Vi c timCom

pe ns atio n Cost s o f R a

pe and Ab us ive Se xua l Co nta c t, p e r V ic timin C o n f i n e m e n tS e tt i n g s
. .................................................... 2 2
4 R an g e o f

U n i tA v o i d an c e B e n e f

i t s B y T yp e o f

V i c t i man d

T yp e o f F a c i l i ty.
. . . . . . . . . 2 6

5 Total Monetar

y Be nefit of a 1% Reduction from the Ba seline in the Aver ag e Annua l P r e v a l e n c e o f

P r i s o nR a

p e
. ................................................ 2 6
6 Total Expected Compliance Costs, 2012-2026, By Fa cility Ty pe.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

7 Estimated Annual Compliance Costs for Standar d 115.11, .111, .211, .311 ( C o s to f P R E AC o o r d i n at o r

P o s i t i o n s )

. ...................................... 3 7
8 Estimated Annual Compliance Costs for Standar d 115.12, .112, .212, .312 ( C o n tr a c t o r

C o mp l i an c e )

. ................................................. 3 8
9 Estimated

Ann ual Compliance Costs for Standar ds 115.31-.35, .131-.135, .231-.235,

. 3 3 1

- . 3 3 5 ( T r a i n i n g )

. ..................................................... 4 6
10 Estimated Annual Compli ance Costs for Standards 115.41-.43, .241- .242, .341-.342 ( S c r e e n i n g/A s s e s s m e n tan d P l a c e m e n t )

. ...................................... 4 8
11 Es tim ate d Annu a l Com pli anc e Cos ts fo r Sta

nd ard 11 5. 83 , .2 83 , .3 83 (M e nta l H e a lth C ar e )

. ................................................................. 5 2
12 Summary

of Com pli anc e Cos ts f

or Pr op os e d PRE A St and ard s.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55-57
13 Ex pecte d Upfront and Ong oing Compli ance Costs, Nationwide, Per Fa cility and Per In m at e
. ................................................................ 5 8
14A Ex pecte d Compli ance Cost P roj ec t i o n, Nationwide, Per Fa cility Ty pe, Per Y ear , 2012-2026, Calculate d Usinga 3% D iscount Rate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9Tabl e Caption P age

1 4 B Ex pecte d Co mp li a n c e Co s t Pr o

je c ti o n , N ati o nw id e , Pe r F a c il it y T y p e , Per Year, 2012-2026, Calculate d Usinga 7% D iscount Rate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9
15 B re a

k- Ev e n Ana ly sis Us in g L owe r-Bou ndAs su mp ti on s o f Benef itVal ue, B y

F a c ili ty T y p e
. ................................................................. 6 2
16 Break- Ev en A nal y si s U si ng Upp er-Bou nd A s su mp ti on s o f Benef itVal ue, By F a c i l i ty T y p e
. .......................................................... 6 3
17 C o mparison of Projec ted Nationwide U pfront and O ng oing Costs, Commis sion R e c o m m e n d at i o n s v
. P r o p o s e d S t an d ar d s
. .................................... 6 4T h e D epa r t men t h as de t er mi n ed t h at t h i s r u l e i s a “ s i g n i f i ca n t re g u l at or y a ct i on ” u n der EO 12866, 1/ § 3 (f), a n d a c c o rd ing ly h a s su b m itt e d th is r u le to th e O ff ic e o f M a n a g e m e n t an d B u d g e t f o r re v ie w . O M B C irc u la r A -4
r equi r es Feder al ag enc i es t o conduct a ben ef i t

- cos t anal y s i s f

or any reg ul at i on t hat i s “ economi cal l y s i gn i f i can t ”––t hat is, a r e g u la tio n e x p e c te d to ha v e a n a n n u a l i m p a c t o n th e e c o n o m y o f $ 1 0 0 m ill io n o r m o re
. See E O 12 8 6 6 , § 3 (f )( 1 ). T he D epar t ment ha s conc l uded t hat t he economi c i mp act of i t s adop t i on of t he propo s ed s t andar ds i s l i kel y t o exc eed this $ 1 0 0 m ill io n thr e sh o ld , b e c a u se the sta n d a rd s w o u ld p o te n tially a ff e c t th e m a n a g e m e n t o f virtu a lly e v e ry in m a te
co nf i nem ent f

aci l i t y i n t he nat i o n – f

aci l i t i es whi ch co l l ect i vel y ho use o ver 2.4 m i l l i o n i nd i vi d ual s at any gi ven t i m e and sp e n d m o re tha n $ 7 4 b ill io n a n n u a lly. See B u re a u o f J u stice S ta tisti c s, J u stice E x p e n d iture a n d E m p lo ym e n t E x tra c ts 2007, “ T abl e 1: pe r ce n t di s t r i bu t i on of e x pen di t u r e f

or t h e j u s t i ce s y s t em by t y pe of g ov er n men t , f i s ca l y ea r 2007" ( Se p. 2 0 , 2 0 1 0 ), a v a ilab le a t h t t p: / / bj s
. oj p. u s doj

. g ov / i n dex

. cf m?t y =pbdet ai l & i i d=2315 ( l as t c h ec k ed Se pt embe r 23, 20 1 0 ); B ureau o f Just i ce Stat i st i cs, D i rect E xp end i t ures b y C ri m i nal Just i ce F unct i o n, 19 8 2

- 2 0 0 6 , i n Jus t i ce Expe ndi t ur e and E m p lo y m e n t Ex tra c ts , av a ilab le a t h ttp :// b js .o jp .us d o j.g o v /c o n te n t/gla n c e /tab le s/e x p typ ta b .c fm

. T he propo s ed r ul e, m o re o v e r, “m a te ria lly a lter s
. . . th e r igh ts a n d o b liga tio n s o f gra n t re c ip ie n ts,” a n d “ra ise [s ] n o v e l l e g a l o r p o licy issu e s.” E O 12 8 6 6 , §§ 3(f

)( 3 ), (4).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 1 of

65 Introduction an d Su m m ary
I n t he Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), Pub. L . No. 108-79, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 15601-15609, Congr ess di rec ted t he Attorney Gene ral to promulg ate national standards for e nhancingthe pre vention, detec tion , re du ct i o n , and punishment of prison ra pe. In doing so, Congr ess under stood that such standards w ere likely to require fede ral, state, and loc al ag encie s (as well as private e ntities) that operate inmate conf inement fa cilities to incur costs in implementing the sta nd ard s. Gi ve n th e statut e ’s a sp ir atio n to e lim inate pr iso n rap e in the Un ite d St ate s, Con g re ss expected that some leve l of compliance costs would be appropriate, and i ndeed nece ssary , to foster a zero tolera

nce a pproac h to prison rape

. Neve rtheless, C o n gre ss insist ed that PREA’s aims be ba lance d ag ainst a sensitivity to the “budg etar y circ umstances” that often c halleng e the a bility of cor rec tional and law e nforc ement ag encie s to make major c hang es to their oper atingproce dures. 42 U.S.C. § 15605(a) . In mandating national standar ds, Congr ess thus instructed the Attorney Gene ral not t o adopt any standards “ that
wo uld imp os e su

bs tanti a l a dd iti on a l c os ts c omp are d to the co sts pr e se ntl y e xpe nd e d b y

F e de ra l, State , a nd loc al priso n a

uth or iti e s. ” 42 U. S.C. § 1 56 07 (a )( 3) . T his statut or y ob lig atio n o f c os tc on sc iou sn e ss r e qu ir e s th at th e De pa rtme nt i nvest igate the PRE A s tand ard s’ c os ts a nd be ne fi ts befor e implementinga fina l Rule.

Moreove r, sepa

rate and apa

rt from what PR EA itself require s, under Executive Or der 12866, Regulatory Planning and Rev iew , as ame nded without substantial chang e b y E xe c uti v e O r d er 13258, the Depa rtment is require d to conduct an I nitial Re gu l atory

Impact Ana ly sis (I RI A) to asse ss the be ne fi ts a nd c os ts o f its pr op os e d ru le

. Simi lar re qu ir e me nts are fo un d in the Re gulator y F le xibil ity 1/ Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-610. Such an analy sis must include an assessment of both the qua ntitative and qu a lit ativ e be ne fi ts a

nd c os ts o f t

he pr op os e d r e gulatio n, a s w e ll a s a disc us si on

of po te nti a lly
e ff e c tiv e and re a so na

bly fe a sib le a lte rn ativ e s. Th e purp os e of an I RIA is to in fo rm sta ke ho lde rs in the re gulatory

proce ss of the ef

fec ts of the proposed r

ule.In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 2 of

65 This I RIA is divided into seven par ts. Parts Ithroug h IV ident i fy an d , wher e possible, quan t i fy t h e b enef

its of reduc ing prison rape a nd sexual abuse. Specific ally , we e stimate the monetary value to socie ty

of re ducingthe pre valenc e of prison rape and sexual abuse by 1% fr om the ba se lin e le ve l. Th is al low s u s to de te rm ine wh at pe rc e nta g e re du c tio n w ou ld n e e d to e ns ue in order for the expected bene fits of the standar ds to break e ven with their e x pecte d costs. We also take into account a

n unquantified amount repre s e nti n g th e n u mer o u s n o nmo n etizable benef its of reduc ing pr iso n r a pe and se xua l a bu se . Pa rt V the n id e nti fi es and e sti mate s th e c os ts a sso c iate d w ith implementing a

nd complying w ith the PR EA standar ds. Part VI evaluates the rea sonablene ss of the proposed standa

rds in light of the se costs and be nefits. Part VI Ioffe rs some conc luding ob se rv atio ns
. Part Ibeg ins with the baseline: the status quo that would continue to apply absent re gulatory action. We estimate the a nnual pre valenc e of f

our diffe rent ty

pes of inappropr iate sexual contac t (ra pe involving f

orce or t hreat of force; nonconsensual sexual acts involving pr essure or coe rcion; ab u s i v e s ex u al co n t ac t s ; an d o th er s t af f s ex u al m i s co n d

u ct ), i n thre e di ff

er en t co n fi n em en ts et t i n gs (adult prisons; adult jails; and juvenile fac iliti es). We examine the ava ilable statistics on the pr e va le nc e of

e a c h ty pe of ina pp ro pr iate se xua l c onta c t and a dd re ss a numbe r o f i ssu e s w iththo se statis tic s inc lud ing : the pr ob le m of se ri a l vi c tim izatio n (pr e va le nc e vs . in c ide nc e ), c ro ss- se c tio n v s. flow, under

repor ting of sexual victim ization (false neg atives), f alse a lleg ations (over

repor ting) , and issues engen de re d b y

the c omp le xity

of se xua l vi c tim izatio n. We a lso loo k at di ff ic ult ie s in measuring the preva lence of sexual a ssault in specific settings, such as community confine ment fac iliti es and loc kups. We conclude that in 2008 there wer e at least 69,800 inmates who wer e ra ped under c onditions i nvolving f orce or threat of forc e, and mor e than 216,600 total victims of sexual
a bu se , in Am e ri c a ’s pr iso ns , ja ils , a nd juv e nil e de te nti on

c e nte rs
. In Part I I , we e s t i m at e the moneta ry value of cer tain benef

its of avoiding pr ison rape a nd sexual abuse. We first list certain qua ntifiable costs of pr ison r ape to the victim (these c os ts tr ans late to avoidance be ne

fit s for p u rp o s es of this analy sis). These c osts were identified by revie wingthe literature on the cost of rape g ener ally and then extrapolating the cost of rape in the prison environment. We derive a rang e of values for avoiding eac h of t he four ty pes of inappr opriate se x ual contac t identified in Part I , and we do so for both juve nile and adult victims. For example, we value the bene fit to an adult of avoidingprison forc ible rape as worth $200,000 to $300,000.

In Part I I I , we calculate the total expected monetar y benef it to society

of a 1% reduc tion from the base line in the aver ag e annua l preva lence of prison ra pe. F o r each of the four ty pes of inappropriate sexual contact a nd eac h of the three co n finement setting s identified in Part I , we multipl y the base line preva lence of such e vents (dete rmined in Part I ) b y the unit benef it of an avoided incide nt (deter

mined in Part I I ). We then multiply this product by 1%. Thus, for e x ample, wi th r e sp e c t to avo ided r apes inv olv ingfo rc e , in the a du lt p ri so n a

nd ja il s e tti ng , th e qu anti fi a ble benef it to society

of a 1% reduc tion from the baseline is e stimated to rang e fr om approxim ately $131 milli on to $196 mill ion in 201 0 d o llars. Acr oss all four ty pes of se x ual contac ts in the three confine ment settings f

or which pr evale nce data are available, t he quantifiable bene fit to society ofIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 3 of

65 a 1% r eduction fr om the baseline is estimated to ra ng e fr om approxim ately $ 1 5 7 m i l l i o n to $239 mil lio n in 20 10 do lla

rs
. Part IV c on c lud e s o ur

a sse ssm e nt o f t

he be ne fi ts o f t

he sta nd ard s b y de ve lop inga

lis t of so me of t h e non-quantifiable bene fits of prison rape avoidanc e, desc ribingboth the nature and sca le of those bene fits so that they can be appropriately fac tored int o the analy sis. We examine benefits for rape victims, for inmat es who ar e not ra pe victims, for fa

milies of inmate rape victims, for prison
a dmi nis tr ator s and

sta ff , a nd fo r s oc ie ty at larg e
. Th e se int ang ibl e be ne fi ts inc lud e tho se re latin gto pu bli c he a lthand

pu bli c sa fe ty , a s w e ll a s e c on omi c be ne fi ts a nd e xiste nc e va lue be ne fi ts. Th e y a lso include avoide d rape s and sexual assaults in community confine ment and lockup se ttings, which
c ann ot b e qu anti fi e d d

ue to t he a bs e nc e of pr e va le nc e statis tic s in

the se se tti ng s.
Part V es t imates the complianc e costs of the PREA standards. Eac h of the propose d standards ( or groups of related s tandar ds) i s examined to determine what costs corre ctional ag encie s are likely to incur in implementi n g and complying w ith it. C osts are divided be tween sta rt-up implementation expenses and on-g oing c ompliance c osts in the o u t y ea rs
. Where possible, we dif fe re nti ate the c os t im

pli c atio ns in o rd e r t o d istinguis h amon gc os ts a pp lic a ble to p ri so ns , ja ils , juvenile fac iliti es, community confine ment fac iliti es, and lockups. We disc uss the exis ting sourc es of information for our estimated compli ance costs and set forth our methodologie s and assumptions used in extrapolating na

tionwide compliance costs from existi ngdata. W e c o n c ludethat nationwide,
c omp lia nc e wi th t

he pr op os e d PRE A s tand ard s is e xpe c te d to cos t the c or re c tio na l c omm

un ity approximately

$213 milli on in upfront costs and a pproxi mately

$544 milli on in annual ong oing costs. In prese nt value terms annual compliance costs from 2012 to 2026 are estimated to total $4.2 billion when a 3% discount rate is used, and $2.7 billion when a 7% discount rate is used.

In Part VI , we a

naly z e the cost justification of the pr oposed PREA standards. F irst, we conduct a brea

k-eve n analy sis, to evaluate whether the costs of PREA compliance are justified by the anticipate d benef

its. Given that the monetary benef it of a 1% reduc tion f

rom the base line in the preva lence of prison rape is w orth $157 milli on to $239 milli on, implementation of the s t an d ar ds would have to y

ield a 0.70-1.07% reduc tion from the baseline level of prison rape in any g iven year ( i.e. , from a total of

216,600 incidents to 213,689-214,488) in orde r for the upfron t co s ts and the benef i t s t o b reak eve n, without reg ard to the va lue of the nonmone tary benef its. For the ong oing annual c osts to brea

k even, the standards would have to yield an avera g e annual reduc tion from the baseline of 2.06-3.13% ( i.e. , r e d u c in g th e p r e v a le n c e to 2 0 9 , 2 3 9

- 2 1 1 , 5 5 0 in c id e n ts p e r y e ar )

. We think t h es e b re akeven assumptions refle ct a r ealistic and a chieva ble g oal with respe ct to the
anti c ipate d e ff

e c tiv e ne ss o f t

he sta nd ard s. We a lso e xami ne the c os t im pli c atio ns of

the mos t obvious alternative to the pr oposed standard s , to wit, the Commi ssion’s proposed standa rds, and f ind that th e sta

nd ard s p ro po se d h e re a

pp e ar, at pr e se nt, to h ave low e r n e t c os ts. Finally , in Part VI Iwe summarize our a naly sis and offe r some conc luding obse rvations.In M arch 20 1 0 , t he D ep art m ent i ss ued an A d vance N o t i ce o f P rop o sed R ul em aki ng (AN P R M ) whi ch, 2/

a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , s o l i c i t e d p u b l i c c o m m en t on t h e c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s o f t h e Co m m i s s i o n ’ s r e c o m m e n d e d PR EA sta n d a rd s. See 75 Fed

. R eg. 11 0 7 7 (D O J M ar. 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ). T he D ep art m ent rece i ved m any co m m ent s i n res p o nse t o t he A N P R M and i t ha s t aken t ho se co m m ent s i nt o c o nsi d erat i o n b o t h in d evel o p i ng the p rop o sed st and ards a nd d uri ng t he reg ulato ry assessm en t p ro ce ss.

S e e , e.g ., A sso c ia tio n o f S ta te C o rr e c tio n a l A d m inistra to rs , C om m ents on P R EA St an da r ds, D ocket 3/ No . O A G -1 3 1 , a t 1 -2 (M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) (no ting tha t the re a re “re la tive ly few d o c u m e n te d ins ta n c e s” o f s e x u a l a s sa u lt
o ccurri ng i n co rr ect i o nal f aci l i t i es)

.
In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 4 of

65 I. De te r m iningth e Bas e line
For purposes of r egulatory

impact ana ly sis, a benefit is an incr emental improve ment in the status quo eng ender ed by

implementation of the propose d rule. See OMB Circular A-4, at 2, 15-16. Ac c or din g ly , to a

pp ro pr iate ly me a sure and qu a nti fy a pr op os e d r e gulatio n’ s b e ne fi t, o ne ne e ds fi rs t to establish the baseline that would apply in the absenc e of r egu l at i o n , s o that chang es to that baseline attributable to the regulation can be identified. Id . In th e c onte xt o f the PRE A s tand ard s, the re levant base line i s the level of rape , sexual assault, and other e vents of inappr opriate se x ual contac t that would exi st in America’ s prisons, jails, lockups, juvenile detent ion center s, and
c omm un ity c on fi ne me nt s e tti ng s in

the a bs e nc e of the PRE A s tand ard s.
Some commenters at t h e AN P R M stag e – particula rly those repr esentingcorr ectional 2/
a g e nc ie s –

dis pute d th e no tio n th at th e se xua l a ssau lt o f i nmate s is a se ri ou s p ro ble m in

the ir fac iliti es. As elabor ated be low, howeve r, available data compiled by the Depa rtment’s B urea

u of 3/ Justi c e Statis tic s ( B JS) ma ke it cl ear that th e pr e va le nc e of se xua l a bu se in Ame ri c a ’s inm ate confine ment fac iliti es is a proble m of substantial mag nitude.
Sourc es o f B as e line

Da ta . In enac ting PREA, Cong ress noted the difficulty of pinpointing the exact pre valenc e of pr ison rape but c oncluded that the pr oblem was lar g e:

I n s u f f i c i e n tr e s e ar c hh a s b e e nc o n d u c t e d an d i n s u f f i c i e n td ata repor ted on the extent of prison rape . Howev er , experts have
conser vatively estimated t hat at least 13 per cent of the inmates in the United States have been sexually assaulted in prison. Ma ny inmates have suf fer ed re peate d assaults. Under this estimate, near ly

200,000 inmates now inca

rce rate d have be en or w ill be the victims of prison rape . The total number of inmates who have been se x ually assaulted in the past 20 year s likely exceeds 1,000,000.

42 U. S.C. § 1 56 01 (2 ). As of 20 03 , whe n PRE A w a s e na c te d, the re we re fe w r e lia ble , e mpi ri c a l data available conce rningthe fre quency with whi ch inmates in this country wer e subjec ted to sexual abuse. O ne of the purposes of PREA was to solve this problem: Congre ss directe d BJS t o undertakeB ureau of Just i ce S t at i st ic s, Sex ualVi ol enc e Repor t ed by Cor r ec t i onalAut hor i t i es 2006 (N C J 2 1 8 9 1 4) 4/ (A u g u st 2 0 0 7 ) (he re ina fter B J S A d u lt S S V 2 0 0 6 ); B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, S e x u a l V io le n c e R e

p o rte d by J

u v e n ile Cor r ec t i onalAut hor i t i es 2005- 06 (N C J 2 1 5 3 3 7 ) ( Jul y 20 0 8 ) ( herei naf t er B JS Juv. SS V 20 0 5

- 0 6 ).

B u re a u o f J u stice S ta tisti c s, Sex ualVi ct i m iz at i on i n P r i s ons and J ai ls Repor t ed by I

nm at es , 2008- 09 5/ (N C J 2 3 1 1 6 9 ) ( A ug. 20 1 0 ) ( herei naf t er B JS A d ul t N IS 2 0 0 8

- 0 9 ).

B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, Sex ualVi ct i m iz at i on i n J uve ni l e Faci l i t i es Repor t ed by Yout h, 2008- 09 6/ (N C J 2 2 8 4 1 6 ) ( Jan. 2 0 1 0 ) ( herei naf t er B JS Y o ut h N SY C 20 0 8

- 0 9 ).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 5 of

65 annual c o mp r e h e nsive studies and statistical revie ws aimed at improving the r esolution and ac cura cy of estimates of se x ual violence in prisons. See42 U.S.C. §§ 15602(4), 15603.
BJS esta b li s h e d th e N ati o n a l Pr is o n Ra p e St ati s ti c s Pr o g r am, w h ic h c o ll e c ts d ata in two way s. First, it conducts an annual national revie w of institutional rec ords documentingalleg ations of sexual violence in adult and juvenile corr ectional facilities (the Survey of Sexual Violenc e (

SSV) ). To date , thre e su c h a

nnua l survey s hav e be e n c on du c te d in a du lt f a c ili tie s and

tw o in juv e nil e fac iliti es. The most re cent surve y s were published in 2007; the results of an eve n more re cent se t ar e f o rt h co m i n g. These survey s wer e designe d to measure the num ber of repor ted alleg ations of 4/ inmate-on-inmate and staff -on-inmate se x ual m isconduct and a lso to collect detailed infor mation on the outcomes of f

ollow-up investigations, including whether the re ported incide nts were su bs tanti ate d. Ite ms in the surv e y s in c lud e d th e c ir c ums tanc e s su rr ound inge a c h a lle g e d in c ide nt, c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f v ic tim s and pe rp e tr ator s, the ty

pe of phy sic a l f

or c e or pr e ssu re us e d, vic tim injuries, and sanc tions imposed. These survey s (which r eac hed fa cilities ho u s i ngmore than 1.8 milli on inmates, or 81% of all inmates held in adult fac iliti es in 2006), provide an under standingof what cor rec tions officials know, what information is r ecor ded, how alleg ations are handled, whe re incidents occ ur, and howofficia ls respond to alleg ations brought to their attention. Second, B J S developed a n annual national survey

of inmates (the Nat i o n al Inmate Surve y ( NIS) ) and a

corr espondi n g an n u al national survey of juvenile de tainees ( the National Survey of Y ou th in Cus to dy (NSY

C) ). Since 2007, these survey s have c ollected a lleg ations of sexual victimiz ation direc tly

from victims, throug h audio computer-assisted self- interviews a dminist ere d to a du lt i nmate s in

pr iso ns and jails and

to youth h e ld i n juve nil e c or re c tio na l f

a c ili tie s. Th e se survey s were a l so conducte d on a ver y larg e sca le: the most rece nt adult survey (2008-09) was administered to 32,029 inmates in 167 state a nd fede ral prisons nationwide, a nd to 48,066 inmates in 286 ja ils nationwide. The most re cent juvenile survey (also 2008-09) was administered to 10,263 5/ yo uthh e l d

i n1 9 5 f a c i l i t i e s a c r o s s th e c o un tr y. 6/ Tog ether , the two sets of BJ S survey s provide more empirica l data on the leve l of sexual violence in Americ a’s prisons than ex isted when PR EA was enac ted in 2003. Howeve r, the statistics based on insti tutional repor ts ref lect a ve ry

differ ent (a

nd much lower) leve l than do those based on inm ate re po rt s. Th is c an p e rh a ps be e xpe c te d, be c a

us e on ly a fr a c tio n o f i nc ide nts of

se xua l a bu se in a pr iso n e nv ir onme nt w ill com e to the atte nti on of c or re c tio na l a

uth or iti e s o r b e re fl e c te d inSee i nf r a, no te s 1 4 to 1 5 a n d a c c o m p a n ying tex t. 7/

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 6 of

65 institutional rec ords. But the ex istence of a sig nificant diff

ere nce be tween the two data se ts require s 7/ a choic e to be made as to which set to use , o r as to how to re concile the two sets for pur poses of assessingthe cor

rec t baseline.

In e sti matin gthe ba se lin e of pr iso n s e xua l a

bu se fo r p ur

po se s o f a n I RIA, we pr op os e to r e ly
on the data fr om B JS’s inmate -r e po rt e d sur ve y s rathe r tha

n thos e fr om the fa c ili ty -r e po rt e d s ur ve y s. We do so for seve ral rea sons. First, as BJS itself noted in its reports of a lleg ations compiled from institutional administrative rec ords, “g iv en the abse nce of uniform re porting , caution is nec essar y for a ccur ate inter

pretation of the survey results. Hig her or lower counts amongfac iliti es may ref lect variations in definitions , repor ting capac ities, and procedure s for reporting alleg ations as opposed to differ ence s in the underlying inc idence of sexual violence.” BJS AdultSSV 2006, at 1. Second, in all likelihood the institution-repor ted data significantly

un d er count t he number of ac tual sexual abuse victims in prison, due to t he phenome non of under repor ting. As e laborated below in t he sec tion on false neg atives, for a var iety of re asons many

sexual abuse victims do not
or c ann ot r e po rt

the ir a bu se to ins tit

uti on a l man a g e rs . Ind e e d, of the a du lt r e sp on de nts to t

he inm ate survey s, b e tw e e n6 9 % an d 8 2 % o f inmate s w h o r e p o rte d

s e xu a l a b u s e in r e s p o n s e to th e s ur

vey stated that t hey had never re ported a n incident to corr ectional mana g ers. SeeBJS AdultNI S 2008- 09, at 22-23. Thus, the data dra wn from institutional survey s almost certa inly misses thousands of victims that the inmate survey s capture

. Ho we ve r, wh ile the B JS inmate -r e po rt e d d at a a r e t h e m o s t c omp re he ns ive statis tic s ava ila ble on sexual victim ization i n confine ment fac iliti es, eve n they do not provide a c omplete picture of the phenomenon. Any

attempt to use them to define the baseline f or purpose s of assessingregulatory be ne fi t mu st take int o a c c ount se ve ra l lim itatio ns
. Th e fo llo wi ngse c tio ns dis c us s a numbe r o f t

ho se limit ations and explain how we have dea lt with them here.

P r ev a l en ce vs. Incidence
. One of the thorniest issues involves whether to focus on preva lence or incidenc e. Preva lence ref ers to the n u m b erof inmates (or more c orre ctly

the perc entag e of inmate s) who re port havingbeen se x ually victimiz ed once o r m o re du ringa g iven peri o d o f ti me w h il e c o n f

in e d , w h e r e a s in c id e n c e r e f e r s to th e numb e r

o f d is c r e te v ic timization
e ve nts that take pla c e
. Th e dis tin c tio n is con se qu e nti a l bec a us e a signif

ic ant pe rc e nta g e of

se xua lly victimiz ed inmates report havingbeen vic timiz ed more than once . For example, in the most recent BJS s tudy

of juvenile fa cilities, 81% o f t h e y outh who repor ted youth-on-youth victimiz ation
re c ounte d h avin gbe e n v ic tim ize d mo re tha n o nc e , w ith32 % rep ort ingmor e tha n te n e ve nts ; sim ila rl y , 8 8% of

youth who re po rt e d sta ff se xua l misc on du c t r e po rt e d mo re tha n o ne inc ide nt, wi th 27 % r e po rt ingmor e tha

n ten. BJS Yo uth

NSY C 20 08 -0 9, at 12 , 1 4. L ike wi se , b e tw e e n o ne ha lf and two thirds of adult inmates who repor ted sexual a

buse in the prison setting c laimed to have be en victimiz ed more than once . BJS AdultNI S 2008-09, at 21, 23. The lar g e-sc ale p h en o m enon ofC o mp a re L o ri A . P o st et al ., The R ap e Tax: Tan gi bl e and I nt an gi bl e Co s ts of

Sexual V

i ol ence , 17 J. 8/ I N T E R P E R S O N A L V I OL E NCE 773, 77 7- 79 ( 20 02 ) ( “ [ O ] u r s t udy un dere s t i mat es s exu al vi ol enc e beca us e we us ed prev al enc e i ns t ead of

i nci dence

. Femal es wh o hav e b een raped or s exu al l y ass aul t ed ar e m ore l i kel y t o be as s aul t ed a s econd t i me. T heref o re, cal cul at i ng t he co st of sexual vi o l ence usi ng i nci d ent s wo ul d pro d uce great er numb ers
. ”).

O n t h e ot h er h an d, el s ew h er e i n t h e s t at u t e Cong r es s def i n ed t h e pr obl em of pr i s on r ape i n t er ms of 9/ it s p re v a le n c e
. S e e , e.g ., 42 U

. S. C. § 15 60 1( 2) ( “ [ A] t l e a s t 13 pe r c e n t of t h e i n ma t e s i n t h e U n i t e d St a t e s h ave been
s exu al l y as s aul t ed i n pr i s on. M any i nmat es hav e s uf f er ed r epeat ed as s aul t s
. U nder t hi s es t i mat e, ne ar l y 200 , 00 0 i nmat es n o w inc a rc e ra te d ha v e b e e n o r w ill b e th e v ic tim s o f p riso n r a p e
. T h e to ta l n u m b e r o f in m a te s w h o h a v e b e e n se x u a lly
ass aul t ed i n t he p ast 20 y ears l i kel y exceed s 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0

. ”).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 7 of

65 mul tip le or

se ri a l vic tim izatio n re qu ir e s a c ho ic e to be ma de a s to wh e the r t o r e ly on pr e va le nc e data or incidenc e data

in definingthe re gulatory baseline. 8/
BJS’s ins tituti onal re cord r eviews e s s e nti a lly me asure repor

ted incidenc e, since they

identify the discre te number of

alleg ed sexual abuse incide nts tha t we re re p orted to and inve stigated by
corr e c t io nal aut ho ri ti es, regardl ess of w het her m ul ti pl e al legat io ns rel ate to th e sam e in mat e. By contra st, BJS ’s inmate surve y s p ri marily measure preva lence , since they identify the number of surveyed inm ates who repor t having experience d one or more incidents of sexual abuse dur ing the prec edingtwelve month per iod. Howeve r, the inmate sur vey s potentially

allow a ty

pe of inc idence data to be e xtra

po late d, sin c e the y

a sk re sp on de nts if

the y have be e n v ic tim ize d mo re tha n o nc e in the pr ec ed i n g t welve months and, if so, to check one of four box es indicatingwhether the total number of inc idents was 2, 3 to 5, 6-10, or 11 or more.
Th e re are sev eral good re a so ns to u se inc ide nc e data . F or on e thi ng , in

the statut e its e lf Congr ess i ntimated a prefer ence for incidence data, re peate dly using that term both in definingBJS’s data c ollection mandate (see, e .g., 42 U. S.C. § 156 03 ) a nd in e nunc iatin gthe purp os e of the statut e (se eid . at 15602(1))

. For another , an approac h which relies solely on preva lence without taking 9/ into account the phe nomenon of ser ial victimiz at i o n ri s ks understatingthe suffe ring , and the
c on c omi tant c os t to so c ie ty , o f i nmate s who are re pe ate dly te rr or ize d b y

se xua l pr e dator s.
We never theless propose r elying on pr evale nce data rather than inc idence data, f or a numbe r of re a so ns . F ir st, fo r r e a so ns a lr e a dy e xpla ine d we us e B JS’s inm ate -r e po rt e d data (whic h p ri mari ly count pre val en ce ) rathe r than the f acility -re ported data. Usingthese data to estimate incidenc e prese nts severa l di ff

i culties. When victimiz ed inmates re port multipl e incidents, they are not nece ssarily

repor ting incide nts of the same sever ity

. For example, a n inmate might have experience d one incident in wh i ch she wa s rape d by another inmate usingforc e, two incidents involving
nonconsensua l sex ual ac ts under pre ssure or c oerc ion, three a busive sexual contacts, and f ive inc ide nts of

wi lli ng sex ual re latio ns wi th s ta ff . B e c a us e B JS co de s inmate re sp on se s b y the mos t serious ty

p e o f in c id e n t e xp e r ie n c e d , th is inmate w o u ld a p p e ar in B JS’ s s tati s ti c s a s h av ing experience d rape involving for ce or threat of forc e and w ill also be li sted as havingexperience d 11
or m o r e in c id e n ts o f s e xu a l a b u s e
. Co un ti n g th e s e a s 1 1 mo r e in c id e n ts o f r a p e inv o lving f

orce would overstate the seve rity of t he victim ’s ex perie nces. Absent the ability to break out the surveyN A T I O N A L I N ST

. O F J U STI CE R E S E A R C H R E P ORT , V I C T I M C OS T S A ND C O N SEQU ENC ES : A N E W L OOK 10/

a t 2 (N C J 1 5 5 2 8 2 ) (J a n . 1 9 9 6 ), a v a ila b le a t w w w .nc jr s.g o v /p d ff iles/v ic tc o st.p d f.

B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, Jai lI nm at es at M i dyear 20 08 – St at i s t i cal Tab l es , T ab l e 4 (N C J 2 2 5 7 0 9 ); 11/ B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, M or t al i t y i n Loc al Jai ls 2000- 2007 , table 4 (N C J 2 2 2 9 8 8 ); and unpub l i shed d at a f rom t he 2004 S u rv e

y o f L o c a l Ja ils

. T he num b er o f rel eases f o r t he 1 2 m o nt hs end i ng June 30 , 2 0 0 8 , was es t i m at ed ba sed o n t he
n u mber of

a dmi s s i on s du r i n g t h e l as t w ee k i n J u n e t i mes 52, an d t h en r ou n ded. T ot al admi s s i on s e x ce ede d r el ea s es by appr ox i mat el y 5, 400 du r i n g t h e per i od.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 8 of

65 re sp on se s b y

ty pe of vic tim izatio n, any

atte mpt to e xtra po late in ciden c e data

fr om B JS’s i nmate survey s is likely

to skew in favor

of the most serious incident e x perie nced by eac h inmate.

Moreove r, in many

contexts i n which ser ial victimizati o n o c c u r s o v e r a r e la tively short period of tim e , it may be dif fi c ult to d e te rm ine wh e n one dis c re te inc ide nt en ds and ano the r be g ins . T his ph e no me no n is e xac e rb ate d by th e fact that B JS’s i nmate surv e y s a sk pr iso ne rs to r e po rt

the ir victimiz ations retrospect i vely – that is, to state whether (and the extent to which) they have be en sexually victimiz ed duringthe twelve months pre cedingthe survey . Whil e one would expect an inmate to have a strongrec ollection of whe ther they wer e eve r victimiz ed duringthe pre cedingy ear , inmates wh o h av e bee n victimiz ed multiple times do not alway s have a clea r re collection of how many specific times they

wer e victimized during the re p o rt i n g period. In fac t, studies show that ind ivi du a ls h ave a

ve ry dif fi c ult tim e re me mbe ri ngthe de ta ils of dis c re te vic tim izatio n e ve nts beyond approximately

six events. Moreove r, t he very attempt to mentally relive or rec ollect ea ch 10/ discrete event for purposes of counting them is of ten trauma

tic for victims, ca

using the m to block out or misremember

some subset of their e x perie nces.
I n lig ht o f

th e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s i ne xtr a

p o l at i n gr e l i a

b l e i n c i d e n c e d at a

f r o mth e B JS i nm a te surv e y s, a s w e ll a s the lim itatio ns in t he B JS fa c ili ty

surv e y s, we pr op os e to u se the pr e va le nc e data drawn from the inmate sur vey s without adjusting them t o acc ount for multiple victimiz ations experience d by

individual inmates. I f any thi n g, this decision will result in underestimating the problem, and this is consistent with a conser vative appr oach to the e stimation of benefits.
Cross-section v. Flow
. An oth e r l imi tatio n o f t he B JS r e po rt s is that th e y on ly c a ptu re data from a sa mpling of inmate s who happe n to be in the facility on the day (s) the sur vey is administered, missing inmates who may have be en in the fa cility duringthe survey ’s twelve- mont h repor ting period but who ha d been r elea sed or transfer red before the date(s) of the s urvey . Put otherwise, the
surv e y s ta ke a c ro ss- se c tio na l vi e w o f t

he pr e va le nc e of

pr iso n ra pe ra the r tha n one wh ic h a c c ounts for the flow of i nmates t hrough a facility over the period covere d by the s tudy

. This is a particula r pro bl e m in

ja ils and loc ku ps , whe re many

inm ate s r e ma in f

or ve ry sh or t du ra tio ns : e.g. , s tatistics sug g est that some 13.5 million releases f rom jails take plac e ea ch y ear , afte r an a vera g e dete ntion period of just two to three day s. Meanwhile, the ave rag e jail inmate who pa rticipated in B J S’s 1 1/ most rece nt sex ual victimiz ation survey had only been in jail for 3.4 months duringthe 12 months prior to the surve y . BJS AdultNI S 2008-09, at 31. The pr oblem is less pronounced in pr isons, but even the re inmate s respondingto the BJS s urvey had s p ent an avera g e of 7.9 ( for State) to 9 (forB u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, Pr i s oners i n 2008 , t ab l e 3 (N C J2 2 8 4 1 7 ). 12/

T he N SY C i ncl uded s t at e- owned o r o pera t ed j uv eni l e f aci l i t i es and l ar ge l ocal l y or pri vat el y operat ed 13/ f aci l i t i es t hat hel d ad

judicat ed y o ut h f

o r a t l east 90 da y s. T he sur vey excl ud ed juveni l e d et ent i o n cent ers t hat are pri mari l y (>7 5% ) d es i gn ed t o hous e st at us o f f ender s , pre - adju di cat ed y out h, an d ot her y out h h el d f or per i od s s hor t er t han 90 da y s
. I t al s o ex cl u ded s mal l er (<150 y ou t h ) f ac i l i t i es oper at ed by non - St at e e n t i t i es re g ar dl es s of t h e adj u di ca t i on sta tus o f t h e yo u th d e ta ine d

. See B JS J u v
. N SY C 2008- 09, a t 1- 2, 15- 16.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 9 of

65 fede ral) months in the fa cility duringthe 12 m o n t h s p ri or to the surve y . The number of inmates rele ased f rom prison during2008 totaled 735,454. 12/

It w ould thus a

ppear inappropriate to rely

on the figures f

rom the B J S report without a flow adjustment, for that would under- repor t the baseline pr evale nce. We a sked B J S to provide estimates based on its survey

data to take into account the flow of prisoner s, so that the baseline f igur es acc ount for all inmates in prisons, jails, and juvenile fa cilities during the repor ting pe riod.

For prisons, the total number of pe rsons victimiz ed amongprisoners r elea sed duringthe 12 months prior to the s urvey was e stimated based on the a vera g e monthly

victimiz ation rate by

ty pe of victimiz ation, multipl ied by the number of prison rele ases (735,454), times the avera g e exposure (6 months). F or jails, the total number of pe rsons victimiz ed amongpersons re lease d duringthe 12 months prior to the survey was e stimated based on the averag e daily victimiz ation rate by

ty pe of victimiz ation (ad

j u s t ed fo r t he hig her r ates in first 3 day s as re ported in the surve y ), and the n multipl ied by

the estimated number

of day s of exposure (whic h represente d 13,561,000 rele ases times the estimated ave rag e leng th of stay ).

For juvenile fac iliti es, B J S first determined the pr evale nce of sexual abuse as of the date of its survey among juvenile fac iliti es that wer e not inc luded in the NSYC. It did this by multipl ying 13/ the number of committed youth not sampled in the survey (38,000) by

the ave rag e daily

rate by ty pe of victimiz ation, times the estimated ave rag e time serve d by committed youth exclud ed from the survey (119 day s). This number wa s then adde d to the t otal number victimized at juvenile fac iliti es included in the surve y , from which w as der ived the combined a vera ge d ai l y rate by

ty pe of victimiz ati o n
. T h i s rate w as then multiplied by the estimated number

of day s of exposure for committed y outh relea sed during t h e p re ce d i n g12 months. The number of da y s of exposure was estimated by

multipl ying the number of r elea ses times the estimated length of stay (and adjusting for incomplete exposure for

youth relea sed in the first 3 months). This flow adjustment incre ases the ba seline pre valenc e figures, e specia lly i n j ai ls and juvenile detention ce nters. For example, when accounting for annual flow, the prevalenc e of se x ual abuse in jails in 2008 incre ases from 24,000 victims to 108,100. The pre valenc e in juvenile fa cilities incre ases f

rom 3,220 to 17,100. I

n prisons, the preva lence incre ases f rom 64,500 victims to 91,400. SeeTable 1, be low.See R o b e rt W . D u m o n d , T h e Im p a c t o

f P riso n e r S e x u a l Vio le n c e : C h a llen g e s o f I m p le m e n tin g P u b lic 14/ Law 108- 79 – The Pr i s on Rape El i m i nat i on Actof 2003 , 32 J. L E G IS

. 14 2 , 14 7 (20 0 6 ) ( “T o fully und ers t and t he i mp l i cat i ons of

t he B JS s t udy , one mus t r ecogn i ze t hat of al l cat egor i es of cr i me, r ape an d s exu al vi ol enc e a r e k nown t o be one of t he m o st unde rr ep o rt ed , m aki ng an accurat e ass ess m ent of i t s o ccurrence dif f i cul t

. ”).

See P o st, s upr a not e 8, at 774 ( “ R ape an d s exu al ass au l t h av e b ee n di f f i cul t t o re s ear ch becau s e a n 15/

es t i mat ed 50% t o 90% of r ape s a r e n ot r epor t ed. T h e pr obl em of u n der r epor t i n g c on t r i bu t es t o t he di f f i cu l t y of est i m at i ng t he p reval ence and i nci d ence, as wel l as t he co st of rape and s exual ass aul t

. ”).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 10 of

65 False negatives an d false positives. The B J S inmate survey s rely solely on self-r eporting of sexual abuse experience s. This introduc es the risk of fa lse neg atives, or unde rre porting , for many inmates who have experience d sexual abuse may be unwilling or

unable to ta lk about it. Whether 14/
a ra pe oc c urs in si de or

outsi de pr iso n w a lls , v ic tim s are of te n s o me nta lly

and e mot ion a lly traumatized by

their experienc e that they lack the wher ewithal to disc uss it. Other vic tims have 15/ a diffic ult tim e re portingthe incident bec ause doingso require s them to relive a n experience that was traumatic to them, or beca use they fee l sha

me or embar

rassment about the event, or beca use they live in fea r of r etribution or re taliation from their assailant should they bring the abusive a cts to light. See, e.g., Dumond, su

pra note 14, at 154-55.

In g ather ing its data , BJS attempted to co m p ensate for the pr oblem of under repor ting by
a ssu ri ngsurv e y e d inmate s that the ir re sp on se s wo uld be ke pt ano ny mou s and c on fi de nti a l. It a lso used established statistical methods to adjust its results to account for inmates who wer e selec ted for interviews but who ref

used to participate. SeeBJS AdultNI S 2008-09, at 30. These measure s are likely to have at least somewhat mitigated the proble m of false nega t i v es , for be tween 69% and 82% o f inmate s r e p o rti n gs e xu a l a b u s e in r e s p o n s e to th e inmate s ur v e y s c la im e d

to h av e never repor ted an incide nt to corre ctional administrators. SeeB JS Adu lt N I S 20 08 -0 9, at 22 -2 3. It is
ne ve rt he le ss sti ll lik e ly that the B JS p re va le nc e fi gur e s f a il t o c a ptu re a c e rt a in p e rc e nta g e of

vic tim s d u e t o un d erre p o rt i n g.
On the other

hand, fa lse positives are also an issue in the prison setting . Prisoners sometimes make f alse, spurious, or ex ag g erated allegations about the conduc t of staff me mbers or othe r inmates
– whe the r o ut o f s pit e , f

or str ate g ic or re ta liator

y re a so ns , or sim

ply fo r the ir

pe rs on a l amus e me nt. BJS’s data from fa cility

survey s sugg est that many of the re ported a lleg ations of sexual ab u se put forwa rd by adult inmates involving staf f-on- inmate sexual misconduct cannot be pr oven. Approxim atel y

2 8 % p ro v ed“u n fo un d ed ” ( m ean i n g th atth e i n v es t i gat i o nd et ermined tha t the alleg ed incident did not actually

occur), while a

nother 46% of

those alleg ations proved “ unsubstantiated” (mea ning that the investiga t i o n failed to yield sufficie nt evidence to determine whether or not the alleg ed incident actually occur red)

. BJS Adult SSV 2006, at 3-4 & Ta ble 2. Alleg ations of inmateon -i nmate se xua l a

bu se amon ga du lts are e ve n le ss l ike ly to b e su bs tanti ate d ( 14 %) and

mor e lik e ly to be unfounde d (32%)

. Id. Am on gjuv e nil e s, the pr ob le m of fa lse a lle g atio ns of se xua l a bu se is
even mor e pronounc ed: 46% of sta ff- on-inmate sexual misconduct alleg ations, and 39% of inmateon-inmate a

b u s e a ll e g ati o n s ma d e b y juv e n il e s p r o v e d

un f o un d e d u p o ninv e s ti g ati o n(theIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 11 of

65 substantiated per centa g es ar e 18% a nd 21%, respectively

). BJ S J uv. SSV 2005-06, at 3 & Table s 3-4.
BJS’s inm ate surve y s do not involve any follow-up investig ation or s u b s ta nti a ti o n o f r ep o r ted inc ide nts . T he y

do , h owe ve r, e nd e avo r t o mi nim ize the po te nti a l f or fa lse po sit ive s in

tw o w ay s. First, the surve y

response s are anony

mous and confidential and do not call upon inmates to identify the names of

their abuse rs, which pr esumably reduc es an inmate ’s incentive to f abric ate a lleg ations of abuse for strateg ic or re taliatory purposes. S econd, B J S designe d their surve y s with a number of int e rn a l c he c ks and

c ontr ols a ime d at id e nti fy ingand ex cludin gat le a st s omeinm ate s who se interview response s sug g ested ( e.g., thr ou g h in c on sis te nt r e sp on se patte rn s) e ith e r a la c k o f s inc e ri ty or a l ac k o f understandingof the que stions. See, e .g., BJS AdultNI S 2008-09, at 31; BJS J uv. NSYC 2008-09, at 6, 17.

In th e e nd , B JS is e sse nti a lly a g no sti c on

the iss ue of

fa lse ne g ativ e s a

nd fa lse po sit ive s:
Th e NI S- 2 c oll e c ts o nly

a lle g atio ns of se xua l vic tim izatio n. B e c a us e pa rt ic ipatio n in the surv e y

is a no ny mou s and re po rt s are c on fi de nti a l, the survey

does not permit any follow-up investig ation or substantiation of repor

ted in c id e nts th

r o u gh r e v iew. Some alleg ations in the NI S-2 may

be untrue . At the same ti m e, som e inmates may
r e m a i ns i l e n ta

b o uts e x u a l v i c t i m i z at i o ne x p e r i e n c e d i nth e f a c i l i ty, despite ef forts of surve y

staff to as sure inmates that their response s wo u l d b e ke p tco n fi d en t i al

. Al th o u ghth e e ff ec t s m ay b e o ff s et t i n g, the re lative extent of under r eportingand fa lse repor ting in the NI S-2 is unknown.

B J S A d u l t N I S 2 0 0 8

- 0 9 , at 6

. W e p r o p o s e t o b e th e s am e , an d t o m ak e n o a d j u s tm e n t t o t h e B JS statis tic s to a c c ount f

or the po ssi bil ity

of fa lse ne g ativ e s o r f

a lse po sit ive s. We do this because, like B J S, we lack a ny additional method for mea suringthe extent of underr eportingor fa lse repor ting. T h e data

on substantiation from BJS’s ins tituti on survey s do pr ov ide on e po te nti a l so ur c e of inf or matio n o n th e de g re e to whic h inm ate surv e y re sp on se s c ou ld be discounted for false positives. But beca use the incentives for inmates to make false a lleg ations of mis con du ct in r e po rt s to pr iso n a uth or iti e s are fa

r gre ate r t

ha n th e ir inc e nti ve to f

a br ic ate response s to a confide ntial survey , it is notclea r to what e x t en t t h e substantiation data would be helpful in pinpointing the true preva lence of prison sexual abuse. More over, in the a bsenc e o f a
c or re sp on din g so urce of in fo rm atio n to a sse ss t he e xtent of

fa lse ne g ativ e s, it w ou ld s e e m ov e rl y conser vative to adjust the prevalenc e st atistics based solely on the data c oncer

ning substantiation of
a lle g atio ns . We be lie ve that th e int e rn a l me tho do log ic a l c ontr ols that BJS ha s in c or po ra te d into i ts inm ate surv e y s to c omp e ns ate fo r bot h und e rr e po rt ing and fa lse re po rt ing are a de qu ate to t he ta sk
and pr ov ide an a de qu ate me a sure of pr iso n r a pe pr e va le nc e fo r p re se nt p ur po se s.B u r e a u o f J u s ti c e S ta ti s tic s, S e x u a l Vi o l e n c e Re

p o r t e db y Co r r e c t i o n a l

Au t h or i t i es 2004 (N C J 2 1 0 3 3 3 ). 16/

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 12 of

65 The Com plexity of Sexual V

ictim ization
. Pr ogre ss i n e lim inatin gpr iso n r a pe wo uld be ne fi t from all stake holders in the p roce ss establishing c onsistent definitions for the diffe rent ty pes of sexual victim ization t hat occ ur in prison settings. In fac t, in the s tatute itself Cong ress de fined one of the purpose s of PREA a s to “ standardize the definitions used for c ollectingdata on the inc idence of pr iso n r a pe .” 42 U. S.C. § 1 56 02 (5 ). Th us , in 20 04 B JS de ve lop e d s tand ard ize d d e fi nit ion s to guide i t s d ata collection methodologie s, and to drive e ffor ts to unify

institutional reporting p r o c e d ur e s a c r o s s th e c o un tr

y. 16/

B JS divi de s se xua l vi c tim izatio ns re po rt e d b y inm ate s into s ix dif

fe re nt e ve nt c ate g or ie s – tw o fo r inm ate -o n- inm ate vic tim izatio ns and fo ur fo r sta ff se xua l mis c on du c t. Inmate -o n- inm ate se xua l v ict imizat ion s are div ide d into “ no nc on se ns ua l se xua l a c ts” and “ a bu siv e se xua l c onta c ts onl y
. ” T h e for

mer re fer s to a broad r ang e of c onduct, including“unwa nted contac ts with another inm ate

. . . th at invo lve d o ra l, a na l, v a g ina l pen e tr atio n, ha nd job s, and

oth e r s e xua l a c ts. ” B JS Adu lt NI S 20 09 -0 9, at 7, 32 . “ Ab us ive se xua l c onta c ts o nly ,” by c ontr a st, re fe rs to “ unwa nte d c onta c ts with another inmate . . . that involved touching o f t h e i n m at e’ s buttocks, thigh, penis, bre asts, or vag ina in a sexual way .” Id

. S t a f f s e x u a l m i s c o n d

u c ti s d i v i d e d b e t w e e n“ unw i l l i n ga c t i v i ty” (i nc ide nts of

unwan ted se xua l c onta c ts) and “ wi lli nga c tiv ity ,” wh ic h s ub sume s c onta c ts char acte rized by

the re portinginmate as voluntary , even though all sexual contacts betwe en inmates and staff a

re le g ally nonconsensua l. Id

. W i th i n ea ch o f th e ca t ego ri es o f “ wi l l i n g” an d “u nwi l l i n g” contac ts with staff, the BJS s tatistics divide the victimiz ations into “touchingonly” and “ excluding touching .” Id. “ To uc hin g on ly” e qu ate s to “ a bu siv e se xua l c onta c ts o nly” in t he inm ate -o n- inm ate c onte xt, whil e “ e xclu din gtou c hin g ” e qu ate s to “ no n c o n s e n s u a l s e xua l a c ts” in t he inm ate -o n- inm ate context. Id

. The B J S definitions work well for th e s t at istical tabulation purposes for which they

wer e de signe d, but th e y

su ff e r f ro m c e rt a in l imi tatio ns fo r our c ur re nt pur po se s. On e a im i n th is IRIA i s t o as s i gn a unitcost to various ty pes of se x ual victimiz ation that occur in prison settings. As elabor ated in Part I I Ibelow, to assig n a unit cost to various ty pes of events, we need to account, at le a st t o s o m e e xt e nt , f

o r t he c omp le xity

of se xua l vi c tim izatio n. Nume ro us c on sid e ra tio ns fa c tor

int o the cost to a vi ct i m o r to society of a spe cific inc ident of sexual victimiz ation. These inc lude: whether the eve nt involved forc e or threat of forc e; whethe r it involved pressure or coe rcion; whe ther th e v i c t i mh a s b e e nv i c t i m i z e d o n c e o r m o r e th ano n c e ; w h e th e r th e v i c t i ms u f f e r e d a p hys i c a l i n

j ur y, and if so the se verity

of that injury ; and other f actor s.
The B J S definitions do not fully ref lect this complexi ty

of sexual victimiz ation. Thus, the definition of “nonc onsensual sexual acts” inc ludes a broa d rang e of vic timiz ation events that are likely to have dr astically

differ ent impacts for

cost valuation purpose s. I t wo u ld include, for example, both a forc ible g ang -ra pe inv o l v i n g vag inal penetr ation and ser ious phy sical injury , and
an in c ide nt i n whic h a

n inmate is p re ssu

re d into givi ng a staf

f m e mbe r s e xua l gratif

ic atio n inSee D u m o n d , su p ra no t e 1 4 , at 1 4 9 (“A gg resso rs em p l o y s ev era l m etho d s t o co ntro l t he i r victi m s, 17/ inc lud ing e n tra p m e n t (b la c k m a il), p re ssu re tac tics, a n d p h ysic a l f o rc e , ac c o m p a n ie d b y p syc h o lo g ic a l m a n ip u la tio n . A
com mo n f

orm of en t r apm ent i s t o g i ve a new pri s oner a nu mb er of good s whi ch ar e ‘ on l oan, ’ s i nce ne w i nmat es of t en have f ew resources avai l ab l e t o t hem

. I n t he co rr ect i o nal eco no m y , l o aned goo d s m ust b e repa i d at exo rbit ant l y hi gh
r at es
. . . . W h en a n i n mat e canno t rep ay t h e l oan , h e or s h e i s f or ce d t o pa y w i t h s ex
. Pr es s u r e t ac t i cs i n cl u de pe r s u a s i on , br i be s , t h r e a t s t o w i t h dr a w l ov e , a n d u s e of a l c oh ol o r d r ug s
. For c e t a c t i c s i n c l u de t h r e a t s of h a r m; intim id a tio n b y th e p e rp e tra to r’s siz e a n d stre n g th; b e ing p h ysic a lly h e ld d o w n ; ha v ing a w e a p o n p re se n t; a n d , a v a rie ty
o f phys i cal ass aul t s. ”).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 13 of

65 exchang e for

added time in the r ecr eation dec k. Both ty pes of “ nonconsens u al s ex ual ac ts” are ill e g a l and

re pr e hen si ble , a

nd the PRE A s tand ard s a im t o e lim inate bo th; but f or be ne fi t- c os t e va luatio n pur

po se s the fo rm e r ty

pe of e ve nt is ve ry lik e ly to h ave a muc h gre ate r a

vo ida nc e be ne fi t than the latter

. Of c ourse, ther e ar e also limits to t he extent to which a bene fit-cost analy sis can ac count for the c omp le xity of the pr ob le m ana ly zed , an d ev e n a

be ne fi t- c os t ana ly sis mus t ava il i tse lf of so me simpli fying de finitions and assumptions. For purposes of this I RI A, we the ref ore pr opose to divide
se xua l v ict im iz atio ns in p ri so n s e tti ng s into f our c ate g or ie s, wh ic h a

re so me wh at di ff

e re ntl y calibrated from those B J S uses in its statistical compilations.

We have divided BJS’s cate g ory of “nonc onsensual sexual acts” into two eve nt categ ories based on the level of c oerc ion involved. Fi rs t , we use the categ ory labeled “ rape involving fo rc e /thre at of fo rc e ” to de no te inc ide nts of ana l or v a g ina l pe ne tr atio n, or a l c onta c t w iththe pe nis or vag ina, and “ hand jobs,” whic h result from phy sical for ce or threat of phy sical forc e – such as by phy sic a lly

ho ldi ngdo wn

or re str a ini ngthe vic tim , o r t hr e ate nin g the vic timwi th a we a po n. We u se thi s c ate g or

y bo th f or sta ff -o n- inm ate and

inm ate -o n- inm ate fo rc ibl e ra pe s. Second, wedifferen t i at e “ n o n co n s en s u al s ex u al ac t s i n v o l v i n g p re s s ure / co er ci o n , ” w h i ch we use to den o t e i n ci d ents of ana l or vag inal penetr ation, oral c ontact with the penis or va g ina, and

“ ha nd job s, ” in whic h th e pe rp e tr ator , with out us ingfo rc e or the thr e at of

fo rc e , p re ssu

re d th e inm ate or made the inmate fee l that the y had to pa rticipate. This w ould inc lude sexual c ontact procur ed thr ou g h b ri be s or b la c kma il, of fe rs of pr ote c tio n o r s pe c ia l tr e atme nt o r p ri vil e g e s, of fe rs to s e ttl e a debt, pr ovision of drug s, or ver bal per suasion. We use this c ateg ory both for staff -on-inmate a

nd 17/ inm ate -o n- inm ate no nc on se ns ua l se xua l a c ts.
We are able to divide BJS’s “nonc onsensual sexual acts” categ ory into these two diffe rent cate g ories bec ause the survey questions posed t o inmates asked about the level of coer cion used for the var ious sex ual ac ts they repor ted, and BJS tabulated those response s by level of c oerc ion. See BJS AdultNI S 2008-09, at 25-26, 31, 46-51, 74-81; BJS J uv. NSYC 2008-09, at 3, 9, 13, 14, 18-19, 22 , 4 4- 48 . We be lie ve it a pp ro pr iate to m ake thi s d ist inc tio n b e c a us e the c os t to the vic timand to so c ie ty of a ra pe inv olv ing fo rc e or thr e at of fo rc e is, in our vie w, su bs tanti a lly g re ate r t

ha n th e c os t of a nonc onsensual sexual act involvinglesser f orms of pre ssure or c oerc ion. See Part IV.See B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, 20 08 C ens us of S t at e a nd L ocal Law E nf orc em entA genci es a n d 2005 18/ N a t i o n a lS u rve

y o f S t a t e C o u rtP ro sec u t o rs.
See B JS Adu l t N I S 2008- 09, a t 22- 23. 19/

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 14 of

65 Our t hir d c ate g or

y , “ a bu siv e se xua l c onta c ts, ” ha s th e same me ani ng th at B JS use s in its statistical compilations bu t i s l i m i t ed her e to inmate-on- inmate contac ts, to wit, “unwanted [i.e., forc ed, coe rce d, or pre ssured] contacts with anothe r i nmate .

. . that [onl y ] i nvolved touchingof the inmate’s buttocks, thigh, pe nis, breasts, or va g ina in a sexual way .” Our final categ ory , “willing se x with staff,” includes incidents in which the inmate repor ted that he or

she willingly

(i.e., without any form of f orce or pre ssure) ha d sex or sex ual contac t with staff.

Iss ue s relat e d to sp e c if

ic inst itu ti on typ es. The fina l limi tation of the B J S baseline preva lence statistics for which we need to acc ount in this I RI A has to do with the ty pes of institutions
cover ed by

the B J S survey s. BJS’s data with r espec t to adult prisons and jails a re c omprehe nsive,
re fl e c tin gthe ma ssi ve sc a le of the Natio na l I nmate Sur ve y , an d the y

pr ov ide a ro bu st i f n ot c omp le te pic tur e of the pr e va le nc e of pr iso n ra pe and se xua l a

bu se in tho se fa c ili tie s natio nw ide

. B JS’s d ata with respec t to juvenile fac iliti es ar e somewhat more limited, since the NSYC only studies fac iliti es that hold adjudicated youth for at lea st 90 day s. BJS has nevertheless be en able to ext rapolate for purposes of this I RIA data on the estimated preva lence of sexual a ssault in fac iliti es not cove red by the survey

. Se esu

pra no te 13 and

a c c omp anying

te xt.
BJS has not, howeve r, studied the pre valenc e of se x ual assault in community confine ment fa c ili tie s, and

we are awa

re of no ava ila ble stu die s c on du c te d by oth e r e nti tie s. Ma ny c omm un ity
c on fi ne me nt f

a c ili tie s are op e rate d b y

(o r i n a sso c iatio n w ith ) ne ighb or ing or ne arb y pr iso ns or ja ils ; to the extent they

are , data on the pr evale nce of sexual abuse within such fac iliti es may in some case s be subsumed within the data f or the ope ratingprison or jail. Be yond that, we a re not a war e of a ny empirica l attempt to assess the pre valenc e of se x ual abuse in community confine ment fac iliti es or to propose a me thodology for doingso.
No r a re we awa

re of any statis tic s p ur

po rt ingto a sse ss t

he preval ence of sexua l a bu se in Americ a’s lockups. An esti mated 13.7 milli on arr ests wer e made in 2009, and it can be assumed that
a signif ic ant p e rc e nta g e of the se pa sse d thr ou g h th e (c on se rv ativ e ly -e sti mate d) 4, 50 0 lo c ku ps a c ro ss the c ountr y e a c h y e ar. B e c a

us e the amou

nt o f t ime e a c h p e rs on

sp e nd s in a g ive n lo c ku

p f a c ili ty 18/ is b ri e f ( ty pic a lly le ss tha

n 24 hours ), c on du c tin g a me anin g fu l sur ve y of loc ku

p d e ta ine e s to a sse ss the pre valenc e of se x ual abuse in those settings is diffic ult. W hile the short amount of time deta inees
us ua lly sp e nd in l oc ku p f a c ili tie s, tog e the r w iththe ty pic a l phy sic a l la

yout of loc ku ps , w ou ld s ug g e st that lockup detainees face a lower risk of sexual abuse than do inmate s in other setting s, we c annot ign o r e th e an e c d o ta l e v id e n c e th at s e xu a l a b u s e c anan d

d o e s o c c ur

in lo c k u p s e tt in g s
. St atistics
su g g e sti ngthat 15 % o f s e xu al a bu se vic tim s in

ja ils re po rt

havin gbe e n a

bu se d b y ano the r i nmate wi thi n th e fi rs t 24 ho ur s o f the ir arr iva l at th e ja il a lso ind ic ate that th e pr ob le m of se xua l a bu se 19/I ncl udes cr oss - s ect i onal nu mb er cove r ed i n B JS s ur vey s pl us nu mb er of es t i mat ed vi ct i ms r el eas ed 20/ in th e twe lve m o n ths p rio r to the su rv e y. Ju v e n ile fa c ili ties in c lud e a d ju d ic a te d /c o m m itt e d yo u th o n ly.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 15 of

65 in lockups cannot a

nd should not be ignor ed. Ne verthe less, we are c urre ntly constraine d by

an a bs e nc e of e mpi ri c a l data

a s to the ma g nit

ud e of that pr ob le m.
Due to the limitations in t he available data, we have de cided not to estimate the ba seline preva lence of sexual abuse in lockups or co m m u n ity corr ectional f

acilities. This adds a f

urther
conser vative ele ment to our baseline pr evale nce f igur es, in the sense of underestimating the ext ent of the problem. We do include the bene fits of avoidingsexual abuse in these fa cilities in our
a c c ount ingof

no n- qu anti fi a

ble be ne fi ts i n Pa

rt IV b e low , a

nd we inv ite pu

bli c c omm e nt a s to wh e the r t he re is a be tte r w ay

of c a ptu ri ngthe be ne fi t of

pr e ve nti ngse xua l a

bu se in t he se se tti ng s.
Baseline Prevalence

Matrix. Takin g int o a c c ount the fo re g oin g c on sid e ra tio ns , w e se t f

or th in T a ble 1 our e sti mate of the ba se lin e pr e va le nc e of pr iso n ra pe fo r b e ne fi t- c os t ana ly sis purp os e s. Our m at ri x u s es fo ur d i ff

er en tev en tty

p es (r ap e i n v o l v i n g fo rc e, n o n co n s en s u al s ex u al ac ts involvi ng p re s s ure , ab u s i v e s ex u al co n t ac t s , an d wi l l i n g s ex wi th s t af

f) i n thre e d i ff

er en tco n fi n em en ts et t i n gs (adult prisons, adult jails, and juvenile facilities). For eac h event ty pe, we list the t otal number of individuals who wer e victimiz ed during2008, as adjusted to ac count for the flow of inmates ove r that period of time. Inmates who e x perie nced mor e than one ty pe of vic timiz ation duringthe per iod
are included in the figures f or the most serious ty

pe of vic timiz ation they

repor ted.

Tabl e 1 Bas e line P r e va le nc e of P r iso n Ra pe and Se xua l A buse by Typ e of Incid ent and Typ e of Fac ility, 2008 20/

A dul t P ri s ons A dul t Jai l s Juv eni l e Fa ci l i t i es
R ape i nvol vi ng f

orc e/ t hr eat of

f orc e 26, 200 39, 200 4, 400
N onc ons en s ual s ex ual ac t s i nvol vi ng

pr es s ur e/ coe rc i on 18, 400 14, 800 2, 900

A bus i ve s ex ual c ont act s 19, 000 23, 000 3, 000
W i l l i ng s ex w i t h s t af

f 27, 800 31, 100 6, 800
TO TA L 91, 400 108, 100 17, 100In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 16 of

65 II. Est im at ing th e Qua nt ifia ble Uni t Be ne fit of A vo idinga P r iso n Ra pe orSe xua l A ssa ult Placing a monetar y value on anav o i d eds ex u al as s au l tco n fr o n t s co n s i d er ab le methodolog ical difficulties, and the enter

prise may even seem obj ectionable to some people. How ever , the monetar y value of an avoide d sexual assault is only one dimension of the total bene fits that will be a chieve d by the re duction in the preva lence of such as s au l t s i n prison. This Part discusses that monetary value. Par

t I V discusses bene fits from re ducing rape and sexual a ssault in confinement fa cilities that
are not quantifiable.
As for the difficu l t i es inhere nt in any attempt to monetiz e the va lue of a n avoided se x ual
a ssa ult , E xec uti ve Or de r 12 86 6 ins tr uc ts a g e nc ie s that the y mus t me a sure qu anti fi a ble be ne fi ts “ to the fullest extent that [t hey] ca n be usefully estimated.” EO 12866, § 1(a ). Some unce rtainty in such estimates is not itself sufficie nt rea son to abandon the e ffor t. “Unce rtainty

may limitwhat an a g ency c an d o, but it

do e s n ot e xcu se an a g e nc y fr om i ts s tatut ory ob li gati on to d o what it

c an to a pp ri se itself – and henc e the public a nd t h e C ong ress – of the economic c onsequenc es of a proposed regulation before it decides whether to adopt the measur e.” Chamber of Commerceof the United States v. SEC , 4 12 F .3 d 1 33 , 1 44 (D .C. Cir . 200 5)

. Put oth e rw ise , “th e a g e nc y ’s job is t o e xer c ise its e x pertise to make tough choice s about which of the competingestimates is most plausibl e, and to hazard a guess as to which is cor rec t. . . .

. Regulators by nature work unde r conditions of ser ious
uncer tainty , and re gulation would be at an e nd if unce rtaint y al o n e were a n excuse to ignor e a congressional command.” Pu bli c Citi ze n v

. Fe de ra l Mo tor

Car rie r S afe ty Ad mi n ., 374 F.3d 1209, 1220-21 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

M o re o v er , d es p i t e t h e u n ce rt ai n t i es , o ur l ega l s y s t e m d o e s h av e m ec h an i s m s fo r p l ac i n g a monetary value on the pain, suffe ring , and phy sical and dignitar y losses experience d by

inmates who have be en abuse d while in confine ment – for e x ample, through j u ry verdic ts and litigation settlements. We also have me ans to estimate the aver ag e cost of the medical a nd mental hea lth care , and other service s, that a ra

pe victim ty

pically require s after

his or her or deal. M oreove r, social
sc ie nti sts fr om a

numbe r o f d isc ipl ine s h ave de ve lop e d c onvin c ing data on the c os t of va ri ou s f or ms of sexual victimiz ation to the victim and to society

. A Review of the Literature. We are not awar e of a ny empirica l studies that have attempted to place a value on r ape or

sexual abuse s pecif

ically in the prison setting. For this reason, we have relied pr imarily

on s tu d i es t hat place a value on rape and sexual abuse g ener ally , and we have
atte mpt e d, wh e re a

pp ro pr iate and

fe a sib le , to a dju st the c on c lus ion s of tho se stu die s to re fl e c t a s b e st we canth e d i ff

er i n g ci rc um s t an ce s p o s edb y s ex u al ab u s e i nth e c o n fi n em en ts et t i n g.
Th e stu die s th at ha

ve c a lc ulate d th e c os t of ra pe to the vic tim and

to s oc ie ty

have g e ne ra lly do ne so us ingtw o dif

fe re nt me tho do log ie s. Som e stu die s, fo llo wi ng wh at is kn own a s th e vic tim
c omp e ns atio n mo de l, h ave loo ke d at th e pr ob le m e xpo st and have de te rm ined h ow mu c h s oc ie ty wo uld have to pay to fu lly c omp e ns ate a vic tim wh o ha s alr e a dy be e n ass a ult e d (or c or re sp on din g ly ho w muc h a

vic timwo uld

be wi lli ngto a c c e pt t o c omp e ns ate for th e assa ult ). Othe r s tud ie s,S e e g e n e ra lly J o h n R o m a n & G ra h a m F e r r e ll, Cos t

- Bene f i tAnal ys i s f or Cr i m e Pr ev ent i on: 21/ O pp ort un i t

y Co s ts , R ou t i ne Sa vi ng s , and Cri m e Ext er na l i t i es , 14 C RI M E P REV

. S TUD I ES 68

- 6 9 ( 2 0 0 2 ).

See B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, Sp eci al R eport : M ent al H eal t h P r ob l em s o f P r i s on a nd Jai lI

nm at es 22/ 3 (u p d a te d 2 0 0 6 ), a v a ila b le a t bj s
. oj p. u s doj

. g ov / con t en t / pu b/ pdf / mh ppj i

. pdf

.
In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 17 of

65 fo llo wi ngwh at is kn own a s the c ontin g e nt va luatio n mod e l, have loo ke d at th e pr ob le m e xan teand have a sked how much soc iety (or a prospec tive victim) is willi ngto p ay t o avert a future sexual assault. Both a

pproac hes have their adva ntag es and disadva

ntag es, and our

analy sis draws lessons 21/
an d c o n c l u s i o n s f

r o me a c htyp e o f

s tu dy.
The V ictim Com

pensation Model

. The victim compensa tion model endeavor s to identify the costs of sexual violence to the vic tim, both t ang ible (such a s medical a nd mental health ca

re) and int ang ibl e (s uc h a s p a in a

nd su ff e ri ng ). Cos ts are mon e tize d in re fe re nc e to a

mou nts a pp ro pr iate to c omp e ns ate fo r t

he va ri ou s h arm s c a

us e d b y the a ssa ult

. Th e larg e st q

ua nti fi a ble c os t to vic tim s o f s e xua l ass a ult is pa in, su ff

e ri ng , an d loss of

dignit y – put otherwise, a

diminuti on in their quality of life. SeeN IJ V I C TI M C OS TS , su pra note 10, at 1, 9, 15-16. “The eff

ects of se x ual violence are well-kn o wn and e x tremely deleterious. Victims of
se xua l vi ole nc e un de rg o a de str uc tiv e , cat astr op hic , li fe -c ha ng inge ve nt. Th e y

are lik e ly

to e xpe ri ence phy sic a l, e mot ion a l, c ognit ive , p syc ho log ic a l, s oc ia l, a nd se xua l pr ob le ms a s a

re su lt. Even one event may prec ipitate a life- time of pain and suf fer ing.” Dumond, su

pra note 14, at 150- 51.
A n o th e r

s i g n i f i c an tc o s tr e l at e s t o m e n t a l h e a l thc ar e an d p s yc h o l o g i c a l s u

p p o rts e r v i c e s. Sur v i v o rs of sex ual violence endure a number of mental he alth conseque nces, inc luding but not limit ed to guilt, shame, fea r, anxiety , and tension. “One study noted that even se ventee n y ear s after the assault, 16.5% of

rape victims manife sted sy mptoms of posttraumatic stress disorde r (PTSD).” Dum ond, su

pra n o te 1 4 , at 1 5 0

- 5 1 ( f o o tn o te s an d inte r

n a l qu o tati o n s o mi tt e d )

. “ Sh o rt- te r m ( and long-t er m ) ef

fe cts on male a

nd fema le sexual violence victims might include a wide ra ng e of psychiatric problems such a s PTSD, rape trauma sy ndrome, a

nx iety , depre ssion, ex ace rbation of pree x isting psychiatric disorders, a nd suicidal fee lings.” Id . at 151.
There is g ood rea son to a ssume that the mental health car e cost of sexual violenc e is gr eate r when the a ssault takes plac e in the cor re ctional settingthan it is when it occurs in the g ener al po pu latio n. Ev e n a

bs e nt any assau lt, be tw e e n 3 0% and 40 % o f i nc arc e rate d in div idu a ls e xhibi t sy mptoms of mental health disorder s upon intake, com p ar ed wi th only approximately

11% of the population as a whole. This g reater prevalenc e of mental i llness in America ’s prisons means that 22/ compar ed to society

as a whole a larger p o rt ion of the inmate c ommunity is predisposed to beingSee D u m o n d , su p ra not e 14, at 154 ( “ I n j ai l s and pri s ons
. . . t he un i que s t r uct ur e of i nca r cer at i on may 23/

r es ul t i n e ven mo r e debi l i t at i ng ef f ect s on v i ct i ms. Res ear ch has demo ns t r at ed t hat i nca r cer at ed vi ct i ms a r e more of t en p hysi ca l l y assault ed d uring a t t ac ks, and t he y m ay ex p erien ce rep ea t ed assau l t s b y m ult i p l e a ssail an t s o ve r t i m e. A s a resu l t , victi m s m ay ex p erien ce o n-go i ng p sycho l o gica l t rau m a, t erro r, he l p l essn ess, an d f ea r as the p hysi ca l / sex ua l ab use con t i n u es
. . . . I n a ddi t i on , v i ct i ms e x per i en ce e n or mou s s oci al c on s equ en ce s ; v i ct i ms rout i nel y e x per i en ce a l os s of social s t at us, and t hey m i ght be m o re vul nerab l e f o r f ut ure at t acks wi t hi n t he jai l or p ri son. ”).

D u m o n d , su

p ra n ot e 14, a t 151- 54. 24/

See T ed R

. M i l l er et al ., C O ST S O F S E X U A L V I OL E NC E I N M I N N ESOTA , at 1 1 (M inn . D e p ’t H e a lth J u ly 25/ 2 0 0 7 ), a v a ila b le a t h ttp :// w w w .p ire .o rg /d o c u m e n ts/m n

_ b ro c h u re .p d f. M i l l er es t i mat ed t h at a n a ct or a t t empt of s u i ci de
resu l t i ng f

ro m sexu al assau l t co st s $ 5 ,40 0 i n m ed i ca l ex p en ses an d $ 1 9 1 ,30 0 in q ua l i t y o f li f e l o sses, in 2 0 0 5 d o l l ars. W e have ad

jus t ed t hese 20 0 5 do l l ar t o t al s t o 20 1 0 do l l ars usi ng the C P I ad jus t er o f 1

. 1 3 6 , w hi ch was deri ved f rom t he B ur eau of Labo r St at i s t i cs, H i st o ry of C P I- U U .S. A l l It em s Ind ex es, ava i l ab l e at f t p : / / f t p
. b l s. go v/ p ub / special

. reque st s/ cp i / cp i ai

. t xt

.

See T e rr y A . K u p e rs , P R I S ON M AD N ESS : T H E M E N T A L H E A L T H C RI SI S B E HI ND B A R S A ND W H AT W E 26/ M U ST D O A BOUT I T 1 5 2 (“T he i n ci den ce of AI D S i n pr i s on i n 1994 w as 518 c as es pe r 100, 000, c ompar ed t o a co m p arab l e annual i nci d ence i n t he t o t al po p ul at i o n of 3 1 cases pe r 10 0 , 0 0 0

. ”).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 18 of

65 vulnera b l e t o sexual abuse, and to experienc ing that abuse in an e specia lly debilitating manne r. 23/ As Congr ess re cognized, sex ual assault exace rbate s the preva lence of mental illness in our prisons by “substantially

incre asingthe rate of post-traumatic stre ss disorder, de pression, [and] sui cide . . . amongcurr ent and f

ormer inmate s.” 42 U.S.C. § 15601(14)(D ).

In addition to devastating psycholog ical effec ts, prison sexual assaults often have phy sical
ra mif ic atio ns . Asignif

ic ant p e rc e nta g e of

inm ate s su ff

e r phy sic a l inj ur

y a s a re su lt of se xua l a ssa

ult , espec ially when the assault takes place under forc e or threat of forc e. See, e .g., BJS AdultNI S 2008- 0 9 , at2 2 -2 3

. S u ch i n

j uri es cani n cl u d e kn i fe o r s t ab wo un d s , b ro k en b o n es , an al o r r ec t al t eari n g, chipped or

broken te eth, interna l injuries, bruises, cuts, scratches, loss of consc iousness, and other injuries. Id . at 22. Of a ll victims of sexual abus e i n p risons, an estimated 20% said that they had sust a in e d an in

ju r y

– 8 5 % o f w h o m r e p o rte d at le a s t o n e s e r io u s in ju r y
. N PRE C Re port, at 41. These phy sical ra

mifications car

ry with them tang ib l e, qu an tifiable costs in the for m of injury response and other

medical c are
. Sex ual assault in the prison envir onment also exposes victims t o an incr ease d risk of suicide. Nea

rly 50% of prison rape victims contemplate suicide, while 17-19% a ctually attempt 24/ it. A su ic ide atte mpt , su c c e ssf ul or oth e rw ise , h a s b e e n e sti mate d to c os t an ave ra g e of $2 23 ,4 00 in 20 10 do lla

rs
. 25/

L ikewise, sexual abuse in prison e x poses vi ct i m s to an incre ased r isk of contra cting HIV/AI DS, other sexually transmitted infec tions, a nd infec tious disea ses such as tuberc ulosis and hepatitis B a

nd C. See 42 U.S.C. § 15601(14)( C). The rates of sexually transmitted infec tions are much g reater within confine ment fac iliti es than in the g ener al population. For example, in 2008 26/B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, Bul l et i n: H I V i n Pr i s ons (upd at ed 20 1 0 ), a va i l abl e at 27/ h ttp :// b js .o jp .us d o j.g o v /c o n te n t/p u b /p d f/hivp 0 8 .p d f.

See M i l l er et

al ., su p ra n ot e 25, a t 12. 28/

See N IJ V I C T I M C O STS , su p ra no te 1 0 , at 1 6

. T h e fi g u re s u se d he re a re tho se p re se n te d p e r v ic tim 29/

r at her t han per vi ct i mi zat i on, s i nce we hav e c hos en t o us e pr eva l enc e f i gu r es r at her t han i nc i dence f i gu r es : “ T he [ per victi m ] f i gu re is pro b ab l y a m o re u seful esti m ate, since the q ua l i t y o f li f e l o sses (the l arg est co m p o ne nt o f rap e c o st s)
ar e e s t i mat ed f

r om j ur y awa r ds t o vi ct i ms ( not vi ct i mi zat i ons )

. ” Id

. at 21. T h e 1993 f i g u r es were co nvert ed t o 2010 d o llar s u sin g the C P I a d ju ste r o f 1 .5 , w h ic h w a s d e riv e d fro m the B u re a u o f L a b o r S ta tisti c s, H isto ry o f C P I-U U .S . A ll Ite m s In d e x e s, a v a ilab le a t f t p : / / f t p
. b l s. go v/ p ub / special

. reque st s/ cp i / cp i ai

. t xt

.
Id

. T h e v i ct i m c os t s a s s oci at ed wi t h l os s of qu al i t y of

l i f e ar e h i g h er f

or j u v en i l es t h an t h ey ar e f or 30/

a d u lts b e c a u se o f ju v e n iles’ lo n g e r e x p e c te d li v e s a n d b e c a u se o f hig h e r m e n ta l he a lth tre a tm e n t co sts fo r j u v e n ile
v ic tim s. See M ill e r, su p ra no t e 2 5 , at 1 0 (“A d ult s h ad lo w er m en t al h ea l t h co st s, l o st l ess q ua l i t y of l i f e, an d ha d l ess like liho o d o f t u rn ing to su ic id e o r su b sta n c e a b u se tha n c h ild re n fo llo w ing a se x u a l as sa u lt. ” ); see a lso T ed R

. M i l l er et al ., Cos ts of

J uve ni l e Vi ol enc e: Pol i cy I m pl i cat i ons , 107 P E DI AT RI CS 1, 3 (Jan. 20 0 1 ).

See M ill e r, su

p ra no t e 2 5 , a t 11

. T he f i gures here ar e d eri ved f i rs t by mult i p l y i ng t he f i gures f rom t he 31/

a u tho rs ’ T a b le 7 (w h ic h re flec t co st p e r v ic tim iz a tio n ) b y 1 .2 6 to yield the c o st p e r v ic tim ( in 2 0 0 5 d o llar s)

. S e e id

. at 17- 18. T h es e f

i g u r es w er e t h en mu l t i pl i ed by 1. 136 t o c on v er t f r om 2005 dol l ar s t o 2010 dol l ar s
. T h e CP I a dj u s t er of

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 19 of

65 almost 22,000 indivi du al s i n car cer ated in state a nd fede ral prisons (1.5% of the total population)
wer e known to be living with H IV/AI DS. The preva lence of Hepatitis C is eve n highe r in prisons 27/ beca use of intravenous druguse prior to inca rce ration. SeeNPREC Report, at 129. These diseases
are expensive to treat and a re sometimes fatal. One study estimated t he cost of HIV to a victim of
se xua l a ssa

ult a s $ 2, 40 7, 60 0 in

20 10 do lla

rs
. 28/

Var ious studies based on the victim compensation model have attempted to c alculate the monetary value of rape and sexual assault by deter min i n g t h e co st to the victim of medical and mental hea lth care , diminis hed quality of life, a nd incre ased r isk of suicide and c ontrac ting se rious infec tions. One such study , published by the Depa rtmen t ’s Na t i o n al Institut e of Justi ce, put the
aver ag e cost pe r ra

pe victim at $ 1 1 0 , 0 00 in 1993 dollars, which tra nslates to $165,000 in 2010 do lla rs
. When the victim is a juvenile, that study put the aver ag e cos t o f ra p e per vic tim at 29/ $125,000 in 1993 dollars, which tra nslates to $187,500 in 2010 dollars. T hese e stimates 30/ considere d both immediate use of medic al ca re and mental hea lth services, lost produc tivity , and pe rm ane nt d isa

bil ity , a s w e ll a s th e c os t of pa in, su ff

e ri ng , f e ar, and los t qu a lity

of lif e . The y a lso took into account the impac t of multipl e or se rial victimiz ation. The quality of life e stimates were derive d from the a

naly sis of 1,106 jury awa

rds and settlements to assault, rape , and burn sur vivors to compensate for pa in, suffer ing, a nd lost quality

of life ( excluding punitive damag es).
A m or e re c e nt s tud

y by Pr of . T e d M ill e r a

nd oth e rs , c ommissio ne d b y the Minne so ta Depa rtment of Public He alth, place d the costs at $198,960 (in 2010 dollars) pe r adult victim for ra pe in the g ener al population and $386 for abusive sexual contac t not resulting in phy sical i n jury or attempted pene tration. When the victim wa s a juvenile, the cost was $263,800 per victim. The 31/ 32/1. 136 w as dr aw n f r om t h e B u r ea u of

La bor St at i s t i cs s ou r ce c i t ed su p ra i n n ot e 25.

W e c o n ta c te d P ro fes so r M ill e r fo r fur the r e luc id a tio n o f t h e se e m ing ly lo w c o st p e r vic tim o f inc id e n ts 32/ of “ ot h er s ex u al a s s au l t f or a du l t s over 18” ( i

. e. , s ex u al a s s au l t s h or t of r ape )

. Pr of

es s or M i l l er e x pl ai n ed t h at f or pur po s es of

hi s ar t i cl e “ ot her s exu al as s aul t ” r ef er s t o conduct t hat f

al l s wel l s hor t of

an at t emp t ed or c om pl et ed s exu al penet r at i on. A ny co nduct t hat i nv ol ved a ny degr ee of s exu al ag gr es s i ven es s on t he part of t he perpet r at or w as cons i dere d an at t em p t ed rape i n hi s st ud y and cl ass i f i ed as such. T hus, “ot her sexual ass aul t ” ref erred o nl y t o co nt act s t hat i nvo l ve s ex u al t ou ch i n g or abu s e wi t h ou t an y coe r ci on , pr es s u r e, f or ce , or t h r ea t of

f or ce
. V i ct i ms of

s u ch a s s au l t s , i n Pr of

es s or M ill e r’s v ie w , ar e un like ly t o e n c o u n te r a n y c o sts b e yo n d a sm a ll d im inu tio n o f q u a lit y o f lif e d u e to e m b a rr a ssm e n t, hu m i l i ati o n, and t he l i ke

. T he re m ay also b e a sm all co st asso ciated w i t h avo i d an ce b eh av i o rs und ertak en i n re sp o nse t o bull y i ng. B ut i n P rof ess o r M i l l er’ s vi ew t hese co st s are sm al l p er ave rage vict i m , e special l y si nce a cert ai n pe rcent age o f vic tim s w ill ha v e z e ro m o n e tiza b le c o st. W e q uest i o ned t he b asi s f o r P rof ess o r M i l l er’ s ap p arent a ss um p t i o n that vict i m s o f “o t her s exual ass aul t ” i ncur n o c o sts fo r m e n ta l he a lth tre a tm e n t. P r o fe s s o r M ill e r e x p la ine d tha t t h e c o st o f m e n ta l he a lth c a re p e r v ic tim in h is art i cl e was deter m i ned by f i rs t c al cul at i ng the t o t al a m o unt s p ent on m ent al heal t h care as a res ul t of sexual vi o l ence and t hen di vi di ng t hat t ot al by t he nu mb er of vi ct i ms. For t hi s pur po s e, a l l of t he ment al he al t h c ar e r es ul t i ng f r om s exu al
v i ol e n c e w a s a s s u me d t o r e l a t e t o a c t u a l or a t t e mp t e d r a pe , a n d a l l of t h a t c os t w a s a s s i g n e d t o t h a t c a t e g or y of v i c t i m, ra the r th a n to the c a te g o ry o f “o the r se x u a l as sa u lt. ”

W e a r e n ot awa r e of

an y ac ademi c s t udi es t hat ha ve at t emp t ed t o ext r ap o l at e f r om r ape- as s oci at ed 33/

m ent al heal t h co st s i n general set t i ngs t o t ho se i n t he p ri son set t i ng. G i ven t hat t he p reval ence o f s eri o us p re- exi st i ng m e n ta l he a lth issu e s in p riso n s is two to five tim e s g re a te r t h a n in t h e p o p u la tio n a t la rg e , a n d tha t the risk o f m u lti p le vi ct i mi zat i on i s at l eas t t en t i mes gre ater, w e view a mul t i pl i er of t wo as cons er vat i ve. B ot h t he exa cer bat i on of pre e x isting m e n ta l he a lth c o n d iti o n s a n d the p h e n o m e n o n o f ser ia l vic tim iz a tio n a re like ly to inc re a se the c o st o f t h e ra p e u tic
r es po ns es by at l eas t 100 %

. W e i nv i t e publ i c c om ment as t o whe t her a di f f er ent ap proach i s m ore appropri at e a nd as t o w h et h er t h er e ar e es t abl i s h ed met h odol og i es or da t a f o r d eri vi n g a n e s t i mat e of me n t al h ea l t h c os t s i n t h e pr i s on set t i ng.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 20 of

65 qu a lity of lif e e sti mate s w e re a g a in de ri ve d fr om the ana ly sis of jur y awa rd s and se ttl e me nts . T a

ble 2 on the next page display s the brea kdown of c onstituent costs which Miller et al . identified.

Be cause Table 2 r efle cts the costs of r ape a nd sexual abuse in th e gen er al p opulation, a
numbe r o f a dju stm e nts ne e d to be ma de to a c c ount fo r the dif fe re nc e s of ra

pe and se xua l a

bu se in the pr iso n c onte xt. F ir st, the e le me nts of los t wor k, pr op e rt y dama g e , a

nd pe rp e tr ator ’s e arn inglos s while conf

ined must be delete d as inapplica ble in the prison con t ex t. We also reduce the cost of pregnancy

to acc ount for the f

act that the vast majority

of prison sexual assault victims are male , makingthe risk of pregnancy per vic timiz ation much lower than it is in t he g ener al non-c orre ctional setting. Simi larly , the entry for se x ually

transmitted diseases must be r oug hly doubled to acc ount for the f act that in the pr ison setting the r isk of contra ctinga sexually transmitted disease is much g reater than the risk in the g ener al population. Se esu pra no te s 2 6- 28 and

a c c omp anyingte xt. L ikewise, w e d o u

b le th e c o s t o f me n ta l h e a lt h c ar e to a c c o un t f

o r th e f a c ts th at th e in c id e nce of mental illness in the prison setting is at least twice the incidence in the g ener al population and that the ps ycholog ical impact of rape in the prison setting is g ener ally more de bilitating than it is in the
non-cor rec tional setting, e specia lly g iven the fre q

u e n c y o f mu lt iple or ser ial victimiz ation. Se esu pra no te s 2 3- 22 and

a c c omp anyingte xt. 33/So urce: M i l l er et al ., C O ST S O F S E X U A L V I OL E NC E I N M I N N ESOTA , su p ra n ot e 25, a t 11. 34/

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 21 of

65 As sh own in Ta

ble 3 on the ne xt p a g e , the se a dju stm e nts yie ld a c os t pe r pr iso n ra pe vic tim in 2010 dollars of $197,000 for eac h adult rape victim, $271,000 for ea ch juvenile victim, and $386 fo r e a c h p ri so n s e xua l a

bu se vic tim

. Tabl e 2 VictimCom pensation Costs of Rape and Abu sive Sexual Contact, per Vict im in the Ge neral P opul ation, in 2010 dollars 34/

C o st C h i l d R a p e A d u l t R a p e S ex u a l A b u se M edi ca l Car e $1, 002 $1, 002
M en t al H ea l t h Car e $13, 455 $2, 004
Los t W or k $5, 582 $4, 008 Prope r t y D ama g e $145 $143 Su f f er i n g a n d Los t Q u al i t y of Li f e $205, 257 $169, 044 $386 Se x u al l y T r an s mi t t ed D i s ea s es $1, 574 $1, 574
Pre g n an cy $429 $573 Su i ci de Act s $23, 617 $11, 737 Su bs t an ce Abu s e $6, 584 $3, 292
V i ct i m Se r v i ce s $429 $143 Cr i mi n al J u s t i ce : I n v es t i g at i on / Adj u di ca t i on $859 $716

Sa n ct i on i n g $3, 006 $2, 863
Per pet r at or ’ s Ear n i n g Los s W h i l e Conf i n ed $1, 861 $1, 861
T ot al $263, 800 $198, 960 $386So urce: M i l l er et al ., C O ST S O F S E X U A L V I OL E NC E I N M I N N ESOTA , su p ra n ot e 25, a t 11. 35/

M ark A. Co hen e t a l. , Wi l l i n g n e s s
- t o
- Pay f o r C r i me C o n t r o lPr o g r a ms , 42 C RI M I NO L OGY 86, 91 36/ (2 0 0 4 ).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 22 of

65 Tabl e 3 VictimCom pensation Costs of Rape and Abu sive Sexual Contact, per Vict im in Conf

inem ent Sett ings, i n 2010 dol lars 35/

C o st C h i l d R a p e A d u l t R a p e S ex u a l A b u se M edi ca l Car e $1, 002 $1, 002
M en t al H ea l t h Car e $26, 910 $4, 008 Su f f er i n g a n d Los t Q u al i t y of Li f e $205, 257 $169, 044 $386 Se x u al l y T r an s mi t t ed D i s ea s es $3, 149 $3, 149
Pre g n an cy $429 $573 Su i ci de Act s $23, 617 $11, 737 Su bs t an ce Abu s e $6, 584 $3, 292
V i ct i m Se r v i ce s $429 $143 Cr i mi n al J u s t i ce : I n v es t i g at i on / Adj u di ca t i on $859 $716

Sa n ct i on i n g $3, 006 $2, 863
T ot al $271, 242 $196, 527 $386
The Cont ingent V aluati on (or W

illin gness to Pay) Model

. Whil e the victim compensation model calc ulates the e

xpo st costs associate d with incidents of sexual abuse, the willing ness to pay model calc ulates the ex ante benef its of avoiding such incidents. Wil lingne ss to pay advocates point to the ability

of this model to capture the value that s o ci ety place s on avoidanc e as be ing mor e appropr iate for

a re gulatory

cost-b en ef

i t assessment. “While jury awa rds ar e one w ay

to capture some of the intang ible costs of cr ime that previous appr oache s had ignored, the method is not entirely appropr iate for use in c ost-benef it a naly sis. Conce ptually , when de cidingwhether to fund
a pr ogra m, w e wa nt t o k no w h owmuc h the pu

bli c e xpe c ts to be ne fi t – he nc e ho w muc h th e y wo uld be willing to pa

y . Thus, economists g ener ally pref er e xan teme a sure s o f ‘ wi lli n gn e s s - to- pa y ’ ( WTP) when c onductingcost-bene fit analy sis as opposed to the e xpo st analy sis of victim costs and jury
awa rds used in pre vious studies.” 36/

Cr ime , in oth e r w or ds , h a s an “ e xiste nc e va lue ” se pa rate and a pa rt fro m it s impa c t on

its victims – it is w orth something to pe ople to know that they live in a crime- fre e (or c rime-r educe d) society

. It is also worth som ething to people to know t hat t heir loved ones who ar e inca rce rate d, or who might f

ace incar cer ation some day , are less likely to be ra ped durin g t h eir c onfinement. TheId

. a t 98. T o c on v er t f r om 2001 t o 2010 dol l ar s , w e u s e a CP I mu l t i pl i er of 1. 284, dr aw n f

r om t h e B LS 37/

s ou r ce c i t ed abov e at n ot e 25.

S e e , e.g ., T a m a r L e w in, “L itt le S ym p a thy o r R e m e d y fo r In m a te s W h o A re R a p e d ,” N .Y . T I M ES , A p r. 38/ 15, 2001, a t 11.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 23 of

65 victim compensation model fails to take a ccount of this ex istence va lue, which the c on t i n g ent valuation method ende avors to mea sure
A 2 00 1 s tud

y by Pr of e sso r M ark

Coh e n a nd oth e rs us e d th is m e tho d to e sti mate the e c on omi c value that pe ople in society place on preve nting va

rious crimes, includingsexual a ssault. This study was based on a national survey which asked people how much t hey would be willing to pa y to reduc e the pre valenc e of va

rious ty pes of c rime in their communi ty by 10%; from these survey response s and other data, Prof. Cohe n then extrapolated the va lue t o society of avoidingone incident of eac h ty pe of c ri me stu die d. Ac c or din gto P ro f. Coh e n, pe op le are wi lli ngto p ay on ave ra g e $2 37 ,0 00 (i n 20 00 do lla

rs , whi c h tra

ns late s to $304 ,3 08 in 201 0 doll ars ) to pr e ve nt ra pe and se xua l a ssa

ult s. 37/
Professor Cohen’ s study looked at socie ty ’s willingne ss to pay to reduc e r ap e i n the community

in ge nera l and di d not specific ally examine the willingness to pay to reduc e ra

pe in the pr iso n s e tti ng . As a re su lt, the re are re a so ns fo r c a uti on in u sin gthe se fi gur e s f

or purp os e s o f t

his I RIA. On the on e ha

nd , Pr of e sso r C oh e n’ s st

ud y loo ke d to the su

rv e y re sp on de nts “ to v a lue c ri me re du c tio n th at a ff

e c ts the m in so me mann e r – whe the r thr ou g h the ir own hou se ho ld, the ir fa mil ie s, fr i ends, or coworke rs.” Cohen, su pra n o te 3 6 , at 9 3 n
. 5

. T h is f o c u s o n r e d

u c in g crime in the “community” may

not translate we ll to the reduc t i o n o f ra pe in prison setting s, which to many members of

the public may

seem distant and unrelated to their lives. Thus, re spondents to Professor Coh e n’ s su

rv e y may no t ha ve be e n th ink ingof

the pr iso n s e tti ngwh e n f

or mul atin gthe ir

wi lli ngne ss to pa y response s. On the other hand, the number of incar cer ated persons in the United States is very larg e (e stimated at 2.4 milli on), and the number of pe ople who ar e ar rested a nd pass t hrough jail or
a loc ku p e a c h ye ar i s e ve n la

rger (es ti mated

at 14 mil lio n) . T hu s, the size of the po pu latio n w ith inc arc e rate d “ fa

mil ie s, fr ie nd s, or

c ow or ke rs ,” wh o ma

y be pe rs on a lly

a ff e c te d b y the re du c tio n in th e p r e v a l e n c e o f r a

p e i n c o n f i n e m e n t s e tt i n g s , m ay b e l ar g e e n o u g ht o c o un t e r a c tth e “ c o m mun i ty” problem to some extent. Another po tential objection to extrapolating f rom Professor Cohe n’s work to the pr ison setting is that some pe ople may believe se x ual as s ault in confineme nt fac iliti es is a less pre ssing problem than it is in the society as a whole, and might there fore think that the va lue of avoiding suc h
an assa ult in the confinement settingis less than the value of avoidinga similar assault in the nonconfine ment setting. Howeve r, one of Congr ess’s purpose s in enac ting PREA was to counterac t 38/ the cultura l tendency t o t ak e p ri son rape for grante d; this t endenc y is in turn larg ely

driven by

the diminis hed value society may place on the tribulations of p ri s o n er s. Be cause Congr ess has unanimously

reje cted this devaluation, we dee m it inappropriate to discount the va lue that empirica l stu die s h ave pla c e d on ra

pe and se xua l abu se sim

ply be c a us e tho se stu die s d id n ot d e a l sp e c if ic a llyAnot h er s i g n i f i ca n t di f f er en ce be t we en s e x u a l a s s a u l t i n t h e pr i s on s et t i n g a n d i n t h e g en er al popu l at i on 39/ has t o do wi t h t he gend er of t he t y p i cal vi ct i m
. In t he general p o p ul at i o n, t he vast m ajo ri t y of sexual ass aul t vi ct i m s are fem a le ; i n the c o n fine m e n t se tti n g the vic tim s a re o v e rw h e lm ing ly m a le

. It is n o t c le a r w h e the r a n d to w h a t ex te n t t h is di f f er enc e i s r el eva nt f

or purpos es o f

us i ng t he cont i ng ent val uat i on m et hod t o mo net i ze t he cos t o f an i nci dent of

s exu al
a b u se . W e inv ite p u b lic c o m m e n t o n this su b je c t.

“ A s i de f r om m urd er, c hil d s exu al abus e i s t he mo s t s er i ous cr i me, f ol l owed by r ape, ch i l d phy s i cal 40/ abus e, an d ar s on. ” N I J V I C T I M C O STS , su p ra n ot e 10, a t 16.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 24 of

65 with the p r is o n s e tt in g
. E v e n if w e w an te d to att e mp t s u c h a d is c o un t, in th e a b s e n c e of any e mpi ri c a l data

the amou nt o f the dim inutio n wo uld be pure ly sp e c ulativ e . We have inv ite d p ub lic
c omm e nt o n th e qu e sti on wh e the r an a dju stm e nt sho uld be ma de to P ro fe sso r C oh e n’ s w ill ingne ss to p ay fi gur e s. 39/
What is m ore, r apes a

nd sexual assaults in a prison se tting have a constitutional dim ension that is absent from simil ar events occur ring in the g ener al population. To the extent society assig ns inhere nt value to constitutional rights a nd their protec tion, o n e co u l dargue that ra pe and se x ual
a s s a u l ti nth e p r i s o ns e tt i n ga c tu a l l y c o s ts o c i e ty mo retha n th e y do in g e ne ra l te rm s.
Inth e e n d , w e b e l i e v e th at c o n t i n g e n tv a l u at i o nm e th o d o l o g i e s s u c ha s P r o f

. C o h e n ’ s s tu dy, wh ile no t di sp os iti ve of

our an a ly sis , p ro vid e us e fu l in fo rm atio n in a sse ssi ngthe mon e tary

be ne fi t of avo idi nga

pr iso n r a pe and may pr ov ide an a

pp ro pr iate up pe r b ound

fo r t hat be ne fi t.
Conclu sions as to the Unit Benefit of Avoiding Prison Rape . Having r eviewed the fore g oing liter ature , we now pr ocee d to our assumptions and conclusions as to the unit bene fit of avoidingthe var ious ty

pes of se x ual abuse in v ar i o us confineme nt settings. As e laborated in Part Ia bo ve , to a ssi g n a

un it b e ne fi t to va

ri ou s ty pe s o f a vo ide d e ve nts , we ne e d to a c c ount, at le a st t o so me e xtent, f

or the c omp le xity of se xua l vic tim izatio n. Our ev e nt- ty pe matr ix in T a

ble 1 a ime d to
acc ount f or some of this c omplex ity by dividing the differ ent ty pes of sexual abuse e vents into four
c ate g or ie s b a se d o n th e le ve l of c oe rc ion inv olv e d a

nd on the natur e of

the se xua l c onta c t.
The most serious cate g ory of sexual a buse in our matrix is r ape involving forc e or threat of forc e. We believe that $200,000, drawn from the “ Adult Rape” column of Table 3 (and r ounded up slightly ), provides a

n appropr iate lower

bound for the unit cost of r ape involving force or threat of fo rc e in a n a du lt p ri so n o r j a il s e tti ng . We lik e wi se be lie ve that $275 ,0 00 , dra wn fr om the “ Chi ld Ra pe ” c olumn o f T a

ble 3 ( and ro un de d u

p s lightl y ), pr ov ide s an a

pp ro pr iate low e r bo un d f

or the un it
co s to f r ap e i n v o l v i n g fo rc e o r t h re ato f f o rc e i nth e j uv en i l e d et en t i o ns et t i n g. 40/
We also believe that $300,000 (rounded down slightly from Prof. Cohen’ s figure, as adjusted to 2010 dollars) provides a n appropr iate upper

bound for the unit cost of r ape invo l v i ngforc e or thr e at of fo rc e in an a du lt pr iso n or ja il se tti ng . We inc re a se thi s f igur e by a pp ro ximate ly

33 %, to $4 00 ,0 00 , to pr ov ide the up pe r b ound fo r t he un it c os t of

ra pe inv olv ing fo rc e or thr e at of fo rc e inIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 25 of

65 the juv e nil e de te nti on

se tti ng . We de ri ve 33 % f ro m th e a pp ro ximate dif

fe re nc e be tw e e n th e c hil d rape and ra

pe figures in the NI J victim compensation study

. Se esu pra note 30.
The sec ond cate g ory

of sexual abuse in our matr ix is nonconsensual sexual acts involving
coer cion or pre ssure. Placinga value on this cate g ory is considera bly more difficult, as we are not awa re of any stu dy that has sp e c if ic a lly atte mpt e d to pla c e a va lue on thi s f or m of se xua l a ssa

ult , to the exclusion of rape involving for ce or threat of forc e. It is an event that is le ss c ostly to both the vic timand

to s oc ie ty

tha n is fo rc ibl e ra

pe , in pa rt be c a us e the re is t

y pic a lly no phy sic a l in

jur y . Its seriousness c an neve rtheless not be overe mphasized. As sever al studies ha ve rec og nized, even ra

pe involving pre ssure or c oerc ion rather than forc e has costs to the victim: “Perpetrators . . . utiliz e five major psycholog ical compone nts to eng ag e victims: conquest and control, reveng e and retaliation, sadism and degradation, conflict and c ounteract i o n , an d status and af filiation, aimed primarily at exercisingcontrol and a ggre s s i o n. The proc ess is seductive a nd manipulative, has a

signific ant impact on the psyche of the victim, and o ft en co ntributes to fee lings of guilt, shame, and humiliation.” Dumond, su pra note 14, at 149. More over, “ the i n t i m at e and complex nature of
coer cive se x uality itself may also contribute to fee lings of guilt, shame, humili ation, confusion, and despair w ithin victim s. Id . at 151-52 (c iting studies).

In the abse nce o f an y s p ec i fic studies purpor ting to plac e a va lue on this species of se x ual conduct, we invite public comment on how best to assess the bene fit of avoidingit. In the meantime, for pur poses of this I RIA, we e stimate the costs of this species of sexual assault as being20% the cost of for cible ra

pe.
Th e third cat e g or

y in o ur e ve nt- ty pe matr ix is a

bu siv e se xua l c onta c ts b e tw e e n inmate s. Consist ent with the figures in Table 3, we assig n a value of $375 to ea ch such e vent for a dults and $500 for juveniles. A s noted above in note 32, we c onsider this value to be c onservative, and we invite public comment as to whethe r a higher f igur e would be mor e appr opriate.
The fina l categ ory

in our eve nt-ty

pe matrix invol ves incidents of “ willing” se x with staff. In the context of juveniles, we a ssign this the same va lue as n o n co n s ensual sex ual ac ts involvi ng c oe rc ion or pr e ssu re . Giv e n la

ws a g a ins t st atut or

y ra pe and the g e ne ra lly

de e p- se ate d r e vu lsi on

to sexual int erc ourse between adults and children, we believe that society treats all such intercour se as coer ced or

pressure d, no matter how “ willing” the juvenile might pr ofess it to be, and that all such int e rc ours e is ha

rm fu l to bo th the juv e nil e and to so c ie ty

. On the oth e r ha nd , in the c onte xt o f a du lt prisons and jails, while sex between inmate s and staff is ill eg al and i n ap propriate no matter the degree of volition on the par t of the inmate, for

benef it-cost valuation purposes w e tre at the cost of “willing” sex between a

n inmate and staf

f as equivalent to a

busive sexual contacts with an inmate, and we assig n it a conser

vative cost of $375. W e empha siz e that “w illing sex with st aff ” is define d very narr owly to exclude any

events for

which the inmate r eports indicia of pressure or coe rcion. Thus, Table 4 pr esents the r ang e of c ost values we as s i gn to eac h event in our matrix for purposes of be nefit cost valuation.In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 26 of

65 Tabl e 4 Range of Uni t Avoidance Benefits By Typ e of Victimand T ype of Facility, in 2010 Dollars

A dul t P ri s ons A dul t Jai l s Juv eni l e Fa ci l i t i es
R ape i nvol vi ng f

orc e/ t hr eat of

f orc e $200, 000 t o $300, 000 $275, 000 t o $400, 000
Se x ual as s aul t i nvol vi ng pr es s ur e/ coe rc i on $40, 000 t o $60, 000 $55, 000 t o $80, 000

A bus i ve s ex ual c ont act s $375 $500
W i l l i ng s ex w i t h s t af

f $375 $55, 000 t o $80, 000

III
. The Tot al E xpe c te d M one ta r y Be ne fitof a 1 % Re duc ti on i n P r iso n Ra pe
T o d et erm i n e th e t o t al m o n et ary b en ef i t o f a 1% re d

u ct i o n fr o m th e ba s el i n e i nth e a v er age annual pr evale nce of

prison rape ( e.g. , reduc ing f orcible r apes in prison by an av er age of 262 per y ear , in jails by an avera g e of 392 per y ear , and in juvenile fa cilities by an ave rag e of 44 pe r year),
we us e the fo llo wi nge qu atio n: B = P x V x 1% , whe re B is t he e xpe c te d a

nnua l mo ne tary

be ne fi t, P is the baseline preva lence , and V is the quantifiable unit avoidance benef it. Usingthis formula,
we se t forth the total monetar y benef it in Table 5, using both lowe r bound and uppe r bound assumptions for V.

Tabl e 5: Tot al M one ta r y Be ne fitof a 1 % Re duc ti on fr omth e Bas e line

in t he Av e r ag e Ann ualP r e va le nc e of P r iso n Ra pe

in T hous ands of 2010 Doll ars

A d u lt P r iso n s A d u lt J a ils J u v e n ile F aci l i t i es Tot al

R ape i nvol vi ng i nj ur y/ forc e/ t hr eat of force $ 5 2 , 4 0 0 to $78, 600 $ 7 8 , 4 0 0 to

$117, 600 $ 9 , 6 3 6 to

$17, 600 $ 1 4 0 , 4 3 6 to

$213, 800

N onc ons en s ual s ex ual act s i nvol vi ng pr es s ur e/ coe rc i on $ 7 , 3 6 0 to $11, 040 $5, 920 t o $8, 880 $1, 276 t o $2, 320 $14, 556 t o $22, 240

A bus i ve s ex ual c ont act s $71 $86 $12 $169
W i l l i ng s ex w i t h s t af

f $104 $117 $1, 496 t o $2, 720 $1, 555 t o $2, 779
TO TA L ( R O U N D ED ) $60, 000 - $90, 000 $ 8 4 , 5 0 0 to

$126, 500 $ 1 2 , 5 0 0 to

$22, 500 $ 1 5 7 , 0 0 0 to

$239, 000In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 27 of

65 B y our c a lc ulatio n, the n, the tot a l mone ta ry be ne fi t of a 1% re du c tio n fr om the ba se lin e in the ave rag e annua l preva lence of prison ra pe and se x ual assault will rang e fr om approxim ately $157 milli on to $239 mill ion.

IV. Desc ribing an d Assessing th e Non-quantif iable Benef

its of Prison Rape Avoidance
“Costs and bene fits” under Ex ecutive O rder

12 8 6 6 must “include both quantifiable me asure s (to the fullest extent that these ca n be usef ully estimated) a

n d qu ali tative measur es of c osts and benef its that are diff

icult to quantify

but never

theless essen t i al t o consider.” EO 12866, § 1(a ). Be nefi t s o f regulatory

action include “ the enha nceme nt of hea lth and safe ty , the protec tion of the natura l environment, and the elimination or reduc tion of discrimination or bias.” Id

. Con g re ss pr e dic ate d PRE A on its c on c lus ion – c on sis te nt wi th de c isi on s by the S up reme Court – that “ de lib e rate ind if fe re nc e to the su

bs tanti a l ri sk of se xua l a ssa ult vio late s p ri so ne rs ’ r ights
un de r t he Cr ue l and Un us ua l Punis hme nt C la

us e of the Ei g hth

Am e ndme nt. ” 42 U.S.C

. § 1 56 01 (1 3) . T he ind ivi du al rights e ns hr ine d in our C on sti tut ion

e xpre ss o ur

c ountr y ’s de e pe st commitments to human di g nity and equality , and American citiz ens pl ace g reat value on knowing that their g overnme nt aspires to protec t those rig hts to their fulles textent. I n thinking about the qualitative bene fits that will accr ue fr om the implement of these pr oposed standar ds, these va lues sta nd pa ra mou nt.
To c omp le te the ana ly sis of the ben efi ts of

the PRE A s tand ard s, we have e nd e avo re d to identify the non-moneta

ry b en ef i t s that will result from reduc ing pr ison rape a nd to provide qualitative indication of their m agnitude. We have be en assisted in this endeavor by many useful
c omm e nts su

bmi tte d in re sp on se to the AN PRM. No n- mon e tary be ne fi ts may a c c ru e to r a

pe vic tim s themselves, to inmate s who are not r ape victims, to prison administrators and staff, to fa m i l i es of rape victims, and to society at larg e. Non-quant

ifiable benefits relating to lockups and com m unity confinem ent facilities
. Our analy sis in Parts I Iand I I Imade no e stimate of the monetar y benef it of reduc ing r apes in lockups a nd community confine ment fac iliti es for the simple r eason that we do not ha ve data on the ba s el i ne preva lence of ra

pe in these se ttings. Althoug h unit co s t o f rape in these setting s can g ener ally be
a ssume d to be the same a s f or a du lt p ri so ns and

ja ils , w e c la ssi fy

the avo ida

nc e of a ssa

ult s in the se settings as “non-qua

ntifiable” beca

use it is not possible at this juncture to asce rtain how many such assaults would be avoided in a 1% r eduction fr om the baseline pr evale nce.
No n- qua ntif

iab le bene fi ts f or the ra pe v ic tims. The PREA standar ds will yield nonqu a nti f i a b l e b e n e f i t s t o v i c t i m s e v e nw i thr e g ar d t o a s s a u l t s th atth e s t an d ar d s d o n o tp r e v e n t. Implementation of the st a

ndards will enha

nce the mental well-be ing of victims, by

ensuringthat they
re c e ive a de qu ate tr e atme nt a ft e r an a ssa ult , wh ic h in t

ur n w ill e nh anc e the ir

a bil ity to i nte g rate int o the communi t y and maintain stable e mploy ment upon their re lease from prison. More over, the
s t an d ar d s w i l l r e d

u c e th e i r r e - tr a um at i z at i o n , t o g e th e r w i t h th e i r l o s s o f d i g n i ty an d

p r i v a c y,S e e , e.g ., M ARGAR ET T. G OR DON & S TE PH AN I E R I GER , T H E F EM AL E F E AR : T H E S O C I A L C O ST O F R APE 41/ (19 9 1 ) ( d i scus si ng f

ear am o ng wo m en as a cost of rape ).

See O F F I CE O F THE I NSP E CT OR G E NERA L , E V A L UA T I ON A ND I N SPE CTI O N S D I V I S I ON , T H E D E P A R T M E NT 42/
O F J UST I CE ’ S E F F OR T S T O P REVENT S TA FF S E X U A L A B U SE O F F E D E R A L I N M ATES , i (2 0 0 9 ), avai l abl e at w w w .ju stice .go v /
o ig/re p o rts/p lus /e 0 9 0 9 .p d f.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 28 of

65 associate d with e vidence collection, investigation, a nd any subsequent leg al proc eeding s that take place in connec tion with sex ual assault and its prose cution. Victims will also benefit fr om the inc re a se d li ke lih oo d th at th e ir pe rp e tr ator s w ill be he ld a c c ounta ble fo r t he ir c ri me s. Non-quant

ifiable benefits for inm ates who are not rape victim s. Th e PRE A s tand ard s w ill imp ro ve qu a lity

of lif e in p ri so n e ve n f

or tho se inm ate s who wou ld no t e xpe ri e nc e se xua l a ssa ult even in the a

bsence of the standa

rds, in at least thre e wa

y s. First, the standa

rds s hould reduc e the collective f

ear and dr ea d o f ra

pe and se x ual assault while inca rce rate d. Second, standa rds that 41/ work to re duce se x ual assault will likely reduc e other

forms of phy sical assa

ult as well. Third, sexual assault often foster s a polarized prison climate, s u ch as by exacer batingrac ial tensions, as Congr ess itself noted. See42 U.S.C. § 15601(9), (14)( F)

. N o n - q u a n t i f ia b l eb e n e f it s f o r f a mi l ies o f i n ma t era p ev ic t i ms . F amil ies of

inm ate s a lso suffe r fr om the preva lence of sexual assault in our prisons. The fa milies of all inm at es, whether vic tim s o r n ot, of

te n fe ar that th e ir

inc arc e rate d lo ve d o ne s w ill be ra pe d, a ssa ult e d, or a bu se d whil e in p ri so n. Mo re ov e r, wh e n pr iso n ra pe vic tim s re tur

n ho me a ft e r the ir inc arc e ra tio n and are un a ble to w or k d ue to e mot ion a l tr a

uma , the ir fa

mil ie s are a ff

e c te d. Impl e me ntatio n o f t he sta nd ard s w ill thu s im pr ov e the e mot ion a l and

fi na nc ia l we ll- be ing of fa

mil ie s of ind ivi du a ls curr e ntl y or fo rm e rl y liv ingin p ri so ns
. Non-quant

i fiable benef

its for prison adm inis trators an d staff . Se xua l a ssa

ult in
corr ectional facilities constitutes a fa ilure to kee p inmates safe : this breakdown of ten has significant
r ip p le e f f e c ts f o r p r is o n e mp lo y e e s
. A s Co n g r e s s r e c o g n iz e d , s e xu a l a s s a u lt s in p r is o n“ in c r e a s e [] the levels of violenc e, dire cted at inmates and staff , within prisons.” 42 U.S.C. § 1560 1 (1 4 )( b ). Staff ar e at r isk even when the abuser is a colleague: correc tional staff who sexually abuse inmate s often a lso eng ag e in ot her security brea ches; some have “pr ovided contra band to prisoner s, acc epted bribes, lied to fe der al investigators, and committed other se rious crimes a s a re sult of their sexual inv olv e me nt w ithfe de ra l pr iso ne rs .” Sta ff wh o a re c omp ro mis e d du e to the ir inv olv e me nt w ith 42/
a n i n m at e ar e mo re l i k el y t o n egl ec t th ei r re s p o n s i b i l i t i es , thu s i mp er i l i n g th ei r co l l ea gu e s
. In
a dd iti on , a s th e Commis sion re c ognize d, e ve n v ic tim s o f s e xua l a ssa ult may be mor e lik e ly

to commit infractions; some may “bre ak rules in a n attempt to e scape a perpe trator, whe ther or not they disclose the abuse .” NPREC Report at 48. By reduc ing the level o f v i olence ag ainst staff a nd inmates alike, by

reduc ing t h e n ee d and opportunity for inmates to violate f

acility rules, and by diminis hing the concomitant risk of insurrec tions and riots, the standar ds will make prisons a saf erSee g e n e ra lly , O IG R e p o rt, s upr a n ot e 42. 43/

O f

co urs e, in th e s h o rt t erm t here ma y be ad d i t i o nal co st s t o pri son aut ho ri t i es as sociat ed wi t h a 44/ pot en t i al i n cr ea s e i n pr os ec u t i on s of s t af f a s pr i s on s a dopt me as u r es t h at en h an ce t h e de t ec t i on an d i n v es t i g at i on of pr i s on r ape an d t he puni s hment of per pet r at ors
. O nce t he l eve l of pri s on r ape h as been r educe d, however , pri s ons s houl d f eel t he b en efi t o f

ha ving few er o f

t he i r em p l o yee s cha rge d wit h fel o ny sexu al ab use crim es.

B u re a u o f J u stice S ta ti s ti c s, R eent r y Tr ends i n t he Uni t ed St at es 1 (2 0 0 3 ), avai l abl e at 45/ h ttp :// b js .o jp .us d o j.g o v /c o n te n t/p u b /p d f/re e n try.p d f.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 29 of

65 and better workplac e, th u s p ro m o t i n g s t af f r et en t i o n , d ec re as i n g wo rk -r el at edi n j uries, and improving morale.
Simi larly , i m p l ementation of the standards w ill ensure, in the longterm, that fe wer prison
e mpl oye e s w ill be c ha

rg e d w ithfe lony sex ual abu se c ri me s, a s th e inc ide nc e of se xua l a bu se declines. The number of prison staff prosecute d for sex ual abuse of inmates has stea dily incre ased in rec ent year s. Both the personne l time lost due to these prosecutions and the stig ma and ne g ative 43/
mor a le e ng e nd e re d b y

the m c an be expec te d to a bate a s th e pr e va le nc e of

pr iso n r a pe dim ini sh e s, enhanc ing qua lity

of life in the wor

kplace

. 44/ Non-quant

ifiable benefits for socie ty at large . Impl e me ntatio n o f t he PRE A s tand ard s w ill p ro v i d e numerous public hea lth benefits for soc iety . As noted above , the standar ds will improve public health by

reduc ing the incidence and spre ad of H IV/AI DS, of other se x ually transmitted infec tions, and of infec tious diseases such a s tuberculosis and he patitis B and C, amongprison po pu latio ns . A lmo st a ll i nd ivi du a ls i n p ri so ns and ja ils (9 5% ) are e ve ntu a lly re le a se d b a c k to the ir communities, and the disea ses the inm ates contract in the prison confine s eventua lly sprea d to the

45/ po pu latio ns outsi de the c or re c tio na l sy ste m. Redu cingthe inc ide nc e of pr iso n s e xua l a ssa

ult wi ll mitigate the sprea d of these diseases, r educingthe costs of medic al treatment and mental hea lth care for our society . Moreove r, the he alth problems of many victims of prison rape persist well af ter they return to their

communities

. M an y o f these individuals end up on Medic aid, and g overnme nt age n ci es p ay

fo r t h ei r t re at m en t ; o th er s u s e h o s p i t al em er gen cy ro o m s as th ei r p ri m ary

care – a h i gh
c os t to ho sp ita ls a

nd state a g e nc ie s.
Sex ual assault in prison often leads to long -term trauma, espec ially if victims a re not tre ated pr op e rl y in t he imm e diate a ft e rm ath of the ir vic tim izatio n. Whe n v ic tim s r e tur n to the ir communities, th i s t rauma fre quently results in an inability

to maintain stable employ ment. The standards w ill improve the ree ntry of off ender s into society

aft er t h eir inca

rce ration, re ducingthe likelihood that they

will require public a ssistance (suc h as we lfare , d i s ab i l ity benef its, housing
v o u c h e r s , f

o o d s t amp s ) an d

o th e r f o r m s o f g o v e r n m e n t a l f i n an c i a l s u

p p o rtu p o nth e i r r e e n tr y. Society al s o w il l d e r iv e a numb e r o f p u b li c s a f e ty b e n e f it s f r o m th e PRE A s ta

n d ar d s. As Congr ess re cognized, sex ual assault in prisons “incr ea s es the risks of re cidivism, civil st rife, a nd violent crime by

individuals who have be en bruta liz ed by prison rape .” 42 U.S.C. § 15601(14)(E ).B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, Sp eci al R eport : St at e P r i s on Expend i t ure s 1 (u p d a te d 2 0 0 4 ), a v a ila b le 46/

a t h ttp :// .b js .o jp .us d o j.g o v /c o n te n t/p u b /p d f/sp e 0 1 .p d f.

See B J S A d u lt S S V 2 0 0 6 , a t 4 (“[ A ]t lea st ha lf o f i n m a te -o n -inm a te se x u a l vio le n c e w a s inte rr a c ia l: 47/ 65 of i nci dent s i n 2006 i nv ol ved a wh i t e per pet r at or a nd non- whi t e v i ct i m; 35% , a bl ack per pet r at or a nd non- bl ack vi ct i m ; and 8% , a H i spanic p erpe t rat o r and no n- H i spanic vi ct i m
. ”).

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 30 of

65 Implementation of the standa rds will enhanc e public saf ety by reduc ing the likelihood that inmates
re le a se d f ro m pr iso n a

nd ja il e a c h ye ar wil l c omm it c ri me s ( e sp e c ia lly vio le nt c ri me s) a ft e r t

he ir rele ase. Reduc ing the preva lence of sexual abuse in juvenile detention setti ng s simil arly incre ases the lik e lih oo d th at de lin qu e nt j uv e nil e s c an be re ha bil itate d an d re du c e s the lik e lih oo d th at th e y wi ll embar k on a life of

crime when re achingadulthood. Reducingrec idivism coul d p o t en t i ally save society and g overnme nts tens of m illions of dol lars per y ear by avoidingthe ec onomic and human costs of cr ime, the cost of investig atingand prose cutingcrimes , and the c onsiderable expense of incar cer ation itself ($22,600 per prisoner pe r year , or $62 per day , as of 2001)

. 46/

Th e PRE A s tand ard s w ill a lso re su lt in signif ic ant c os t savin g s to the c ri min a l ju sti c e sy ste m: as the pre valenc e of prison rape diminis hes over time, police and inve stigative costs, adjudication
c os ts (pr os e c uto rs , c ourt s, de fe ns e ), inc arc e ratio n c os ts i nc lud ingof fe nd e r t re atme nt, po st-release
c os ts ( e .g ., ha lf

wa y ho us e s, su

pe rv isi on ), c os ts a sso c iate d w ithri sk a sse ssm e nt an d c omm

un ity
no tif ic atio n p ro g ra

ms, and vic timc omp e ns atio n a

nd re pa ratio n p ro g ra

m a dmi nis tr atio n c os ts, wi ll all corr esponding ly

be re duced.

F ina lly , g ive n th e fr e qu e ntl y int e rr a c ia l c ha

ra c t e r o f p ri s o n s e xu a l a s s a

u l t s , m i n imi zingthe ir 47/ preva lence will reduce interra cial tensions, both within prison and, upon rele ase of perpe trators a nd victims from prison, within the community at larg e. See, e .g., 42 U.S.C. § 15601(9), (14)( F)

. V. Ide nt ifyi ng a nd M one ti z ing th e Est im at e d Co st s of Co m ply ing with th e P r opo se d DO J St anda r ds.

In th is P art, w e un de rt ake a pr e lim ina

ry a sse ssm e nt o f t

he anti c ipate d c omp lia

nc e c os ts a sso c iate d w iththe De pa rtme nt’ s p ro po se d PRE A s tand ard s. Ea c h o f t he pr op os e d st andar ds is examined to estimate the costs t o co rr ec t ional ag encie s in impl ementingthat standard. I n setting fo rt h o ur e sti mate s, we a ssume tha t th e fi rs t f

ull y e a r fo r whic h th e sta

nd ard s w ill be a

pp lic a ble is 2012, and we assig n all start-up e x penses a ssociated with the st an d ards to that year . We then estimate annua l or on-g oing c ompliance c osts in the out year s, in present va lue terms (usingboth a 3% and a 7% discount rate), for

a four t ee n y ear

period fr om 2013-2026. Where possible, we dif fe re nti ate the c o s t

i m p l i c a t i o n s b a se d o n f

a c ili ty ty pe : pr iso ns , ja ils , juve nil e fa c ili tie s, c omm un ity confine ment fac iliti es, and loc kups. For pur poses of these cost es t i m at es , we assume that the Depa rtment’s standar ds will a

pply to, a nd will be adopted a

nd implemented by : 1,668 prisons; 3,365B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, 2005 Cens us of St at e and Fede r alCor r ec t i onalFaci l i t i es , 2006 Cens us 48/ of Jai lF aci l i t i es , an d t he 2008 J uve ni l e Res i dent i alFaci l i t y Cens us
.
See 49/ h t t p: / / ww w. oj p. u s doj

. g ov / pr og r ams / pdf s / pr ea cos t i mpac t an al y s i s
. pdf

.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 31 of

65 jails; 2 ,810 juvenile fa cilities; lockups operate d by at least 4,469 diff

ere nt ag encie s; and
a pp ro ximate ly

53 0 c omm

un ity c on fi ne me nt f

a c ili tie s. 48/
Table 6 se ts forth in summary fashion our c onclusions as to how much we expect compliance wi th t he De pa rtme nt’ s p ro po se d s tand ard s to c os t, o n a sta rt up , o ng oin g , a

nd tot a l (15 y e ar) ba sis

. Followingthe cha

rt we se t forth an e x planation of our sources, a ssumptions , and methodology , as well as a n analy sis of each standard and its anticipated implementation costs. As elaborated below, no adjustment is made in the out y ear s for inflation or f or anticipated cost saving s due to innovation

– that is, costs are assumed to be constant in nominal terms over the course of the fifteen year period.

Tabl e 6 Total Exp ect ed Com plian ce C osts, 2012-2026 By Fac ility Typ e, in Th ousan ds of Dollars

St art up O n- goi ng Tot al 2012- 2026 3 % dis co un t rate ( P res ent V al ue) Tot al 2012- 2026 7 % dis co un t rate ( P res ent V al ue)
Pri s ons $26, 304 $56, 407 $411, 494 $249, 035
J a ils $117, 742 $356, 618 $2, 745, 729 $1, 762, 524
J u v e n ile F aci l i t i es $24, 087 $78, 497 $602, 546 $386, 128

C o m m un i ty C onf i ne men t $300 $2, 358 $17, 680 $11, 177

Lock ups $44, 913 $50, 583 $417, 672 $278, 212
T OT AL $213, 346 $544, 463 $4, 195, 121 $2, 687, 076

Sour ces of

Data. In prepa

ringthese c ost estimates, we re ly o n s ev eral source s of information. Our pr im ar y s ource is the J une 18, 2010, Phase I IFinal Repor t of the Cost I mpact Analy sis completed by Booz Allen Hamilton (“Booz Allen Report”)

. Booz Allen is a consulting 49/ fi rm wi th whic h th e De pa

rtme nt’ s Bure a

u of Justic e As sis tanc e (“ B JA” ) c ontr a c te d e arl y in 2 01 0 to develop a preliminary

cost ana ly sis of the Commis sion’s rec ommended st andar ds. As elabor ated be low , f or purp os e s o f t

his I RIA, the c on c lus ion s o f t he B oo z Al le n Re po rt

have be e n a dju ste d in three way s: (1) to estimate the c ompliance c osts of the Depa rtment’s proposed standards, rather than the Commiss ion’s rec ommendations, by rea ssessing the cost of a subset of standar ds to which the4 2 U

. S.C

. § 1 5 6 0 7 (a)( 2 ) ( t he D ep art m ent ’ s st and ards “ shal l be ba sed up o n the i nd ep end ent judgm ent 50/ of t he A t t orn ey G ene r al , . . . an d bei ng i nf ormed by s uch da t a, o p i nio ns , an d propo s al s t hat t he A t t orn ey G ene r al d et erm i nes t o be ap p rop ri at e t o co nsi d er. ”).

Si mi l a r l y , i n t h e c om me n t s s u bm i t t e d by t h e As s oc i a t i on of S t a t e Cor r e c t i on a l Ad mi n i s t r a t or s ( AS CA) 51/ i n re sp o nse t o t he A N P R M , P P

- 3 , P P

- 4 , an d P P

- 7 ac co un t ed f o r 8 6 % o f t o t al st artup co st s and 9 4 % o f o ng o i ng co st s. S ee su p ra no t e 3

. A S C A wa s t he o nly co m m en t er a t th e A N P R M st ag e that p ro vid ed na t i o nw i d e c o m p l i an ce co st esti m ates re l ati ng t o t he C o m m i ssi o n’s rec o m m en d ed st an d ard s.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 32 of

65 Depa rtment made signi fi cant r evisions from the Commissi on’s proposals; (2) to ext rapolate a nationwide cost e stimate from the data derive d from the spec ific fa cilities included in the Booz Allen survey ; and (3) to de velop a f ifteen year

(2012-2026) cost projec tion.
Other sour ces of

information on which we have r elied in pre paringthis cost analy sis include: (a ) int erna l a sse ssm e nts by the fe de ra l B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns (B OP) and

the Un ite d St ate s Ma

rs ha ls Se rv ic e (U SMS, or the Mars ha ls) a s to the c os ts the y e xpe c t to inc ur in i mpl e me nti ngthe sta

nd ard s; and (b ) c omm e nts and

c os t e sti mate s su

bmi tte d in

re sp on se to t

he AN PRM.
The Booz All

en Report. Th e Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd atio ns did no t in c lud e an e sti mate of the ir c os ts. Sub se qu e ntl y , B JA c ontr a c te d with B oo z Al le n to pr e pa re a pr e lim ina

ry c os t ana ly sis of the Commission’s recommende d standards in order to assist the Attorney Gene ral in exercising his re qu ir e d “ ind e pe nd e nt j ud g me nt” wh e n is su ingPRE A s tand ard s. 50/
Booz Allen selec ted a r epre sentative samplingof various ty pes of c orre ctional sy stems and fac iliti es fr om throug hout the country (including13 state prison sy stems, 6 community confine ment jurisdictions, 10 juvenile age ncies, 16 jail j urisdictions, and four loc kup fac iliti es). It assembled a team of c riminal and juvenile justice subjec t matter experts and c ost estimation ex p er t s who
c on du c te d o n- sit e fa c e -t o- fa c e me e tin g s w ithre pr e se nt ati ves of e a c h o f t he 49 se le c te d s ite s. Its conclusions as to the c ost impact of the C ommissi on’s re commended sta ndards we re dr awn f

rom the site repr esentatives’ response s at these meeting s and at followup interview s, as well as f rom revie ws of re levant docume ntation ( including policy statements and staffing and fa cility plans), and in many
case s fac ility

tours.
Of the 41 Commis sio n- re c omm e nd e d sta nd ard s, the B oo z Al le n Re po rt ide nti fi e d thre e (P P3, PP-4, and PP -7) a s havingmajor complianc e costs. PP-3 re l ated to st aff supervision and monitoring of inmate s; PP -4 re stricted cr oss-g ender p a t- d o wn sear ches, a

mong othe r provisions; and PP- 7 c a lle d up on a g e nc ie s to us e vid e o mon ito ri ng sy ste ms to su pp le me nt its se xual a bu se preve ntion, detection, and r esponse e ffor ts. These thre e standa

rds ac counted f

or 99% of all up-fr ont c os ts d e te rm ine d in

the B oo z Al le n s tud

y – w ithPP- 7 a lon e a c counti ngfo r 9 6% of sta rt up c os ts. These thr ee sta

ndards a lso acc ounted for 8 5 % o f t h e total on-g oing c ompliance c osts in the out y ear s. Twenty -six of the Commission-recommende d standards w ere deter mined to have a

very 51/ min ima l t o m o d e s t c o mp l i an c e c o s t

. T h e r e m a i n i n g tw e l v e h a d a n e g l i g i b l e o r n o n - e xi s t e n t c os t based on B ooz Allen’s analy sis. Finding a g ener al cor relation between lowe r complianc e rates andIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 33 of

65 highe r costs, Booz Allen found that sites had var ying de g ree s of compliance with the Commi ssion’s
rec ommended standa

rds – ra ng ing f rom 38% to 88%, with an a vera g e complianc e rate of 63%.

Me tho do logy for Co st

Ass essme nt in t

his I RIA . As the De partment de veloped its own proposed PREA standar ds, it asked B ooz Allen to undertake a dditional analy ses an d t o make adjustments in their data to estimate the c ompliance c osts associated with the De part ment’ s p r o p o sed sta nd ard s, wh ic h make a numbe r of signif ic ant m od if

ic atio ns to t

he Commis sio n r e c omm e nd atio ns
. Th e De pa rtme nt a sk e d B oo z Al le n to loo k at a dis c re te su

bs e t of the pr op os e d s tand ard s to assess the extent to which the c ompliance c ost associated w ith those standards may have c hang ed due to re visions in t he Commissi on’s ver sion of the standards. These e ffor ts focused on what the Commi ssion called PP-3, PP -4, and PP-7 (no w d en o minated in the Depa rtment’s standar ds as sections 115.13, 115.14, and 115.17 in Subpart A and their ana logs in Subparts B , C, and D), whic h
a s n ote d a bo ve we re the thr e e larg e st anti c ipate d c os t dr ive rs
. We a lso a sk e d B oo z Al le n to re -a sse ss the compliance costs of the Commiss ion’s rec ommended standa rds PP-1 (now 115.11), PP-2 (115.12), TR-1 to TR- 5 (1 15.31-.35), SC-1 to SC-2 (115.41-.42), MM-3 ( 115.83), and AU-1 (115.93), ba sed on cha

ng es to tho s e s t an d ards that the Depar tment made fr om the Commi ssion versions that were studi ed in t he B ooz Allen Report. These e leven standa rds, af ter PP-3, PP-4, and PP-7, made up some of the la rg est cost driver s in the standards, e ither ac cordingto the Booz Allen Report or to comments re ceive d in response to the A NPRM.

In re- assessingthese standards, Booz Allen conducte d a detailed analy sis of the cost driver s and va ri a ble s fo r e a c h o f t

he fo ur te e n Co mmi ssi on -r e c omm e nd e d s tand ard s w e ide nti fi e d. Th os e cost driver s and var iables were standardized acr oss the full spectrum of the 49 sites included in the Booz Allen Report. B ooz Allen then (1) dete rmined which c ost drivers and va riables we re impac ted by the De pa rtme nt’ s c ha

ng e s to the Commis sio n’ s sta nd ard s, (2 ) de ve lop e d a

se t of a ssumpt ion s to det er m i n e t h e degree to which they are impacted, a

nd (3) de veloped metr ics to determine a quantitative i mpact to the cost drivers and varia bles that could be applied consistently to eac h site. B a se d o n th is an a ly sis , Bo oz Alle n est imate d that for the 49 sit e s in c lud e d in

the B oo z Al le n Re po rt , the total cost associated with implementing the Depa rtment’s proposed standards (as opposed to the Commis sio n’ s v e rs ion ) wo uld be $1 1. 7 mi lli on in s tart up c os ts a nd $2 3. 8 mi lli on

in o ng oin gc os ts. Next, the Depa

rtment asked Booz Allen to e x trapolate from the data derive d from the 49 specific sites included in its Report into a nationwide estimate of the compliance cost of the Depa rtment’s propose d standards. For the fourtee n standards ide ntified in the previous pa ragraph,
we a sk e d B o o z A l l e n t o c o n d u c t i t s e xtr a

p o l at i o n u s i n g th e a d

j u s t e d c o s t f

i gur e s f r o m it s supplemental analy sis; for the rema ining standards, we asked Booz Allen t o use t he cost e stimates set forth in the B ooz Allen R eport, either because the Depa rtment’s chang es t o the Commiss ion’s pr op os e d v e rsio ns of th ose s tand ard s w e re no t e xpe c te d to a ff e c t th e ir c os t, o r b e c a

us e tho se sta nd ard s we re a sse sse d to hav e a min ima l cos t impa c t in any e ve nt. We a sk e d B oo z Al le n to a sse ss sta rt -u p c os ts a s w e ll a s ann

ua l cos ts fr om 201 2- 20 26

. We al so a sk e d Bo oz A lle n to su bd ivi de its
natio nw ide c os t e sti mate s, wh e re po ssi ble , b y fa c ili ty ty pe : priso ns , ja ils , lo c ku

ps, c omm

un ityIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 34 of

65 confine ment fac iliti es, and juve nile fac iliti es. And we asked B ooz Allen to compare the expected nationwide complian ce co s t s of the De partment’s pr oposed standar ds to the expected nationwide
c omp lia nc e c os ts o f t

he Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd e d s tand ard s.
Ba sed upon the data it had g ather ed fr om the 49 sites in its Report, B ooz Al l en develope d para meters to e x trapolate acr oss the entire nationwide population. Under this par ametric approa ch, th e cal cu l at i o n s fo r t o t al co s t s , as s o ci at eds t an d ar d erro rs , an d

9 5 % c o n fi d en ce l i m i t s re l y o nl ar ge sampl e statis tic a l th e or

y fo r a sim ple ra nd om s ampl e . F or

pr iso ns , juve nil e fa c i l i tie s, and c omm un ity confine ment, the total cost is the product of t he number of geographic al reg ions (e.g ., States) and the sample mean. For jails, the total c ost is the product of the number of fac iliti es and the sample mean. The sample size of lockups w as too small for this approa ch.

T h is p ar ame tr ic a

p p r o a c hh a s li mi tati o n s in pre c is io n , mo s t n o ta b ly th e s ma ll s amp le s iz e relative to the total number of f acilities for a ll facility -ty

pes except prisons. For

example, with over 4,000 jails across the c ountry and only 16 jails included in the study , the s ample si ze is only 0.4% of the total population. This is compounded by the wide v ar i at i o n o f costs for many standards
amon gthe fa c ili tie s ( i.e ., sta nd ard de viatio n) , exhibi te d in the B oo z Al le n Re po rt . ( Th e c os t estimates for prisons have a much tig hter ra ng e of c osts, resulting f

rom a lar g er sample siz e, which constituted 25% of the total prison inmate population.)

T o minimi ze the varia

bility and enha nce the robustness of the e x trapolation, B ooz Allen applied a multivariate reg ression analy sis using cha rac teristics of the f

acilities g ather ed duringthe
s tu dy s u ch as numb er

o f f ac i l i t i es , s t af

f c o un t s , P R E A co mp l i an ce p er ce n t age s , cap ac i ty , av er age daily population, whether the fa cility has bee n acc redited by

the Amer ican Corr ectional Assoc iation, cost of ca re pe r day , whether

fac ility staff be long to a

union, number of repor

ted incidents of sexual
a bu se (2 00 8 an d 2 00 9) , a nd annua l op e ra

tin gbu dg e t. T he re su lts we re va lid ate d a g a ins t data g athe re d d

ur ingB oo z Al le n’ s st

ud y to determin e an o rd e r o f m a g nit ud e or le ve l of re a so na ble confide nce. T he standa

rd er ror of the total cost is a func tion of the standar d err or of the sample and an adjustment for

the samplingfra ction. The confide nce limit s are a function of the estimated total cost, the standar d err or, and a Student’s t dist ribution quartile indexed for the sample siz e.
I n o r d e r to v a li d ate th e r e s u lt s f r o m th e p r e v io u s a

p p r o a c h , a s e c o n d c o s t e s ti mate was calc ulated for

all fa c il it y ty p e s except community

confine ment based on the aver ag e costs per inmate. The avera g e cost pe r inmate for eac h fac ility was found by dividing the total sample c osts by the total sample ave rag e daily

population. Ex trapolatingthis value to t h e en t ire U.S. population was perf ormed by multipl ying this ave rag e cost a cross the total U.S. population for ea ch facility ty pe. Th e po pu latio n f

igur e wa s d e te rm ine d us ing fi gur e s fr om B JS. Th e pa ra me tr ic and

c os t- pe r- inm ate c a lc ulatio ns de te rm ine d th e c os t r ang e (l owto h igh) f or pr iso ns , ja ils , a

nd juv e nil e fa c ili tie s, wi th the ave rag e of these two calc ulations se rving as the medium e stimate. Due to data limit ations, for communi t y confinement fac iliti es, only the par ametric calc ulation was used, whe rea s for lockups only the cost-pe r-inmate c alculation wa s used.In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 35 of

65 Booz Allen’s supplementa l cost analy sis relies upon three assumptions given the limit ations of the data fr om whic h th e natio nwi de est im ate s and fo re c a sts we re e xtra

po late d. Th e fi rs t assumption is that the data we re a simple random sample of a ll corre ctional fa cilities of a g iven ty pe. Th is a ssumpt ion

is p ote nti a lly

te nu ou s, sin c e the c oll e c tin ga g e nts pic ke d th e fa c ili tie s th at th e y fe lt
wer e re prese ntative, as opposed to at r andom. The second, more plausible, assumption is that the sample come s from a nor mal (bell cur

ve) distri b u t i o n. Finally , the cost-pe r-inmate a pproac h
a s s um e s th atth e s amp l e a c c ur at e l y r e p r e s e n t s th e av e r a g e c o s t s p e r i n m at e f o r e a c hf a c i l i ty.
Once the total startup costs wer e dete rmined usingthe above proce dures, they wer e assigned to the y ear

2012. Estimated annual costs wer e assigned to the y ear 2013. These ongoingcosts wer e assumed for

purposes of this ana ly sis to remain constant in nominal terms from 2013 throug h 2026 – th us , n o a dju stm e nt wa s mad e fo r inf latio n or f or the po ssi bil ity

that c os ts w ill dim ini shov e r t ime due to new innovations. For pre sent value purposes, alternative discount rates of 3% and 7% wer e applied to the out year s, using the f ollowing e quation:

wher e C( x) is the cost for a

ny y ear x , d is the discount rate ( .03 or .07, as the c ase ma y be), a nd n is the n th y ear

following2013 (i.e., n = x - 2013).
We i nv ite pu

bli c c omm e nt a s to wh e the r the fo re g oin gme tho do logy yie lds the be st e sti mate of the e x pecte d cost of complianc e with the propose d standards or whet h er en hance ments or re fi ne me nts to t

his me tho do logy

are a pp ro pr iate fo r purp os e s o f a sse ssi ngthe be ne fi t- c os t jus tif ic atio n o f t

he pr op os e d s tand ard s.
Sta nda rd -b y-S tan da rd Ass essme nt . The De partment ha s ext rapolated the nationwide
c omp lia nc e c os ts a sso c iate d w iththe pr op os e d s tand ard s ta ke n in the a g g re g ate , a s r e fl e c te d in Ta ble 6 above a nd Tables 13, 14A, a

nd 14B be low. The De partment ha s also estimated the nationwide compliance co s t s for e ach of the most cost-intensive standar ds (or groups of re lated standa rds), which tog ether

acc ount for a v er y h i gh p ercentag e of the total estimated costs associated with the standards. We have not, at this juncture, quantified the estimated nationwide c ompliance c osts, on a per standard ba sis, fo r t h o s e s t andards judge d not to have a ma jor cost impact but have instead de ve lop e d q

ua lit ativ e de sc ri pti on s o f t he re lativ e ma g nit

ud e of the imp a c t of

tho se sta nd ard s – classifying sta

rtup and ong oing c osts for ea ch as zero, ne g ligible, minimal, modest, or moderate, as the ca se may

be.

In th e fo llo wi ngdis c us sio n, we se t f or th o ur e sti mate of

nati onwi de c omp lia

nc e c os ts associate d with eac h of the propose d standards (or gr oups of re lated standa rds). We note B ooz Allen’s concl u s i o n s reg ardingthe costs of the Commission’s recommende d standards f or the 49 fa c ili tie s st

ud ie d in the Re po rt ; we ana ly

ze ho w the De pa

rtme nt’ s c ha

ng e s to the sta

nd ard are lik e lySee B u re a u o f Ju stice S ta tisti c s, 2005 Cen s us of St at e and Fede r alCor r ec t i onalFaci l i t i es , 2006 52/ C ens us of

Jai lF aci l i t i es , an d t he 2008 J uve ni l e Res i dent i alFaci l i t y Cens us
.
In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 36 of

65 to h ave a ff

e c te d th at imp a c t; we of

fe r a se ns e of the ma g nit

ud e of the anti c ipate d c omp lia nc e c os t in r e latio n to the natio nw ide tot a l; a nd we se t f or th t he int e rn a l c os t a sse ssm e nts of B OP a nd USM S with respec t to the standard.

Section s 1 1 5

. 1 1 , 115.111, 115.211, and 115.311 (c ompare to the Commi ssion’s PP -1 standard) : This standard re quires that ag encie s establish a wr i t t en zero-toler ance policy toward sexual abuse and ha

rassment a

nd mandates that cer

tain ag encie s e mp lo y

o r d e signate an a g ency-wide PREA coordinator to overse e efforts to comply with PR EA standar ds. Its principal bene fit derives fr om t he c ha ng e in ins tit

uti on a l c ult

ur e that a zer o to le ra

nc e po lic y

and PRE A c oo rd inator

wi ll l ike ly eng en d er a

nd from promptingag encie s to make prison ra pe pre vention a priority

in making de cisions with reg ard to policy , personne l, and phy sical plant.
The c ost of this standard der ives from the ma ndate that a g encie s operating f

acilities whose total rated ca pacity exceeds 1000 inmates hire
an u pp e r- le ve l, age nc y -w ide , f ull -t ime PRE A c omp lia

nc e dir e c tor

to overse e eff

orts to comply

with the PREA standards. Other ag encie s are dir e c te d e ith e r t o h ir e a fu ll- tim e PRE A co mpl ianc e mana g e r o r e lse to assig n full-time or part-time PREA c oordination duties to a desig nated exis ting e mploy ee. A ll facil i t i es whose total rated c apac ity exceeds 1000 are also ca lled upon to ass i gn full-time or par t-time PREA coord in ati o nd

uti e s at t

h e f a c il it y le v e l t o a

d e s ign ate d

e xis ting emp loy e e . T he se are signif ic ant c ha ng e s f ro m th e Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd atio n to re qu ir e a ll ag encie s, reg ardle ss of size, to hire a full-time PREA compliance manag er.
BO P has estimated the cost of this st andar d to be appr ox imately $600,000 per year , comprisingsalary

and bene fits for one national coordinator a t the GS-13 pay level plus two hour s of sta ff tim e pe r w e e k at e a c h o f B OP’ s 1 13 fa c ili tie s. USM S e sti mate s th at it wi ll c os t approximately

$55 0 , 0 0 0 p er y ear

to comply , consisting of salary and bene fits for one national
c oo rd inator

at th e GS- 13 pa

y le ve l, p lus tw o h ours of

sta ff tim e pe r w e e k in

e a c h o f 9 4 d istri c ts.
As re fl e c te d in

Ta ble 7, and c omm e ns ur ate wi th the c os t e xpe c tatio ns of B OP a nd USM S,
w e e x p e c tth e t o t a l c o s t o f c o mp l i an c e w i th th i s s t an d ar d t o b e a p p r o x i m at e l y $ 9 9 m i l l i o nannu a l l y, with upfront costs of less than $1 milli on. Nationwide, a n estimated 319 ag encie s are likely to need a full-time PREA compliance direc tor (at a n approximate cost o f $150,000 per y ear in salary and be ne fi ts) : in

a dd iti on to B OP a nd USM S (whic h is the on e loc ku p a g e nc y in T a

ble 7) , th is w ou ld inc l u d e a l l 5 0 S t at e s ’ p r i s o ns y s t e m s , a p p r o xi m at e l y

1 1 s t at e j uv e n i l e s y s t e m s , an d 2 5 6 ja il ju ri sd ic tio ns
. We a s s ume f o r c o s t e s ti mati o np ur

p o s e s th at t

h o s e a g e n c ie s w il l a s s ignPREA 52/
co o rd i n at i o nre s p o n s i b i l i t i es atth e f ac i l i ty l ev el t o ex i s t i n g emp l o y ee s , wh o wi l l s p en d anav er age of two hours pe r we ek (at an ave rag e $38 per ho u r i n s al ar y and benefits) on PREA coordination Cost of 115.11: Startup MINIMAL (~$1M) Ong oin g M AJ OR (~$99M)A ssum es a n a ve rag e o f t w o ho urs o f

l ab o r p er w ee k d ev o t ed to P R E A co o rd i na t i o n re sp o nsib i l i t i es, 53/ fo r 5 2 w e e k s, a t a r a te o f $ 3 8 /ho u r. T h e ra te fo r sta ff ti m e is b a se d o n s a la r y ( $ 7 0 ,7 9 4 ) a n d b e n e fit s (a p p ro x im a te ly $3 5, 40 0) f

or a G S- 11 St ep 5 f

eder al empl oy ee i n t he W as hi ng t on, D C ar ea.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 37 of

65 responsibilities. W e likewise a ssume that ag en c ies that do not operate any fac iliti es whose total r ated capa city exceeds 1000 inm ates will assig n part-time PREA coor dination responsibiliti es to exist ing
e mpl oye e s, wh o a g a in wi ll sp e nd an ave ra g e of tw o ho ur s pe r we e k pe r facil it y on tho se responsibilities. These cost estimates ar e ver y conser vative g iven the likelihood that corr esponding salary and bene fit costs for State a nd local ag encie s are g ener ally lower tha

n the co s t s o f a GS-13 employ ee ba sed in Washington, DC.

Tabl e 7 Estim ated Annual Com plian ce C osts for Stand ard 115.11, .111, .211, .311

(C os t o f P RE A C oo r dina to rP os it ion s)

N o. A gency D i rec t ors Sal ary and

B en ef i t s f or A gency D i rec t ors N o . F a ci l i ty

C oo rdi nators Sa l a ry / B en efi ts

for F a ci l i ty C oo rdi nators 53/ Tot al

Pri s ons 51 $7, 650, 000 1, 668 $6, 591, 936 $14, 241, 936
J a ils 256 $38, 400, 000 3, 365 $13, 298, 480 $51, 698, 480
J u v e n ile 11 $1, 650, 000 2, 810 $11, 105, 120 $12, 755, 120
C o m m un i ty C onf i ne men t 0 $0 529 $2, 090, 608 $2, 090, 608

Lock ups 1 $150, 000 4, 563 $18, 032, 976 $18, 182, 976
Tot al 319 $47, 850, 000 12, 935 $51, 119, 120 $98, 969, 120

Sections 115.12, 115.112, 115.212, and 115.312 (c ompare to theCo mm is sion’s PP -2 sta nd ard ): Th e c os t of

thi s st and ard

de ri ve s f ro m the e xpe c tatio n th at, a s so me e nti tie s who op e rate c on fi ne me nt fa c ili tie s un de r c ontr a c t wi th a g e nc ie s c ome int o c omp lia nc e wi th t he PRE A s tand ard s, they will pass the costs of t hat compli ance onto the publ ic age ncies that hired them. The benef it of this standard der ives from its assura nce that the protec tions of PR EA an d o f the standa rds re ach inm ate s in

fa c ili tie s o pe rate d b y pr ivate , c or po ra te , and no n- pr of

it e nti tie s in a dd iti on to inm ate s in fa c ili tie s o pe rate d b y

pu bli c a uth or iti e s. Booz Allen found that most ag encie s that contrac t with pr ivate and public fac iliti es for the confine ment of off

ender s alrea dy

mandate that contrac t fac iliti es follow the same policies and pr oc e dure s a s th e jur isd ic tio n p la c e s on its own fa c ili tie s, of

te nti me s h avin gre gulatio ns c od if ie d inIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 38 of

65 contra ct s . Some sites, however , have unique contra cting agree ments with private enti t i es that preve nt any additional or highe r fe es re g ardle ss of whethe r re quiremen t s and re gulations
c ha ng e . B oo z Al le n e sti mate d that the sta rt up c os t a sso c iate d w ith the Commiss ion’s PP-2 was z er o and that the ong oing c ost was modest, g iven the hig h level of ba seline complianc e.
The De partment’s c hang es to the Commissi on’s standar ds signif ic antl y de c re a se d th e c omp lia

nc e c os ts a sso c iate d w ith th is sta nd ard . T he tot a l c os t of

thi s standard is de pendent upon a ll other PREA related c osts (with the exception o f t h e co sts of the PREA compliance dire ctor and coordinators in sta ndard 115.11). Since the De partment’s r evisions to t he Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd e d s tand ard s r e du c e d th e c os t by mor e tha n 90 %, the c os t of

thi s s t an d ar d d e c r e a s e d

p r o p o rt i o n at e l y.
BO P notes that the precise level of costs implicated by this standard will be dete rmined by pr ivate c or

po ratio ns and

wi ll b e su bje c t to ne g oti atio ns , makin g it dif fi c ult to d e ri ve e sti mate s at th is time. USMS estimates the annua l compliance cost of t his standard to be $61,557, for a n additional one hour pe r we ek of c ontrac t monitoring work on e ach of USMS’s 15 contracts.

B oo z Al le n re po rt s that the 49 jur isd ic tio ns that pa rt ic ipate d in its stu dy

wo uld c oll e c tiv e ly have to sp end app ro ximate ly $3 .4 mil lio n p e r ye ar t o c omp ly wi th t his sta nd ard . E xtra

po late d to nationwide figures, this translate s to approxim ately $67 milli on in an n u al compliance costs, as ref lected in Ta

ble 8. We invite comment as to wheth er t h ere are other methods of e stimating the extent to which contrac t r enew als and rene g otiations ove r the 15 year period will lead to c osts for
a g e nc ie s th at a do pt t

he pr op os e d s tand ard s.
Tabl e 8 Estim ated Annual Com plian ce C osts for Stand ard 115.12, .112, .212, .312

(Contrac tor C om plian ce) in T hous ands of Doll ars
J u r isd ic tio n s in B oo z A l l en St udy N at i onw i de

Ext rap ol at i on

Pri s ons $768 $3, 020
J a ils $476 $49, 683
J u v e n ile $2, 130 $14, 318
C o m m un i ty C onf i ne men t $36 $300

Lock ups $0 $0
Tot al $3, 410 $67, 321 Cost of 115.12:
St ar tu p: NE G LIG IBLE , Ong oin g: M OD ER

AT E (~$67M)In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 39 of

65 Sections 115.13, 115.113, 115.213, and 115.313 (c ompa r e to th e Commi ssion’s PP -3 standard) : The principa l c ost impact of the Commissi on’s re commended ve rsion of this standard d erives from the re quirement that e ach f acility maintain “an a dequate level of supe rvision and/or monitoring of inmate s and staff to protect inm ates from sexual abuse,” which for some fac iliti es may t ra n s l at e to a need to hire more staff a s a mea ns of pre venting sexual a buse. A substantial ma

jority of the sy stems a

nd fac iliti es studied in the Booz Allen Report identified no c ost associated wi th t his sta nd ard : 9 o f t

he 13 pr iso n s y ste ms, 13 out of the 16 ja il jurisdictions, 5 out of 6 community corr ections fa cilities, 8 of the 10 juvenile detention facilities, and all four of the lockups re ported
no cost associate d with the require ment of ade quate supe rvision.

Howeve r, a small number of fa cilities who repor

ted a c ost impact from the Com m i ssion’s
rec ommended ver sion of this standard j u s t i fi ed their e stimate on the premise that they wer e understaf fed r elative to leve ls commensurate with adequate supervision nece ssary to me et minimal
c on sti tut ion a l st a ff

ingle ve ls and be st p ra c tic e s. Th e se fa c ili tie s e xhibi te d s ignif ic ant v ari atio ns in
c os ts, larg e ly

du e to vary

ing int e rp re tatio ns re g ard ing the le ve l of sta ff that is c on sid e re d a de qu ate to pr e ve nt se xua l a

bu se , c omb ine d wi th the c ha ra c te ri sti c s (a g e and de sign) of the phy si cal pla nt. B a se d o n th e re po rt s o f t

he se fa c ili tie s, B oo z Al le n e sti mate d that th e natio nw ide c omp lia nc e c os t of the Commission’s recommende d PP-3 amounted to $26.8 m i l l i o n i n startup costs and $1.823 bil lio n d oll ars in a

nnua l on g oin gc os ts.
The De partment’s pr oposed standar d reduc es the costs of compliance by not mandatingany particula r leve l of staffing , and by not requiring the us e of video m onitoring. It calls upon ag encie s to conduct an a

nnual assessment of

their pre vailing sta ffingpatterns a nd deploy

ment of video monitoring sy stems and other te chnolog i es t o deter mine whether

adjustments or other mea sures should be taken to e liminate r ape and sexual a buse. Ag encie s are also called upon to de termine what the ade quate leve ls of staffingand video monitoringare for e ach f acility , takinginto account phy sical layout, compositi on of the inmate population, and other re levant fa ctors. The benef its of the Depa rtment’s propose d standard de rive fr om the requi re ment that ag encie s undertake a foc used assessment of their staffing patterns and monitoring sy stems, with the prevention and detection of prison rape specific ally

in mind, so t hat def

iciencie s can be identified and c o rrective mea sures inc or po rate d into t

he fa c ili tie s’ de ve lop me nt p lans
. We anticipate that, c onsistent with the Booz Allen Report , t h e g reat majority of fa cilities
natio nw ide wi ll f

ind no c omp lia

nc e c os ts a sso c iate d w ith the sta nd ard a s p ro po se d, sin c e mos t ag encie s assess their staf

fingand monitoring patterns as being adequate. Both BO P a nd USMS have deter mined th at t h i s s t an dard w ill have minimal cost impact on them. Some ag encie s may , upon conducti ngthe re quired a ssessments, decide to undertake additional measure s with reg ard to the supervision and/or monitoringof inmates, in orde r to ade quately p ro t ec t them from sexual abuse. Som e of the se me a sure s ma

y inv olv e imp le me ntatio n c os ts. Ho we ve r, be c a us e thi s stand ard

on ly Cost of 115.13: Startup: ZERO Ong oin g: NE G LIG IBLEIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 40 of

65 require s as s es s m en t s an d

d o es n o tm an d at e s p ec i fi c c o rr ec t i v e m ea s ure s , we d o n o tat tri b ut e any such
c os ts t o this sta

nd ard . Mor e ov e r, we have no wa y of anti c ipatin gthe de c isi on s th at a g e nc ie s w ou ld make in lig ht of the finding s of these a ssessments, or the cost of those decisions. We invite public comment on the cost implications of this proposed standard as w ell as on alternative approa ches to this standard.

Sections 115.14, 115.114, 115.214, and 11 5

. 3 1 4 ( c ompare to the Commi ssion’s PP -4 sta nd ard ): B oo z Al le n a sse sse d the Commis sio n’ s ve rs ion of thi s sta nd ard a s hav in g the l arg e st ong oing c ost impact of all the re commended s t an d ar d s
. The e ntire impact de rived fr om the Commi ssion’s prohibition of all cross-g ender pat-down se arc hes, which a number of fac i l i t i es interpre ted as requiring them either to hire signific ant numbers of
a dd iti on a l ma le sta ff

or to l ay of f s ignif ic ant nu mb ers of

fe ma le staff, due to their over wh elmingly male inmate population and substantial perc entag e of fema le staff . In addition, many

ag encie s e xpre sse d c on c e rn

that th e ne c e ssa

ry a dju stment s to th e ir workfor ce w ould expos e t h em to liability for violatingfede ral and/or state e qual employ ment opportunity

laws.
The De partment’s pr oposed standar d does not prohibit cross-g ender p a tdown sear ches in a

ny setting e x cept juvenile fac iliti es, which tend to conduct pat-down sea rche s less fre quently . Indeed,
many juv e nil e fa c ili tie s a lr e a dy ba n c ro ss- g e nd e r p at- do wn

se arc he s a

bs e nt e xig e nt c ir c ums tanc e s. In addition, under the D epar tment’s standard, a dult prisons, jails, and commun i ty confine ment fac iliti es should not allow cross-g ender pat-down sear ches of inmates who have pr eviously suffe red cross-g ender

sexual abuse while inca rce rate d. The be nefit of this standar d deri ves fr om the protec tion it provides to the privacy and dignity of i nmates and from the reduc tion in opportunities for staf f-on- inmate sexual abuse.
We believe that the standar ds as cur rently draf ted will not necessitate the workfor ce rea lignment impli ca t ed by the Commiss ion’s PP-4, ex cept in those fe w juvenile fa cilities where
c ro ss- g e nd e r p at- do wn

se arc he s are curr entl y

pe rm itt e d. Th is s ho uld

e nti re ly e lim inate the c os t impact of this standard, e x cept in juvenile f acilities. BO P’s and USMS’s internal assessments do not expect a substantial compliance cost associated with this standard, which is lar g ely consistent wi th c ur re nt p ra c tic e . We do no t anti cip ate any c os t ( or any thi ngmor e tha

n a min ima l c os t)
a sso c iate d w iththe a sp e c ts of thi s st and ard oth e r t ha n th os e de a lin gwi th c ro ss- g e nd e r p at- do wn s, althoug h we invite public comment a s to whether the limit ations on cross-g ender viewingmight impose costs. In particula r, we re co gn ize that these limit ations on cross-g ender viewingmight
re qu ir e so me fa c ili tie s to un de rt ake re tr of itt ing , o r t o c on str

uc t priva c y

pa ne ls; we do no t ha

ve data fr om whic h a

c os t e sti mate c an b e de ve lop e d f or su c h me a sure s.
Sections 115.15 , 1 1 5

. 1 1 5, 115.215, and 115.315 (c ompare to the Commi ssion’s PP -5 standard) : T h e c o s t im

p a c t o f th is s ta

n d ar d , a s a s s e s s e d b y B o o z A ll e n , is r ath e r mi n im al and Cost of 115.14: Startup: ZERO Ongoin g: MINIM ALIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 41 of

65 primarily aff ects lockup s , an d t o a lesser extent jails and community confine ment fac iliti es. The primary cost driver is the mandate to ensure that all inmates are able to communicate ef fec tively and direc tly with staff, whic h i n s o m e ca s es may require costs associate d with ensuringthat signlanguag e and f

oreign languag e interpr eter s are avail ab l e. The Depa rtment’s standar ds somewhat mitigate this cost by

allowinginmates to int erp ret for other inmates in exi g ent circ umstances – something the Commi ssion’s
rec ommendation did not allow. Otherwise, the Booz Allen Re po rt ’s a sse ssm e nt of the min ima l c os t of the Commis sio n’ s PP5 – for the 49 fa c ili tie s in

its stu dy , s tart

up c os ts c oll e c tiv e ly
amou nte d to $2 ,0 00 , a

nd on -g oin gc os ts a

me re $4 7, 00 0 a

nnua lly – is an appropriate indicium of t h e n ati onwide cost of the De pa rtme nt’ s pr op os e d sta

nd ard

. B OP re po rt s no e sti ma ble c os t associate d with this st andar d but noted that compliance may require additional contra cts for interpre tation s er v i ces, which will vary by location, duration, and nature of ser vices re quired . USM S wa s u n ab l e to estimate a cost associated with this standard, notingthat it may require
a dd iti on a l se rv ic e s and

e qu ipm e nt t

hat w ou ld v ary

by loc ati on and si tuatio n. Th e be ne fi t of thi s sta nd ard pr ima

ri ly de ri ve s fr om en suri ng that all inm ate s hav e the a bil ity to c omm un ic ate e ff

e c tiv e ly and dire ctly

with staff. Sections 115.16, 1 1 5

. 1 1 6 , 115.216, and 115.316 (c ompare to the Commi ssion’s PP -6 standard) : The primar

y compliance cost associat ed with the Commi ssion’s rec ommended PP-6 standard de rived fr om the require ment of bac kg round che cks on any employ ee be ing c onsidered f or promotion. Even so , t h e Booz Allen Report asse ssed a minimal cost from the Commission’s proposal, with no impact on lockups: for the 49 fa cilities in the study , startup costs of $4,000 and ong oing c osts of $284,000. The De partment’s pr oposed standard would reduc e that b u rd en even further : it would not m a

n d a te background che cks on all employees up for pr omotion but i nstead would re quire a g encie s to conduct cri m i n al b ac k gro un d

ch ec k s o f a l l cu rr en temp l o y ee s atl ea st every five year s (as BO P c urre ntly does) or else have in place a sy stem fo r o the rw ise c a

ptu ri ngsu c h in fo rm atio n f

or c ur re nt e mpl oye e s. Th e pr ima

ry be ne fi t of

thi s sta nd ard c ome s fr om lim iti ng the ri sk that employ ees of corr ectional and detention fac iliti es may bring to the workplac e a history of cr i m i n al behavior

sug g estive of a propensity

to eng ag e in sexual abuse.

Ne ith e r B OP n or

USM S c ite any

c os t in c onne c tio n w iththi s st and a rd , n oti ngthat it

is consistent with curre nt prac tice.
One wa y to calculate the total cost of this standard is to multi ply the total number of
corr ectional e mploy ees i n t h e nation by $10, since the a

vera g e bac kg round che ck costs $50 (ac cordingto Booz Allen), and a chec k would only

be re quired onc e eve ry

five y ear s. Be cause the Cost of 115.15:
St ar tu p: NE G LIG IBLE Ongoin g: MINIM AL

Cost of 115.16:
St ar tu p: NE G LIG IBLE Ong oin g: M OD EST (~$7.2M)T he nu mb er of em pl oy ees i s bas ed on t he 20 05 Cen s us of St at e and F eder al Co r r ect i on al F aci l i t i es , 54/ 20 06 Cen s us of

Jai lF aci l i t i es , an d the C o u n c il o f Ju v e n ile C o rr e c tio n a l A d m inistra to rs ’ Ye ar book, 2010 . S ta ff in sta te juven i l e f

ac i l i t i es we r e l i mi t ed t o di r ec t ca r e s t af f

. A t ot al cou n t wa s es t i mat ed t o ac cou n t f or empl o y ees i n 6 par t i ci pat i n g s t at es t h at di d n ot pr ov i de s t af f c ou n t s ; t h e n u mber of e mpl oy ee s i n 2 s t at es ( I A an d V T ) c ou l d n ot be
es t i mat ed. O t her wi s e, f eder al , s t at e a nd l ocal st af f co un t s i ncl ude f

ul l

- t i me, par t

- t i me, pay r ol l , non- pay r ol l , an d cont r act sta ff . C o m m u n ity v o lun te e rs w e re e x c lud e d

.

St andar ds 11 5. 13 , . 11 3,

. 21 3, and

. 31 3 al s o r equi r e f aci l i t i es t o ann ual l y as s es s , an d det er mi ne whe t her 55/ ad justm en t s are ne ed ed t o , i t s d ep l o ym en t o f vid eo m o nit o ring sys t em s and o t he r t ec hn o l o gies.

B O P and U SM S ident i f y no co st ass o ci at ed w i t h thi s st and ard, ob ser vi ng t hat t he co st of an ass ess m ent 56/ is m inim a l.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 42 of

65 la te stavai lab le d atash ow app rox im ate ly 71 7, 00 0 co rrect io nal emp lo y ees n ati on wi de, thetot a l c os t 54/ of this standard c ould be estimated at approxim ately $7.2 milli on annually

. Sections 115.17, 115.117, 115.217, and 115.317 (c o mp a r e to the Commi ssion’s PP -7 standard) : The B ooz Allen Report assessed the Commission’s PP -7 as accounting for 96% of all upfront costs associate d with implementation of t h e recommende d
s ta n d ar d s , la r g e ly d u e to the r e qu ir e me n t f

o r a g e n c ie s to uti li ze vid e o mo nit or ingsy ste ms a nd oth er tec hn olo g y

to e lim inate sexual abuse. This require ment woul d en g ender signific ant investment costs associate d with procuring an dinstalling monitoring tec hnology ; there w ould also be costs in the out y ear s a sso c iate d w ithma int a ini ngsu c h s y ste ms.
The De partment ha s eliminated the re quire ment o f u s in g v id e o mo n it oringsy stems, replac ing it with a new standa

rd re quiring ag encie s to take into a ccount how best to c ombat sexual abuse when desig ning or

expanding f

acilities and whe n installing or updating video monitoring sy stem or other technology
. The be nefits of the Depar tment’s proposed standard derive from the require ment that 55/ ag encie s undertake a focuse d assessment of their vi deo moni toring technology when de signingor expanding f

acilities , wi th the preve ntion and detec tion of prison rape specific ally in mind, so t hat de fi c ie nc ie s c an b e ide nti fi e d a nd c or re c tiv e me a sure s in c or

po ra te d into t he fa c ili tie s’ pla

ns
. T h e Department believe s that most age ncies a lrea dy consider the eff

ects of de sign, acquisition, expansion, and upgr adingof tec hnologic al sy stems on the i r ab i l i t y to protect inmates from all destabilizi ng activities, including sexual abuse, and a lrea dy consider how

technology

may e nh anc e the ir

a bil iti e s to pr ote c t inmate s f ro m th e se same a c tiv iti e s. Th e a dd iti on a l ma rg ina l c os t of su c h c on sid e ratio n for a g e nc ie s that do not curr e ntl y do so is expe c te d to be n e g lig ibl e . T hu s, a ll up-fr ont and ong oing c osts associated with the Commission’s reco m m ended PP -7 have been eliminated. 56/ Cost of 115.17: Startup: ZERO Ongoin g: Z EROT he D ep artm en t also eli m i na t ed t he req uirem en t o f a victi m ad vo ca t e a l t o ge t he r i n lo ck up sett i ng s. 57/

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 43 of

65 Some ag encie s may , upon conductingthe re quired a ssessments, decide to undertake addition al m ea s ure s wi thre gar d t o i n s t al l at i o no r up gra d i n g o f v i d eo m o n i t o ri n g t ec hn o l o gy , i no rd er to adequately

protec t i n mates fr om sex ual abuse . Some of these mea sures may involve implementation c osts. Howeve r, beca use this standa

rd only require s assessments and d o es not mandate spe cific c orre ctive mea sures, we do not attribute any such costs to this standa

rd. More over, we have no wa

y of anticipating the de cisio n s t h at ag encie s would make in lig ht of the finding s of these a ssessments.

Sections 115.21-23, 115.121-123, 115.221-223, 115.321- 323 (compa re to the Commis sio n’ s RP- 1, RP- 2, RP- 3 sta nd ard s) : Th e pr ima

ry c os t drive r b e hin d th e Commis sio n’ s RP1 s ta n d ar d is th e r e qu ir e me n t f o r a g e n c ie s to ma

k e av a il able a victim advocate duringthe medica l e xa mi n a ti o n p r o c e s s f o ll owing
a pr iso n r a

pe or se xua l a ssa

ult – wh ic h c ou ld h ave a c os t associate d with hiring a new e mploy ee or

developingand maintaining a

Memorandum of

Unde rs t anding. B ooz Allen
a sse sse d th is r e c omm e nd e d s tand ard a s h avin ga

re lativ e ly minimal cost impact, obse rvingth at the majority of prisons and ja ils a lr e a dy pr ov ide a vic tima dv oc ate thr ou g h a rr ang e me nts wi th local hospital Sex ual Assault Nurse Ex aminer (SANE) programs. It noted, howeve r, that there are s o m e s i t e s an d

s c e n ar i o s th ats u g g e s tth i s s t an d ar d c o u l d h av e a s p o r a d i c i mp a c ta c r o s s th e c o un tr y. Among the 49 facilities that participated in its cost study , costs associate d with the Commi ssion’s RP-1 standard we re e stimated to amount to $25,000 in startup costs and $1.4 million in annual
on g oin gc os ts.
In revising t h i s standard f rom the Commissi on’s ver sion, the Depa rtment has made the min ima l c os t im

pa c t ide nti fi e d by B oo z Al le n e ve n s ma lle r b y sp e c if yingthat th e vic tima dv oc ate can e ither be “ a qualifie d staff me mber” or “a victim a dvocate from a community -base d org anization that pr ov ide s se rv ic e s to se xua l a bu se vic tim s. ” Qu a lif

ie d s ta ff me mbe r i s d efi ned as a

fa c ili ty 57/
e mpl oye e wh o h a s re c e ive d e du c atio n c on c e rn ingse xua l a ssa ult and fo re ns ic e xami natio n is su e s in g ener al. The D epar

tment’s revision of the Commission’s standa rd is intended to clarif y that an exis ting e mploy ee w ith appropriate education can f ulfill thi s role, thus reduc ing the burden on the fac ility while ensuringsupport for the vic tim.

F or fa c ili tie s th at ele ct to tr a in a nd the n r e ly on the ir own s ta ff

to p ro vid e vic tima dv oc ate se rv ic e s, the De pa

rtme nt es tim ate s that pr ov idi ngsp e c ia lize d tr a ini ngto “ qu a lif ie d s ta ff me mbe rs ” will require a

pproxi mately

eig ht hours of staff

time at each fa cility

wher e the tra ining is conduc ted, plus approxim ately

forty staff hour s to develop the training . On the basis of the se assumptions, BOP estimates that it will cost it $35,872 to implement 115.21 at eac h of its 113 fac iliti es, with no annua l cost in the out year s. USMS assigns no cost to 115.121; since the Marsha ls do no th o l dprimary Cost of 115.21-.23:
St ar tu p: NE G LIG IBLE Ongoin g: MINIM ALA m o ng t he 4 9 juri sdi ct i o ns t hat p art i ci p at ed in B o o z A l l en’ s co st st ud y , tot al c o st s ass o ci at ed wi t h t he 58/ C o m m i ssi o n’s p ro p o sed R P 3 an d R P 4 we re $ 4 2 ,00 0 i n start up co st s and $ 5 0 8 ,00 0 i n o ng o i ng an nu al co st s.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 44 of

65 jurisdiction for the investig ation of prisoner s in custody , they do not forese e nee ding to pr ovide tr a in in g to th e ir p e r s o nn e l in e v id e n c e p r o to c o l. U SM S a lr e a dy p ay s f o r p r is oner me dical examinations.
Booz Allen combined the Commi ssion’s RP -2, RP-3, and R P-4 for purposes of asse ssing the
c os t, a nd de te rm ine d that the tot a l cos t of tho se sta nd ard s on the fa c ili tie s and sy ste ms i t st ud ie d is min ima l. Amon gthe 49 e nti tie s th at pa rt ic ipate d in

B oo z Al le n’ s c os t st

ud y , th e c omp lia

nc e c os ts associate d with those three r ecommende d standards w ould total $7 5 , 0 0 0 in s ta r tu p e xpenses a

nd $2.1 mi ll io n in annu a l o n g o in g c o s ts

. T h e p r im ar y c o s t dr iv e r f

o r th e Co mm is s io n ’ s rec ommended standard s i s the nee d for jurisdictions to establish Memorandums of Understandingwith outside service providers to provide inmates with confidential e motional support services r elated to se x ual abuse a nd to help victims of sex ual abuse duri n g t h ei r transition from incar cer ation to the community

. The De p ar t ment proposes to sca le bac k the scope of ser vices that a

community

service org anization would provide, deleting from st an d ar d

1 1 5

. 2 2 / 2 2 2 / 3 2 2 th e r equ i re m en tth atth e p ro vider

“ he lp v ic tim s o f s e xua l a

bu se duri ngthe ir

tr ans iti on

fr om i nc arc e ra

tio n to the co mm un it y .” Th is reduc es any

cost associated with this standard. B OP estimates no costs in connec tion with st andar d 11 5. 22 . T he De pa

rtme nt h a s a lso de le te d th e Commis sio n’ s RP -2 ins of ar a s it re late s to loc ku

ps
. The Department proposes to eliminate the Commissi on’s RP-3 and RP-4 standards, whic h would require ag encie s to enter into Memora ndums of Under standingwith outside investigative
a g e nc ie s and

wi th p ro se c utorial ag e nc ie s. B oo z Al le n d id n ot i de nti fy any signif ic ant c os ts associate d with either of those standards, althoug h a number of ag ency

commenter s expressed 58/
conce rn that these require ments would impose a burden, espec ially in State sy st em s wher e investigations and prosec utions are c onducted by numerous dif

fe re n t agencies at the c ounty or municipal level.
The De partment’s pr oposed newstan d ard 115.23/123/223/323 mandate s that eac h ag ency must have in place policies to ensure that alleg ations of sexu al ab u s e o r sexual harassment ar e investigated by

an ag ency

with th e l ega l au thority

to conduct criminal investigations. The policy must be published on the ag ency ’s website, a nd, if a sepa

rate entity is responsible for inve stigating criminal investig ations, the website must delineate the re sponsibili ties of the ag ency and the i n v es t i gat i n g en t i ty
. T h e D ep artm en ti s n o t aw ar e o f an y co s t as s o ci at ed wi th th i s s t an d ar d , al th o u gh i ti s c o n c e i v a

b l e th ats o m e a g e n c i e s c o u l d i n c ur c o s t s a s s o c i at e d

w i thd e v e l o p i n gs u c ha

p o l i c y; mor e ov e r, so me a g e nc ie s ma y inc ur c os ts d ue to the inc re a se d numbe r of inv e sti g atio ns tha

t c ou ld result from de signating an investigative entity

. BO P and USMS report that the standar d is consistent wi th t he ir e xistin gpo lic y

and the re fo re wo uld

no t im po se any a dd iti on a l c os ts.T he D ep art m ent did m ake o ne subst ant i ve change t o t he trai ni ng s t and ards recom m end ed by t he 59/ C o m m i ssi o n, t o wit , t o i nc l ud e t raining f o r st aff o n “ ho w t o co m m un i ca t e eff ec t i ve l y an d p ro f

essio na l l y wit h re si d en t s, in c lu d in g le sb ia n , g a y , b ise x u a l, tra n sg e n d e r o r in te rse x re sid e n ts ” fo r a ll fac ili ty t yp e s o the r th a n lo c k u p s. See Standard 115. 31, 115. 231, 115. 331. I t i s not kn own at t h i s ju n ct u r e wh et h er or n ot t h i s ch an g e wi l l l ea d t o a ddi t i on al c os t s f or cor r e c t i on a l f

a c i l i t i e s i n c om pa r i s on t o t h e t r a i n i n g c os t s r e po r t e d by t h e f a c i l i t i e s t h a t pa r t i c i pa t e d i n t h e B oo z Al l en st ud y
. W e i nvi t e p ub l i c co m m ent on t hi s q uest i o n.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 45 of

65 Sections 115.31-35, 115.131-135, 115.231-235, 115.331- 335 (compa re to the Commi ssion’s TR standards): B ooz Allen combined the Commiss ion ’s t ra i n i ngstandards ( TR-1 thr o u g h TR-5) for

purposes of a ssessing the ir associated implementation co s t s , and dete rmined that the total cost on the fac iliti es and sy stems it studied is moderate to major. Most of the
a g e nc ie s it stu die d ha d a dd iti on a l w or k to do to c omp ly

wi th t his sta nd ard , a nd 80 % o f t he m r e po rt e d c os ts a ssociate d w iththe m. Amongthe 49 ag encie s, the total cost as s o ci at ed with the five trainingstandards a

mounts to approx imately

$7 milli on in startup expenses and $4.8 million in an n u al ongoingexpenses. The primary cost driver s d erive from the r equire ment that ag encie s trai na ll e mp lo y e e s ( in c lu d in gn o n - s w o r no f f ic e r s and administrative assistants), train a ll contrac tors and volunteer s, p rovide e ducation to inmates and offe nders, a

nd ensure specia liz ed training is pr ovided to investigators and the medic al and menta l health ca re staf f.
The De partment’s pr oposed standar ds in this group a re substantively s i m i l ar to the
corr esponding standards r ecommende d by the Commiss ion, with the addition that eac h standard 59/ require s documentation that the re quired tra ining wa s provided – and, f or staff trainin g, t h at the trainingwas unde rstood. In o rder to fac ilitate compliance, the Depa rtment has re vised the C o m m i s s ion’s rec ommendations to allow elec tronic docume ntation in addition to writt en documentation.
BO P anticipates complying w ith standards 115.31, . 3 2 , and .33 by using e x isting training
se ssi on s, ava ila

ble le sso n p lans , inmate ha nd bo ok s, inm ate tr a ini ng , a

nd un it t e am me e tin g s. Thus , BO P does not a

nticipate any additional costs in connec tion with these standards. B OP estimates that implementation of the other two tr ainingstandards w ill invol ve a one -time cost of $70,892 a nd then
an annua l cost of $34,352. With reg ard to standa rd 115.34 (invo l v i n g s p ecializ ed tra ining f or investigators), it will cost $5,000 to pay for a n outside consultant to pr ovide specia liz ed training , and eig ht hours of staff

time to attend the training , for one staff me mber pe r instituti on, amounting to a n annual e x pense of

$39,352. Wit h re g a

r d to standard 115.35 ( involving spec ialized medical training ), BO P estimates ei gh t y h ours of staf f time to develop the tra ining plus three hours to attend the trainingfor a

pproxi mately

250 staff, a

mounting to a one -time expense of $31,540. Cost of 115.31-.35:
St ar tu p: M AJ OR (~$166M) Ong oin g: M AJ OR (~$93.7M)USMS estim ates a n annual c ost of $4 0 0 , 0 0 0 plus a startup cost of $2,000 to implement standard 115.131 – which would involve 5,000 USMS operational personne l a nd other e mploy ees re c e ivi ng a tw o - h o ur o n - l i n e tr a i n i n g s e s s i o n
. F o rty h o ur s o f s t artu p w o r k w o u l d b e r e qu i re d to
cre ate the tr ainingmodule; an additional fe e would be r equire d if a private contr ac t or we re use d. Another $5000 startup cost and $3000 per y ear would be neede d for 115.132, wh i ch re qu i res notification posters and pe riodic re place ment and update of mater ials.
As ref lected in Table 9 below, the total nationwide implementation cost of the five tra ining standards, e x trapolate d from the c ost estimates provided by the 49 ag encie s that participated in Booz Allen’s cost study , amounts to $166 mil lion in st artup c osts and $93.7 milli on in ongoingannual costs. The De partment intends to assist ag encie s acr oss the country in mitigating the costs associated with the trainingstandards by making models, modules, and other resour ces a

vailable through the PRE A R e so ur c e Ce nte r a nd oth e r s up po rt

me c ha nis ms.
Tabl e 9 Est im at e d An nualCo m plia nc e Co st s forSt anda r ds 115.31-.35, .131-.135, .231- .235, .331-.335 (Training)

in T hous ands of Doll ars

Jur i s di ct i ons i n B ooz A l l en St udy N at i onw i de Ext rap ol at i on
St art up O ngoi ng St art up O ngoi ng
Pri s ons $5, 286 $544 $20, 784 $2, 138
J a ils $938 $527 $97, 833 $54, 908
J u v e n ile $631 $3, 597 $4, 244 $24, 176
C o m m un i ty C onf i ne men t $205 $148 $1, 940 $1, 270

Lock ups $7 $20 $41, 561 $11, 173
Tot al $7, 067 $4, 836 $166, 362 $93, 665

Se c tio ns 11 5. 41 -4 3, 11 5. 24 1- 24 2, 11 5. 34 1- 34 2 ( c omp are to the Commis sio n’ s SC standards and AP sta

ndards for juveniles): Booz Allen combined the Commission’s recommende d
scre eningstandards ( SC-1 and S C-2, called “ Assessment and Place ment” (A P-1 and AP-2) f or juvenile fa cilities) for pur poses of assessing their cost impact, a nd deter mined that the total impact
on the fa c ili tie s and

sy ste ms it stud ie d is mod e rate . M os t si te s in the B oo z Al le n Re po rt

c ur re ntl y uti lize a fo rm a l sc re e nin gpr oc e ss, but the majority felt that they would need to upda te their scr eening ins tr ume nts to inc lud e PRE A- re late d q ue sti on s, mos tly

be c a us e they fell short of meeting all the P REA criter ia or wer e not g ender

sp e c if ic . E a c h site wa s at a

dif fe re nt d e g re e of

c omp lia nc e , s ome re qu ir ingmod e st m od if

ic atio ns wi th l ittle or

no c os ts a

nd so me re qu ir ing signif

ic ant mod if

ic atio ns de pe nd ing on the state of the ir Cost of 115.41-.43:
St ar tu p: M OD ER

AT E (~$33M) Ong oin g: M OD ER

AT E (~$55M)In it s co m m en t s i n re sp o nse t o t he A N P R M , A S C A rep o rted st an d ard S C 2 as ha ving the b i gg est co st 60/ af t er P P 3 , P P 4 , and P P 7 , est i m at i ng a t o t al st art up co st f o r t hat s i ngl e st and ard ac ross t he 5 0 s t at es of $1 0 3

. 2 m i l l i o n, w i t h a nn ua l co st s o f

$ 1 9 .4 m i l l i o n i n t he o ut yea rs; A S C A d i d n o t p ro vid e an e xp l an ati o n o f the b asis o f

i t s ca l cu l ati o ns. S ee su p ra n ot e 3.

In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 47 of

65 c la ssi fi c atio n p ro c e ss a

nd the g a p bet wee n th at and

the PRE A s tand ard s. Thus , th e pr inc ipa l c os t drivers r elate to modifications of exi sting scr eeningtools and implementation of proce dures whe re they do not alrea dy

exis t. The 49 ag encie s that participate d in Booz Allen’s co s t s t udy repor ted collective sta

rtup costs of $3.5 million and ongoingannual c osts of $3.8 mill ion.
Th e De pa rtme nt’ s c ha

ng e s to the Commis sio n’ s re c omm e nd e d s c re e nin gsta nd ard s sh ou ld
so me wh at re du c e the c os t of tho se sta nd ard s. F ir st, the De pa

rtme nt’ s sta

nd ard do e s n ot app ly

to lockups. Second, a lthough the Commission would require use of a written in s t ru ment in the classifi cation proc ess, the De partment ha s not adopted this require ment in order to a llow for elec tronic eva luations; thi s may serve to reduc e costs i n s o me instance s. Third, sever al ag ency commenter s expressed conc ern a bout the cost and burde n of conduc ting de tailed scre eningupon an inmate’s entr ance i n t o a fa cility . By clar ifying that the detailed initial classification need only be
c on du c te d w ith in 3 0 d ay s o f c on fi ne me nt, the Dep art ment int e nd s to a llo w a g e nc ie s w ithra pid turnover to avoid conductinga full cla ssification, while s till ensuring that a n inmate is scre ened
a pp ro pr iate ly

up on int ake . T his a dd e d f

le xibil ity may re du c e c os ts i n ma

ny ins tanc e s.
Four th, to the e x tent there was a cost a ssociated with the pr otective c ustody provisions of the Commis sio n’ s SC- 2 ( no su c h im pa c t wa s re po rt e d by B oo z Al le n) , thos e pr ov isi on s n owon ly a pp ly to prisons and jails (in 115.43) and not to any other settin g. Fifth, the inc rea sed cla rity and sp e c if ic ity of thi s st and ard

c omp are d to the Commis sio n’ s v e rs ion may a lso se rv e to r e du c e c os ts.
As ref lected in table 10 below, the total nationwide implementation cost of the sc ree ning ( or assessment and pla ceme nt) s t an d ards, ex trapolate d from the c ost estimates provided by the 49 ag encie s that participate d in Booz Allen’s cost study , amounts to $33 milli on in startup costs and $55 mil lio n in on g oin gannua l c os ts. 60/

B OP e sti mate s it s c os ts o f c omp lyingwi th s tand ard 11 5. 41 a s an in iti a l c os t of $4 56 0 to develop a nd disseminate a ne w scre eninginstrument, which it e stimates w ill take approximately 120 hours of staf

f time. I f neg otiation with the union proves nece ssary , additional staff time may be require d. Standards 115.42 and .43 w ould not impos e additional costs on B OP, as they are c o n s i s t e n tw i the x i s t i n gB O P p o l i c y.In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 48 of

65 Tabl e 10 Est im at e d An nualCo m plia nc e Co st s forSt anda r ds 115.41-.43, .241-.242, .341- .342 (Scre ening/Assessme nt and P lacem ent)

in T hous ands of Doll ars

Jur i s di ct i ons i n B ooz A l l en St udy N at i onw i de Ext rap ol at i on
St art up O ngoi ng St art up O ngoi ng
Pri s ons $518 $1, 906 $2, 036 $7, 493
J a ils $118 $356 $12, 275 $37, 106
J u v e n ile $2, 760 $1, 584 $18, 550 $10, 646
C o m m un i ty C onf i ne men t $64 $0 $550 $0

Tot al $3, 460 $3, 846 $33, 411 $55, 245 Sections 115.51-54, 115.151-154, 115.251-254, 115.351- 354 (compa re to the Commi s s io n ’ s RE s ta

n d ar d s ) : T h e B o o z A ll e nRe p o r t f o un d a mi n im a l c o s t t o th e Co mm is s io n ’s
rec ommended standards relating to r eporting

. Standards RE-1 and RE-4 we re de termined to have “neg ligible to non-e x istent” cost – these two standa rds h av e n o t m ater ially

chang ed in the D e p artm e n t’ s it e r ati o n s , w h e r e th e y h av e b e c o me 1 1 5

. 5 1 /1 5 1 /2 5 1 /3 5 1 an d 1 1 5

. 5 4 /1 5 4 /254/354,
re sp e c tiv e ly . B OP r e po rt s th at ne ither propos e d s tand ard wo uld imp os e a dd iti on a l c os ts o n it

. USMS estim ates a

n annual cost of $5000 to print poster s and broc hures in complianc e with 115.151.

The Commission’s rec ommended RE-2 standa rd, dea ling wi th e xha us tio n o f ad

min ist rativ e re me die s, ha s bee n c omp le te ly
rewritten in its curr ent form at 115.52/ 252/352. The B ooz Allen Report found the Commission’s recommendation to have a “neg ligible” cost and observe d that wher e ag encie s were noncompliant with the Commi ssion’s rec ommended standa rd, quantifying a cost as a result of chang ing the ag ency ’s grieva nce poli c y w a s in d e te r

mi n ate o r s p e c u lati v e at b e s t. O n e a g e n c y d id e xp r e s s a

c o s t i mp a c t ( $6,000 sta rt up and $1 05 ,0 00 on g oin g ) a sso c iate d w ithan in c re a se d le ve l of e ff or t r e qu ir e d by a

c ha ng e in policy restric ting investig ations to 90 day s, which the ag ency construed as requiringthe hiringof an additional g rieva

nce of fi ce r t o help meet a

shortened de adline. The Depa rtment’s propose d sta nd ard s ame lio rate any c os t imp a c t of thi s so rt by a llo wi ng an a g e nc y to c la im a n e xten sio n o f t ime to respond, up to 70 day s, if the normal 90-da y time period for

response is insufficient to make a n appropr iate dec ision.
Cos ts a sso c iate d w ith c on fl ic ts be tw e e n th e sta nd ard s a nd the Pr iso n L iti g atio n Re fo rm Ac t, and with a

n inmate’s ability (under the Commi ssion’s proposal) to exhaust administrative reme dies Cost of 115.51-.54: Startup: MINIM AL Ongoin g: MINIM ALIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 49 of

65 within 48 hours, have a lso been e liminated in the Depar tment ’s proposed standa

rd. We there fore assess the e x haustion of administrative r e me d ie s s ta n d a r ds as havingminimal compliance cost. B OP estimates that its sy stemwide costs assoc iated with 115.52 will amount to a mere $23,940 per year
. This includes one hour of staff time, on an estimated 150 case s per y ear , to pr ocess and docume nt third party

notifications, and 24 hours of staff time, on an estimated 20 c ases pe r year , to prepa re f or an d att e n d c o urt p r o c e e d in g s o n “ immi n e n t h ar m” matt e r s
. B O P n o te s th at th e im p a c t of the standard on litig ation is unknown and may lead to a d d i t i o nal costs. B eca use the De partment’s pr op os e d s tand ard

inc lud e s si g nif

ic ant r e vis ion s to th e Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd atio n, we inv ite public comment as to whether there might be a dditional costs associated with this standard that we have not include d.
The B ooz Allen Report gr ouped the Commi ssion’s RE- 3 standard tog ether with standards RP-2 through R P -4 , which, as note d above, it found to have a minimal cost impact. (T he 49 ag encie s that participated in the Booz Allen study collectively

repor ted $98,000 in startup costs and zero ong oing c osts in connection with RE-3.) As with stand ards RP-2 through RP-4, the Commi ssion’s RE-3 standard relate d to establishing Me morandums of Unde rstandingwith outside service providers – in this case , to outside victim advocates f or emotional support ser

vices re lated to sex ual abuse . The De partment ha s not materially chang ed this standard f rom what the Commi ssion recommende d, aside fr om chang ing the require ment that communications be “ private, confide ntial, and privileg ed, to the exte n t al l o wa b l e by Fe dera l, State, and local law ” to a require ment that s u ch communications be “ as conf idential as possible consistent with ag ency secur ity needs.” The Depa

rtment believes that standard 115.53/253/353 will, like the RE-3 standar d th atB o o z A l l e na s s e s s e d , h av e m i n i m a l c o s ti mp a c to nth e c o r r e c t i o n a l c o m mun i ty. Sections 115.61-67, 115.161-165, 115.261-265, 115.361- 366 (compa re to the Commi ssi o n ’ s O R s ta

n d ar d s ) : T h e B o o z A ll e nRe p o rt f o un d th at f o ur o f th e Co mm is sion’s
re c omm e nd e d s tand ard s r e latin gto o ff ic ia l r e sp on se fo llo wi ngan inmate re po rt – to wi t, OR -1 , O R2, OR -3 , a

nd OR -4 – w ou ld h ave ne g lig ibl e to n on -e xiste nt c os t. Th e Dep artme nt’ s r e vis ion s to these re commended sta

nd ar ds (which now a

ppear at 115.61/161/261/361, 115.62/162/262/ 362, 11 5. 63 /16 3/2 63 /36 3, and

11 5. 64 /16 4/2 64 /36 4, re sp e c tiv e ly ) d o n ot c h a ng e or a dd to t he c os t of the se sta nd ard s. Ne ith e r B OP nor

USM S ha

ve ide nti fi e d a

ny e sti mate d c os ts a sso c iate d w ithany of the se pr op os e d s tand ard s.
The B ooz Allen Report found minimal cost to the Commi ssion’s r ecommende d OR-5 standard. One pr ison sy stem repor ted an ex pecte d up-fr ont cost of $500,000; the re maining 48 sites Booz Allen surveyed re ported n o costs. The propose d standard r equire s ag encie s to adopt policies that h el p ensure pr iso ne rs wh o do r e po rt

inc ide nts of

se xua l a bu se are pr op e rl y monitored and prote cted a fterw ards, including but not limited to providing infor mation in training sessions, enforc ing strict repor ting policies, imposing strongdisciplinary sanctions for r etaliation,
makin g ho us ing c ha

ng e s or tr ans fe rs fo r i nmate vic tim s o r a bu se rs , r e mov inga lle g e d s ta ff or inm ate Cost of 115.61-.67: Startup: MINIM AL Ong oin g: NE G LIG IBLET he D ep art m ent has m o d i f i ed sect i o ns 1 1 5

. 6 5 , 1 1 5

. 2 6 5 , and 1 1 5

. 3 6 5 t o requi re agenci es t o co nt i nue 61/ pas t t he i ni t i al 90- day per i od t hei r mo ni t ori ng of r es i d en t s or s t af

f wh o re po r t s exu al or who cooperat e wi t h a n i nvest i gat i o n, i f

t he i ni t i al m o ni t o ri ng i nd i cat es a cont i nui ng need f o r mo ni t o ri ng or f

o r protect i o n agai nst re ta liati o n. W e d o no t vie w this re q u ire m e n t as b e ing li k e ly t o im p o se a d d iti o n a l co sts o n a g e n c ie s tha t co m p ly with it

.
In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 50 of

65 abuser s from conta ct with victims, and providing e motional support services f or inmates or staf

f who fe a r re ta li at i o n
. T h e o n e s y s t e mth atr e p o rt e d a c o s tf o r th i s s t an d ar d

attr i b ut e d

i tt o th e n e e d

to develop a sy stem to permit centr al office monitoringof inmate victims and witnesses. I n draf ting sta nd a rd 11 5. 65 /16 5/2 65 /36 5, theDepa rt me nt has no t ch anged t he C om mi ss io n’s reco mm end e d O R5 in a way

that would likely

miti gat e o r affec t this cost. BO P estimates that its costs associated 61/ with implementation of standard 115.65 a mount to $11,400 per year , consisting of one hour of

staff time, in 300 c ases per y ear , to a ssess whether reta liation has occur

red a nd to take appr opriate a ction. USMS estim ates no c ost in connection with 115.165.

Sections 115.71-73, 115.171-172, 115.271-273, 115.371- 373 (compa re to the Commi ssion’s I

N standar ds): The Booz Allen R eport found that the C ommissi on’s re commended

sta nd ard s r e latin gto i nv e sti g atio n o f r e po rt e d a bu se inc ide nts would impose a mi nimal cost on ag encie s. Standard I N-2, whic h dealt with criminal and administrative age ncy investigations, was deter mined to have ne g ligible to non-e x is t ent impact. The De pa rtme nt’ s v e rs ion

of thi s st and ard , 1 15 .7 1/1 71 /27 1/ 37 1, is simil ar in sum and substanc e to the Commissi on’s ver sion and like that ve rs ion

is e xpe c te d to have a

ne g lig ibl e c os t.
The B ooz Allen Report g rouped the Commi ssion’s rec ommended I N-1 a nd I N-3 standa

rds tog e the r fo r purp os e s of a sse ssi ng c os t and fo un d that the c omb ine d c os t a sso c iate d wi th th os e standards w as minimal. Only six sites out of the 49 surveyed re ported c osts ($19,000 i n startup and $1.3 milli on in annual ong oing) . Those costs re lated either to the need f

or additi onal staff

to conduct
mor e fr e qu e nt inv e sti g atio ns (whic h w e re e xpe c te d to inc re a se in v olume a s a re su lt o f m or e re po rt s beingbrought to the attention of prison authorities), or to the need to ensure that investigations are conducte d proper l y

and thoroughly . Ninety -six perc ent of the sites surve y ed in the B ooz Allen Report wer e alr eady

in compliance w ith I

N-3 (which re lates to the burden of proof for substantiation of abuse alleg ations), while only 41% we re in c ompliance with I N-1. The Department proposes to revise these standar ds. The Commissi on’s I N-3 standa

rd has been modifie d and is now the p ro p o s ed 115.72/172/ 272/372; the chang es the De partment made should not aff

ect the cost of t he st andar d. The Commission’s I N-1 standa

rd has be en dele ted, and its provisions relating to noti fication to inm ates have bee n incorpora ted into standard 115.73/273/373. The cost of this propose d standard should be no g reater than, a nd will probably

be less than, wh at B o o z A ll e n a s s e s s e d to b e th e c o s t o f th e Co mm is s io n ’ s I N

- 1 s ta n d ar d

. BO P estimates that this standard will cost it $5,700 per y ear to implement nationwide, consisting of 30 Cost of 115.71-.73: Startup: MINIM AL Ong oin g: M OD ESTIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 51 of

65 min ute s o f s ta ff

tim e pe r a lle g atio n, fo r 30 0 a lle g atio ns pe r y e ar, to no tif y inm ate s of

the outc ome of investig ations. USMS reports no estimated cost assoc iated with this standard.

Sections 115.76-77, 115.176-177, 115.276-277, 115.376-377 (compa

re to the Commi ssion’s D I standards) : T he Booz Allen Report found the Commi ssion’s rec ommended standards conce rning disciplinary sanctions for staff a nd inmates to have ne g ligible to non-existent cost. The Depa rtment has modified the Commissi on’s re commende dstandards in va rious way s but does not believe t h es e change s introduce a ny cost that
wa s n ot p re se nt i n th e Commis sio n’ s p ro po sa ls. B OP a nd USM S e sti mate no add it iona l c os ts associate d with this st andar d, which ar e consistent with cur rent pra ctice. Sections 115.81-83, 115.182, 115.282-283, 115.381-383 ( compar e to the Commi ssion’s MM standards). The Booz Allen Report assesse d the first two of the Commission’s
rec om m en d ed s t andards relating to medica l and mental hea lth care (MM-1 and MM- 2) as having
ne g lig ibl e to n on -e xiste nt c os t. T he De pa rtme nt’ s c ha

ng e s to the se tw o s tand ard s – a s nowse t f

or th in 115.81/381 and 115.82/ 182/282/382 – if any thing somewhat re duce the burden of the Commi ssion’s rec ommended standa rds (e specia lly

for jails) and therefor e do not chang e the a lrea dy
ne g lig ibl e c os t of

tho se sta nd ard s.
The B ooz Allen Repo r t a s sessed the Commission’s MM-3 (whic h r e late s to on g oin gme nta l he a lthc are for sex ua l a bu se vict i m s an d abuser s) as having a much more substantial compliance cost – in fac t th e highest of a ll standards af ter the
m ajor ones of PP-3, PP -4, and PP-7. The 49 a g encie s that participated in Booz Allen’s c ost study re p orted c ollective complia n c e c o s ts a s s o c ia te d w it h th e Co mmissi on’s
rec ommended MM-3 of $8,000 in star tup costs and $5.4 million in a nnua l on g oin gc os ts. Th e pr ima ry c os t dr ive r a sso c iate d w ith thi s st and ard is the re qu ir e me nt o f p ro vid ingon g oin gc are and me nta l he a lthc are pa

rt ic ula rl y a s it relates to car e for

all known sex abusers.
The De partment’s pr oposed standar d, s e c tions 115.83/283/ 383, is substantially simil ar to the Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd atio n, ins of ar a s it r e qu ir e s th at vi c tim s o f s e xua l a bu se re c e ive a c c e ss t o on g oin gme dic a l and

me nta l he a lthc are , a

nd that a bu se rs re c e ive a cces s to care as w e ll. Th is standard r equire s fac iliti es to offe r ong oing me dical and me ntal health ca re c onsistent with the
c omm un ity le ve l of c are fo r a s lo nga s su c h c are is n e e ded , and also r e qu ir e s th at kn own inmate abuser s rec eive a mental hea lth evaluation within 60 day s of lear ning the abuse ha s occur

red. The Depa rtment does not beli eve that its chang es to the Commissi on’s ver sion of this standard substantially

aff ect the c ost d et ermined by Booz Allen. As depic ted in Table 11, the estimated nationwide compliance costs associate d with this st andar d, as extrapolated f rom the costs re ported Cost of 115.76-.77:
St ar tu p: NE G LIG IBLE Ong oin g: NE G LIG IBLE

Cost of 115.81-.83: Startup: MINIM AL (~$ 80 0K) Ong oin g: M AJ OR (~$150M)In iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 52 of

65 by the 49 ag encie s involved in the Booz Allen study , amount to $803,000 in startup costs and $150 mil lio n in annua l on g oin gc os ts.
BO P estimates that it would need to spend $1,816,272 per y ear to implement this standard sy stemwide by

dedicating two a dditional GS-13 staff per re gi o n (1 2 i n total) to provide ong oing counselingsessions to inmates beyond what is curr ently provided.

Tabl e 11 Estim ated Annual Com plian ce C osts for Stand ard 115.83, .283, .383

(Me ntal Health Care) in T hous ands of Doll ars
Jur i s di ct i ons i n B ooz A l l en St udy N at i onw i de Ext rap ol at i on
St art up O ngoi ng St art up O ngoi ng
Pri s ons $0 $3, 293 $0 $12, 947
J a ils $8 $1, 265 $803 $131, 936
J u v e n ile $0 $809 $0 $5, 434
C o m m un i ty C onf i ne men t $0 $0 $0 $0

Lock ups $0 $0 $0 $0
Tot al $8 $5, 367 $803 $150, 317 Sections 115.86-89, 115.186-189, 115.286-289, 115.386- 389 (compa re to the Commi ssion’s DC standards): The Booz Allen Report tre ated the f our Commissi on standards relating to data

collection and r eview a s a g roup. It found that DC-4 (whic h deals with data storag e, publication, and destruc tion) had a ne g ligible to non-e x istent cost. We assume that the Depa rtment’s
sub s ta n ti a ll y s im il ar v e r s io n , at 1 1 5

. 8 9 /1 8 9 /2 8 9 /3 8 9 , li k e w is e h a s a n e g li g ib le c o s t. H o w e v er, USMS i ntends to bui l d a d at ab ase that will track, store, a nd cre ate r eports, for

an upfr ont cost of $300,000.

T h e B o o z Al l enR ep o rtfo un d th ats t an d ar d s DC -1 thro u gh DC-3 collec tively

have “ some of the highe st c ompliance rate s and lowest o v e r a llc o s t i mpact” of

all the Commiss ion’s rec ommended sta nd ard s. Of the sit e s wh ic h w e re no t a lr e a dy in c omp lia

nc e wi th these re commended sta

ndards, the pr imary

cost dri vers a

re the manpower

and data

base a utomation/int egration expenses
a sso c iate d w ithg athe ri ng , r e vie wi ng , a nd re po rt ingse xua l a

bu se data. The ag encie s which participated in the Booz Allen study collectively

repor ted costs associated wi th t he se sta nd ard s o f $ 37 1, 00 0 in

sta rt up c os ts a nd $3 74 ,0 00 in o ng oin gc os ts.

Cost of 115.86-.89:
St ar tu p: M OD EST Ong oin g: M OD ESTIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 53 of

65 Th e De pa rtme nt m a de nume ro us c lari fy ingc ha ng e s to the Commis sio n’ s p ro po sa ls b ut d id
no t c ha ng e the ir su

bs tanc e , an d the De pa

rtme nt’ s re vis ion s ar e the re fo re un lik e ly to af fe c t th e c os t of this standa

rd as assessed in the Booz Allen Report. BO P r eports that standa rd 115.86 will require $456,000 per year t o implement, based upon re viewingan anticipated 300 alleg ations per year , at 40 staff hour s per review. BO P also estimates a require d cost of $151,000 per y ear to fund a GS-11 data a naly st positi on for the collection of data in acc ordanc e with standard 115.87. As for standa rd 115.88, BO P estimates a compliance cost of $9,120 per y ear for 240 hour s of staff

time. USMS projects an annua l cost of $16,000 to comply with standard 115.186, ba sed on the time to conduct a r eview w ith upper mana g ement of a n estimated ten incide nts per y ea r. For 115.187, the Marsha ls a

nticipate a cost of $75,000 per y ear for a GS-11 part-time analy st positi on for the c ollectio n of data . For 115.188, USMS estim ates $10,000 pe r year for the a dditional personne l require d to reviewand submit reports for corr ective a ction. Sections 115.93, 115.193, 115.29 3 , an d 1 1 5

. 3 9 3 (c o mp ar e t o th e C o m mission’s AU-1 standard) : The Com mission’s rec ommended audit standard (AU-1) require s ag encie s to audit eac h of their f acilities, includingcontra ct fa cilities, at least once ever y three y ear s
. T h e Booz Allen Report deter

mined that on aver ag e, audits would cost $32,000 for prisons, $25,000 for jails, $17,000 fo r juv e nil e fa c ili tie s and c omm un ity c on fi ne me nt fa c ili tie s, and $9 ,0 00 fo r loc ku ps
. Th e cos t to audit ever y fac ility once e very

three y ear s would equal a pproxi mately

$77.5 milli on per year
. The De partment’s pr oposed st andar d does not specif y any particula r fr equenc y

of audits and only addre sses the independ en ce and ce rtification of a uditors, as well as the
re qu ir e me nts that a g enci e s g ive a ud ito rs fu ll a c c e ss a

nd pu bli sh the a ud it r e po rt s o n th e ir

we bs ite s. As dis c us se d in the NPRM, the De pa rtme nt b e lie ve s th at fur ther dis c us sio n is ne c e ssa

ry in order to determine howfre quently , and on what basis, such audits should be conduc ted. Ac c or din g ly , th e pr op os e d s tand ard do e s n ot s pe c if

y the fr e qu e nc y or br e a dth of a ud its – th e se wi ll be addr essed in the f

inal Rule. At this time, it would be premature to assig n any cost to this st andar d. Howeve r, bec ause the Depa rtment is seekingcomments on whether audits should be conduc ted at regular interva ls, the Depa rtment invites the public to comment on the cost pe r fa cility per a udit and pr ov ide the ba sis fo r t

ho se c os ts.
* * *
Conclusi ons as to C

ompli anc eCos ts . The fo l l o wingtables, tog ether with Table 6 a

bove, depict in summary

fashion, fr om a number of perspe ctives, the e stimated nationwid e complianc e costs associate d with the Depa rtment’s propose d standards.

B e low , T a

ble 12 list s a ll o f t

he pr op os e d s tand ard s b y re gulatio n n

umb e r ( wi th a

c ro ssref ere nce to the corr esponding Commi ssion de signation) and desc ribes the r elative magnitude of the Cost of 115.93: Startup: UNK

NOWN Ongoin g: UNK

NOWNIn iti a l R e g u la to ry Im p a c t A n a lysis D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 54 of

65 estimated startup a

nd ong oing c osts associated with implementation of that propose d st andar d. Where a pplicable, e ach sta

ndard lists the associa t ed costs repor ted by the 49 ag encie s that participated in the B ooz Allen study and by BO P and USMS. W here an extrapol ated nationwide
c os t e sti mate is a

va ila ble fo r a pa rt ic ula r s tand ard in d oll ar- fi gur e te rm s, that f igur e is r e fl e c te d in the Table , drawn from Ta

bles 7 throug h 11 above. The verba l de scriptions of the re lative magnitude of the c os t e sti mate s u se the fo llo wi nghie ra rc hy :

zero < ne g ligible <minimal < modest < moderate < major

. Ta ble 13 , on page 5 8, the n d e pic ts the e xpe c te d u pf ro nt a nd on g oin gc omp lia

nc e c os ts associate d with the Depa

rtment’s proposed standards on a per fac ility and per inmate basis for the dif fe re nt f a c ili ty ty pe s.
Tables 14A a

nd 14B, on pag e 59, projec t the total compliance costs of the propose d standards
ov e r t he 15 -ye ar p e ri od

fr om 2 01 2- 20 26 , s ho wi nga g g re g ate natio nw ide c os ts p e r ye ar p e r f a c ili ty ty pe, and c alculate d alternatively using a 3% and 7% discount rate.Tabl e 12 Sum m ar y o f Co m plia nc e Co st s forP r opo se d P RE A St anda r ds (all doll ar figu res in Thou sand s – blan k entries areunk now n at this tim e)

Standa rd – R eg. N o s. N PR EC

D es i gnat i on E st i m a ted S tartu p C o st s E st i m a ted O ng o i ng C o st s

Rel ati ve Magnit ud e 49 B ooz

Allen Agencies BO P Ma rs h als Nat ionwide Esti m ate Rel ati ve

Magnit ud e 49 B ooz

Allen Agencies BO P Ma rs h als Nat ionwide Esti m ate

115. 11 e t c. PP

- 1 M i n i mal $0 $0 <$1, 000 M aj or $600 $550 $99, 000
115. 12 e t c. PP

- 2 N eg l i g i bl e $62 M oder at e $3, 410 $62 $67, 321
115. 13 e t c. PP

- 3 Ze r o $0 $0 $0 $0 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0
115. 14 e t c. PP

- 4 Ze r o $0 $0 $0 $0 M i n i mal $0 $0
115. 15 e t c. PP

- 5 N eg l i g i bl e $2 $0 M i n i mal $47 $0 $0
115. 16 e t c. PP

- 6 N eg l i g i bl e $4 $0 $0 M odes t $284 $0 $0 $7, 200
115. 17 e t c. PP

- 7 Ze r o $0 $0 $0 $0 Ze r o $0 $0 $0 $0
115. 21 e t c. RP

- 1 N eg l i g i bl e $25 $36 $0 M i n i mal $1, 400 $0 $0
115. 22 e t c. RP

- 2 N eg l i g i bl e $75 $0 $0 M i n i mal $2, 100 $0 $0
1 1 5

. 2 3 et c. Ze ro $ 0 Ze ro
1 1 5 .3 1 e tc

. T R -1

M aj or $7, 000 $0 $2

$166, 000 M aj or $4, 800 $0 $400

$93, 665 115. 32 e t c. T R- 2 $5 $3
1 1 5 .3 3 e tc

. T R -3
115. 34 e t c. T R- 4 $0 $0 $71 $34 1 1 5 .3 5 e tc

. T R -5Tabl e 12 (c ont inue d)

Standa rd – R eg. N o s. N PR EC

D es i gnat i on E st i m a ted S tartu p C o st s E st i m a ted O ng o i ng C o st s

Rel ati ve Magnit ud e 49 B ooz

Allen Agencies BO P Ma rs h als Nat ionwide Esti m ate Rel ati ve

Magnit ud e 49 B ooz

Allen Agencies BO P Ma rs h als Nat ionwide Esti m ate

1 1 5 .4 1 e tc

. S C -1 /A P -1
115. 42 e t c. SC- 2/ AP

- 2 M oder at e $3, 500 $5 $0 $33, 411 M oder at e $3, 800 $0 $0 $55, 245
11 5. 43 et c.
115. 51 e t c. RE

- 1 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $5 Ze r o $0 $0 $0
115. 52 e t c. RE

- 2 N eg l i g i bl e $6 $0 $0 M i n i mal $105 $24 $0
115. 53 e t c. RE

- 3 M i n i mal $98 $0 $0 Ze r o $0 $0 $0
115. 54 e t c. RE

- 4 Ze r o $0 $0 $0 Ze r o $0 $0 $0
1 1 5 .6 1 e tc

. O R -1

Ze r o $0 $0 $0 Ze r o $0 $0 $0 1 1 5 .6 2 e tc

. O R -2
1 1 5 .6 3 e tc

. O R -3
1 1 5 .6 4 e tc

. O R -4
1 1 5 .6 5 e tc

. O R -5
115. 66 e t c. M i n i mal $500 $11 $0 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $11 $0
115. 67
115. 71 e t c. I N

- 2 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0
1 1 5 .7 2 e tc

. IN -3 M i n i mal $19 $0 $0 M odes t $130 $0 $0
115. 73 e t c. I N

- 1 $6 $0 $0 $0Tabl e 12 (c ont inue d)

Standa rd – R eg. N o s. N PR EC

D es i gnat i on E st i m a ted S tartu p C o st s E st i m a ted O ng o i ng C o st s

Rel ati ve Magnit ud e 49 B ooz

Allen Agencies BO P Ma rs h als Nat ionwide Esti m ate Rel ati ve

Magnit ud e 49 B ooz

Allen Agencies BO P Ma rs h als Nat ionwide Esti m ate

1 1 5 .7 6 e tc

. D I-1 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0 1 1 5 .7 7 e tc

. D I-2
1 1 5 .8 1 e tc

. M M -1 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0 1 1 5 .8 2 e tc

. M M -2
115. 83 e t c. M M

- 3 M i n i mal $8 $1, 816 $0 $803 M aj or $5, 400 $1, 816 $0 $150, 317
1 1 5 .8 6 e tc

. D C -1

M odes t $371 $456 $16

M odes t $374 $456 $16
115. 87 e t c. D C- 2 $151 $75 $151 $75
115. 88 e t c. D C- 3 $9 $10 $9 $10
115. 89 e t c. D C- 4 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $300 N eg l i g i bl e $0 $0 $0
11 5. 93 et c. A U

- 1 U nk nown U nk nownIni t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 58 of

65 Tabl e 13 Expected Upfront and Ongoin g Com plian ce C osts, Nationwi de,

P er F acility and PerInmat e

U pfron t O ngoi ng Pri s on s , pe r Fa ci l i t y $15, 770 $33, 817
Pri s on s , Per I n mat e $16. 48 $35. 35
Ja i l s , Per Fa ci l i t y $34, 990 $105, 978
Ja i l s , Per I n mat e $96. 00 $292. 00
Ju v en i l e, pe r Fa ci l i t y $8, 572 $27, 935
Ju v en i l e, pe r Res i den t $227. 00 $741. 00
Comm. Conf

. , pe r Per s on $5. 36 $42. 12
Loc k u ps , pe r Fa ci l i t y $9, 843 $11, 086Tabl e 14A Expected Com plian ce C ost P roje ction, Nationwi de, P er F acility Type, P er Y ear, 2012- 2026, in T hous ands of Pre sent Value Dollars ,

Calculated Using a 3% Discount Rate

YE AR 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 6 T OTAL P ri s ons 26, 304 56, 407 51, 621 45, 864 39, 563 34, 127 29, 439 25, 394 21, 905 18, 896 16, 299 14, 060 12, 128 10, 462 9, 025 411, 494 J a i l s 117, 742 356, 618 356, 618 316, 850 273, 318 235, 766 203, 374 175, 432 151, 329 130, 538 112, 603 97, 133 83, 787 72, 276 62, 346 2, 745, 729 Juv eni l e 24, 087 78, 497 78, 497 69, 743 60, 161 51, 896 44, 766 38, 615 33, 310 28, 733 24, 786 21, 380 18, 443 15, 909 13, 723 602, 546 C om m. C o n f. 300 2, 358 2, 358 2, 095 1, 808 1, 559 1, 345 1, 160 1, 001 863 745 642 554 478 412 17, 680

L o ck u p s 44, 913 50, 583 50, 583 44, 943 38, 768 33, 441 28, 847 24, 884 21, 465 18, 516 15, 972 13, 777 11, 885 10, 252 8, 843 417, 672 TO TAL 213, 346 544, 463 539, 677 479, 496 413, 617 356, 790 307, 770 265, 485 229, 010 197, 546 170, 405 146, 993 126, 797 109, 376 94, 349 4, 195, 121

Tabl e 14 B Expected Com plian ce C ost P roje ction, Nationwi de, P er F acility Type, P er Y ear, 2012- 2026, in T hous ands of Pre sent Value Dollars ,

Calculated Using a 7% Discount Rate

YE AR 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 6 T OTAL P ri s ons 26, 304 56, 407 46, 045 35, 128 25, 046 17, 857 12, 732 9, 078 6, 472 4, 615 3, 290 2, 346 1, 673 1, 193 850 249, 035 J a i l s 117, 742 356, 618 356, 618 272, 062 193, 976 138, 302 98, 608 70, 306 50, 127 35, 740 25, 482 18, 168 12, 954 9, 236 6, 585 1, 762, 524 Juv eni l e 24, 087 78, 497 78, 497 59, 885 42, 697 30, 442 21, 705 15, 475 11, 034 7, 867 5, 609 3, 999 2, 851 2, 033 1, 449 386, 128 C om m. C o n f. 300 2, 358 2, 358 1, 799 1, 283 915 652 465 332 236 169 120 86 61 44 11, 178

L o ck u p s 44, 913 50, 583 50, 583 38, 590 27, 514 19, 617 13, 987 9, 972 7, 110 5, 069 3, 614 2, 577 1, 837 1, 310 934 278, 212 TO TAL 213, 346 544, 463 534, 101 407, 463 290, 516 207, 134 147, 683 105, 296 75, 075 53, 527 38, 164 27, 211 19, 401 13, 832 9, 862 2, 687, 076C o m m e n ts o f the Insti tute fo r P o licy In te g rity, M a y 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ; see a lso R I C HA R D L. R EV ES Z & M I CH AEL 62/ A. L I VE RM ORE , R E T A K I NG R ATI O N AL I TY : H O W C O ST -B ENEF I T A N AL Y SI S C A N B E T T E R P RO TE CT O UR E NVI RON M E NT A ND O UR H EAL TH 13 1 (2 0 0 8 ) (“ C o st

- b enef i t a nal y si s, b y ass um i ng t hat i nd ust ry do es not res p o nd t o regul at i o ns b y f i nd i ng the c h e a p e st p o ssib le w a y to c o m p ly, h a s tra d iti o n a ll y o v e re stim a te d the c o sts o f co m p lian c e – in so m e c a se s q u ite si gni f i cant l y
. ”).

Ini t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 60 of

65 As sum ptions with Re

sp e c t to On-

go ing Cos ts i n the Out Yea rs . In s e tt i n g f

o rthou r c os t projec tions for the year s after the start-up year

of 2012, we have pr oj ec t ed co m p l i ance costs as rema ining c onstant in nominal doll ar te rms ov er the period of 2013- 2026 without adjusting for inf latio n. No r h ave we a dju ste d f or t he po ss ib ili ty

tha t ov e r t ime the c os t of

c omp lia nc e wi ll decr ease as cor

rec tional ag encie s adopt new innovations that will make their compliance more eff icient and less c ostly . In projec ting costs over the out y ear s, we have si mply applied a discount
rate of 3% or 7% to r e nd e r t

he c omp lia

nc e c os t into p re se nt v a lue do lla rs
. Some c ommenters in response to the A NPRM urge d us to adopt a diffe rent a pproac h. As one commente r put it, “regulated par ties do not a lway s fac tor in how initial costs may decr ease over time as they adapt to ne w standards. The fede ral guidelines on cost-be nefit ana ly sis advise ag encie s that ‘“le arning ” will likely reduc e the c ost of regulatio n in future year s’ in some ca ses, and
re c omm e nd

tha t a g e nc ie s ‘ take int o a c c ount c os t- savinginn ov atio ns ’ whe n r e gulatio ns pr omo te a da ptatio n. ” Comme nts of

the Ins tit ute for P ol icy I nt e g ri ty , M ay 10 , 2 01 0, at 9, qu oti ngOM B Circular A -4, at 37. The same c ommenter urg ed that “to acc urate ly estimate complianc e costs, DOJ must . . . also anticipate ada ptation to new re gulations.” 62/
Whil e we un de rs tand

the a pp e a l of thi s r e c omm e nd e d a

pp ro a c h, we have e le c te d n ot t o pursue it at this juncture. We simply do not have a

n informational basis fr om which to draw pla us ibl e a ssumpt ion s a s to th e e xtent to wh ic h c omp lia nc e c os ts w ill de c re a se ov e r t ime du e to lear ning or to a doption of eff

iciencie s. As it is, t here is a ce rtain amount of unc erta inty in nationwide cost estimates that ar e extrapolated f rom a re latively

small sample siz e. We have endea vored to be
a s c on se rv ativ e a s poss ibl e in our c os t e sti mate s, and

int ro du c inga dd iti on a l un c e rt a int y int o th os e estimates through assumptions as to the ext ent of lea rningwill, we fe ar, le ad i n t o t h e re alm of speculation.

We never theless invite public comment on this subject and would appr eciate any data f rom which plausible a ssumpti o n s ca n be dra wn as to the e ffe ct of futur e lea rningon the cost of compliance with the standards.

VI
. Co stJus ti fic at ion Ana lys is This Part analy

zes the cost justification of the proposed standards. F irst, we conduc t a bre akeven a naly sis to demonstrate that the costs of PREA compliance are justified by the anticipate d be ne fi ts. Gi ve n that the pr op os e d PRE A s tand ard s a re e xpe c te d to c os t th e c or re c tio na l c omm

un ity approximately

$213 milli on in sta

rtup costs, and that the monetary benef it of a 1% reduc tion in theT h e se fi g u re s d iff e r fro m tho se d e p ic te d b e lo w in T a b le s 1 5 a n d 1 6 , w h ic h inc lud e o n ly t h e $ 4 9 1 .5 63/ mi l l i on i n ann ual o ng oi ng co s t s at t r i but abl e t o pri s ons , j ai l s , an d ju ven i l e f aci l i t i es , as opp ose d t o t he $5 44 mi l l i on i n t ot al
a n n u a l on g oi n g c os t s a t t r i bu t a bl e t o a l l f i v e c a t e g or i e s ( i

. e
. , a dd i n g l oc k u ps a n d c om mu n i t y c on f i n e me n t f

a c i l i t i e s )

. As
n o te d a b o v e in P a rt IV , w e ha v e no t atte m p te d to q u a n tif y the b e n e fit s tha t will re su lt fro m re d u c in g s e x u a l a b u se in l ockups an d com muni t y conf i nemen t f

aci l i t i es
. For t hi s r eas on, t hes e f i gu r es ar e s om ewh at cons er vat i ve becau s e t hey i nc o rp o rate the c o st s, b ut no t t he b en efi t s, o f red uc i ng sexu al ab use i n lo ck up s and co m m un i t y co nfi ne m en t f ac i l i t i es.

A n a lter n a tive a p p ro a c h w o u ld b e to e stim a te ho w m a n y ind ivid u a l i n c id e n ts o f ra p e o r se x u a l as sa u lts 64/ (as op p o sed t o what pe rcent age reduc t i o n) wo ul d need t o be avo i d ed i n l o ckup s and co m m uni t y co nf i nem ent s et t i ngs in o rd e r fo r th e c o sts a ff e c ting tho se fac ili ties to b re a k e v e n w ith the ir m o n e ta ry b e n e fit s. T h is a p p ro a c h is f ra u g h t with

Ini t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 61 of

65 ba se lin e pr e va le nc e of

pr iso n r a pe is wo rt h be tw e e n $1 57 mil lio n and $2 39 mil lio n, the sta rt up c os ts would be off

set in the very

first y ear of implementatio n , ev en wi t hout reg ard to the va lue of the nonmonetary

benef its, if the sta

n d a r d s achie ved re ductions of betwe en 0.9 and 1.4 pe rce nt. The bre ak
even po int

wo uld be e ve n lo we r i f t

he ana ly sis amor

tize d s tart up c os ts o ve r t

he e nti re 15 y e ars
. Moreove r, bec ause the annual ong oing c osts of full compli ance ar e estimated to be no more than $544 milli on beg inning in 2013, the proposed standards would have to y ield approximately

a 2.3 - 3.5% reduc tion f

rom the baseline in the aver ag e annual preva lence of prison rape fort h e o n g oing
c os ts a nd the mon e tize d b e ne fi ts t o b re ak e ve n, wi tho ut r e g ard to t he no nmo ne tary

be ne fi ts. 63/ Second, we compar e the e stimated compliance costs associate d wi t h the Depa rtment’s standards a g ainst the costs associated with the most obvious alternative a pproac h, to wit, the Commi ssion’s r ecommende d standards. We c onclude that in c omparison to t h e C o mmissi on’s
rec ommendations, the Depa rtment’s propose d standards r educe the upfront c osts by betwee n 31% and 99% a

nd the ong oing c osts by

betwee n 44% and 99% , dependingon the fa cility ty pe.
A. Br e ake ve n An aly sis
To e va luate wh e the r the c os ts of the pr op os e d PRE A sta nd ard s are jus tif

ie d in light o f t he ir anticipated be nefits, we c onduct a brea keven analy sis. A breakeve n analy sis first deter mines how eff ectively the standards would have to a ccomplish their g oal – v iz ., what per centa g e re duction from the base line in the aver ag e annua l preva lence of prison rape and sexual a ssault w ould ha ve to ensue from the standa

rds’ promulg ation – in order f or the c osts and benef

its to brea k even. Then it asks wh e the r i t is re a so na

ble and pla us ibl e to a ssume that the sta nd ard s will be a s ef

fe c tiv e a s n e e de d to brea k even.

Two ca veats must be offe red befor e proce edingto the brea keven a naly sis. First, for r easons stated in Part I I , we were unable to dete rmine the moneta ry benef it of a 1% r eduction in prison ra pe in t he loc ku p o r c omm

un ity c on fi ne me nt s e tti ng s, fo r t he sim ple re a so n th at w e do no t ha ve data from which the preva lence of ra pe and se x ual assault in t hose setting s can be deter mined. In order to p re se nt a

n a pp le s- to- a pp le s c omp ari so n f

or br e ak- e ve n a

na ly sis purp os e s, we re mov e the c os ts attributable to lockups and communit y confine ment settings a

nd compar e the c osts in the other three
se tti ng s a g a ins t th e c or

re sp on din gbe ne fi ts. 64/d i f

f i cul t y , gi ven i t s i nab i l i t y t o acco unt f o r t he co m p l exi t y of sexual vi ct i m iz a tio n in th e m anner s et f o rt h i n P art II

. N evert hel ess , t hi s ap p roac h m ay o f f er som e general i nsi ght i nt o ho w success f ul t he st and ards wo ul d need t o be i n t he l o ckup and co m m u n i t y co nf i nem ent s et t i ngs i n ord er f o r t he co st s i ncurred i n t ho se s et t i ngs t o be jus t i f i ed by t he
cor r es pon di n g be n ef

i t s
. U s i n g t h e f

i g u r es f r om T abl e 4, wh i ch pr ov i de t h at t h e mon et ar y v al u e of a n a v oi ded r ape of
an a du l t pr i s on er i n v ol v i n g f or ce or t h r ea t of

f or ce i s $200, 000 t o $300, 000, t h e e s t i mat ed n at i on wi de s t ar t u p c os t s f or commu n i t y c on f

i n eme n t f

ac i l i t i es ( $300, 000) br ea k ev en i f on e t o t wo r ape s i s av oi ded, wh i l e t h e es t i mat ed n at i on wi de
ann ual cos t s ( $2

. 4 m i l l i on) bre ak eve n i f ei gh t t o t wel ve r apes a re av o i d ed ea ch y ear
. For l ockups , t he es t i mat ed nat i o nwi d e st art up co st s ($4 5 m i l l i o n) bre a k e ven when b et ween 1 5 0 and 22 5 f o rci b l e ad ul t rapes are avoided ; t he
es t i mat ed n at i on wi de on g oi n g c os t s ( $51 mi l l i on ) br ea k e v en w h en be t we en 170 a n d 250 f or ci bl e a du l t ra pes a r e av oi ded.

Ini t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 62 of

65 Second, for

purposes of this bre akeve n analy sis, we as s u m e t hat the costs and be nefits of
re du c ingpr iso n r a

pe are lin e ar, at le a st w ith in t he ra ng e re le va

nt to the pr e se nt ana ly sis

. It ma y we ll be that the marg inal cost of procuring an additional 1% reduction in prison rape incre ases a s more and more rape is reduce d. Howeve r, we are unawa re of any data showing precisely how t he mar g inal cost of ra pe re duction is likely to chang e once various benchma rks of reduction have been a chieve d. F or thi s r e a so n, and

be c a us e our es tim ate s show that th e on g oin gc omp lia nc e c os ts a sso c iate d w ith the proposed standards break even with the m onetar y benef its when the preva lence of prison rape is reduce d by

a mer e 3% f

rom the base line level, we believe it t o be appr opriate to a ssume linear benef its and costs, at least within the ra ng e re levant to t he analy sis. W e invite the public to comment on wheth er this assumpti on is appropriate and to provide data on how the marg inal cost of ra pe reduc tion is l ikely

to chang e once various benc hmarks of r ape r eduction have been a chieve d.
Table 15 use s lower- bound assumptions for the monetary benef it of a 1% r eduction in prison rape (fr om T able 5) and shows the total per centa g e re duction require d in eac h confine ment setting in order f or the upfr ont and annua l compliance c osts for that settingto be b enef it-cost justified. Table 16 shows the same usingupper- bound assumptions for monetary benef it.

Tabl e 15 Br e ak- Eve n An aly sis Us ing Lowe r -B ound A ssu m pt ion s o f Be ne fitVa lue

By F ac ili tyType (D oll ar s a r e in Tho usa nds)

V al ue of 1% R ed uc t i on U pfro nt C o st s B reake ven Per ce nt age O ng o i ng C o st s B reake ven Per ce nt age
Pri s ons $60, 000 $26, 304 0. 44% $56, 407 0. 94%
J a ils $84, 500 $117, 742 1. 39% $356, 618 4. 22%
J u v e n ile $12, 500 $24, 087 1. 93% $78, 497 6. 28%
Tot al $157, 000 $168, 133 1. 07% $491, 522 3. 13%Ini t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 63 of

65 Tabl e 16 Br e ak- Eve n An aly sis Us ing Upp e r -B ound A ssu m pt ion s o f Be ne fitVa lue

By F ac ili tyType (D oll ar s a r e in Tho usa nds)

V al ue of 1% R ed uc t i on U pfro nt C o st s B reake ven Per ce nt age O ng o i ng C o st s B reake ven Per ce nt age
Pri s ons $90, 000 $26, 304 0. 29% $56, 407 0. 63%
J a ils $126, 500 $117, 742 0. 93% $356, 618 2. 82%
J u v e n ile $22, 500 $24, 087 1. 07% $78, 497 3. 49%
Tot al $239, 000 $168, 133 0. 70% $491, 522 2. 06%
As these table s make c lear , even w ithout re fer ence to the nonmonetary benef its of avoiding pri so n rape and

se xua l a ssa

ult (whic h a s w e have se e n a re nume ro us , a

nd of c on sid e ra

ble importance ) the De partment’s pr oposed standar ds need only be very modestly eff ective in or der f

or the monetized benef

its to offset the anticipate d compliance costs both as a whole and with respec t to eac h fac ility

ty pe to which they

apply

. W i thre s p ec tt o p ri s o n s , a m er e 0

. 6 3 %- 0

. 9 4 % d ec re as e f ro mth e b a s e l i n e i n th e a v er age annual pr evale nce of

prison rape and sexual assault would result in the moneti z ed b en ef i t s of the standards br eakingeven w ith their ong oing costs. Such a dec rea se fr om the baseline w ould mean
an ave ra g e of

16 5- 24 6 f

e we r f or c ibl e rapes p e r ye ar, 11 6- 17 3 f e we r n on c on se ns ua l se xua l a c ts inv olv ing pr e ssu

re or c oe rc ion , 12 0- 17 9 fe we r a bu siv e se xua l c onta c ts, and 17 5- 26 1 f

e we r i nc ide nts of wi lli ngse x with

sta ff . Eve n in the ja il co nte xt, a 0.93 % to 1.3 9% de c re a se fr om t he ba se lin e in the preva lence of rape would justify the startup costs, while a 2.82%-4.22% decr ease would justify the ong oing c osts. For jails, a 4.22% decr ease from the baseline in the a vera g e annua l preva lence would translate to 1654 f

ewe r for cible ra

pes per y ear , 625 few er nonc onsensual sexual acts involving pres s u re or coer cion, 971 fe wer abusive sexual contac ts, and 1312 few er inc idents of willing se x with staff.
We believe that a ll of these expectations as to the e ffe ctivenes s o f t h e s t andar ds are
rea sonable and plausible. When one proper ly takes into a ccount the importance of the nonmoneta ry benef its, the effe ctiveness r equire d to rea ch the br eak- even point fa lls further.

B. Consid erat ion/evalu ation of alter natives

In developingthe proposed PREA standa rds, th e Department consider ed a w ide ra ng e of alternative approa ches. The most obvious s et of alternatives that the D epar tment considere d are the sta nd ard s r e c omm e nd e d b y

the Commis sio n. As e la bo ra te d a bo ve in t he dis c us sio n o f s peci fi c standards, ma

ny of the Co m m i s s i o n’s re commended sta ndards would, if implemente d, have a compliance cost signif

icantly g reater than do the Department’s proposed standar ds. Table 17 showsIni t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 64 of

65 the Depar t m en t ’s i nterna l assessment, base d on analy ses conduc ted by Booz Allen, of the total pr oje c te d u

pf ro nt a nd on g oin gc os ts of the Commis sio n’ s re c omm e nd e d s tand ard s, a s c omp are d to the De pa rtme nt’ s p ro po sa ls:

Tabl e 17 Com parison of

P roje cte d Nationw ide Upf ront and On going Costs Co m m iss ion Re c om m e ndat ion s v . D e par tm e ntP r opo se d St anda r ds

in T hous ands of Doll ars
Up fr ont Co sts On g oin gCos ts NPREC DOJ Diffe renc e NPREC DOJ Diffe renc e Prisons $2,778,770 $26,304 99.05% $733,166 $56,407 92.31% J ails $3,151,806 $117,742 96.26% $1,955,154 $356,618 81.76% J uvenile $475,562 $24,087 94.94% $139,417 $78,497 43.70% Comm. Conf. $20,944 $300 98.57% $233,735 $2,358 98.99%

L ockups $65,093 $44,913 31.00% $2,240,096 $50,583 97.74% Total $6,492,175 $213,346 96.71% $5,301,568 $544,463 89.73%

As is evident from Ta

ble 17, the Commi s sion’s rec ommended standa rds would cost an
e sti mat ed $ 6. 5 b ill ion

in u pf ro nt c os ts p lus $5 .3 bil lio n in annua l c os ts. In b re ak- e ve n te rm s, thi s would require a 27% r eduction fr om the baseline in any g iven year in the preva lence of prison ra pe and sexual assault to break-eve n with the startup costs, and a 22% reduc tion from the base line in the
aver ag e annua l preva lence of prison ra pe to bre ak-e ven with the ong oing c osts. The Depa rtment’s proposed standa

rds re duced the upfront cost of the Commi ssion’s proposed standa rd by betwee n 31% and 99% and the ong oing c ost by betwee n 44% and 99% , dependingon the fa cility ty pe.
Th e De pa rtme nt a lso ha s a lte rn ativ e s oth e r tha n the Commis sio n’ s re c omm e nd e d s tand ard s. For example, we could mandate that c erta in standards a pply to one ty pe of f acility but not others, or
we c ould vary

cer tain standards ba sed on the size of the fa cility (as we have do n e fo r 115.11 for example). Whil e the De partment be lieves that its proposed st an d ar d s ar e the most cost ef fec tive means of c ombating pr ison rape, w e invite public comment as to whe ther a lt ernative approa ches might be w orth consider ing f rom a c ost-benef

it point of view.Ini t i al R egul at o ry Imp act A nal y si s (D raf t D at ed January 24 , 20 1 1 (9: 4 5 am )) D epa r t men t of

J u s t i ce N PR M f

or PR EA St an dar ds Pag e 65 of

65 VI I. Co nc lusi ons
In sum, the Depa

rtment believe s that the proposed PR E A s t andards are justified from the point of vi ew of brea

k-eve n analy sis, even when the substantial nonmonetary benef its of avoiding prison rape are left out of the a naly si s . The standa

rds ar e also justified whe n compar ed to the
c omp lia nc e c os ts that w ou ld b e a sso c iate d w iththe Commis sio n’ s r e c omm e nd e d s tand ard s. We caution, howeve r, that the c onclusions laid out in thi s I RI A ar e pre liminary ones that set forth our c urre nt estimates. Duringthe comment period, and in advanc e of prepa ring the final rule s for publication, we intend to subject our c ost and bene fit estimates to additional analy sis. Moreover , the Depa rtment ac tively

s ee k s t h e par

ticipation of stakeholder s in assessingthe re gulatory impact
o f i t s p roposed standards and invites public comment on a ny aspec ts of this I RI A, both as to the societal be nefits of a dopting the sta ndards a nd as to the costs of co m p l iance . In the body of the Notice of Proposed Rulemakingwe have dra wn attention to a number

of spec ific questions, which
are no t me ant t o li mit

any oth e r c omm e nts that any int e re ste d p e rs on

may wi shto s ub mit

.