DOI: 10.3886/icpsr04556.v1
title: Ethno-Methodological Study of the Subculture of Prison Inmate Sexuality in the United States, 2004-2005
title: Version 1

description: This study of prison rapes used an ethnographic, culturally
 relativistic methodology and was conducted between April 2004 and
 September 2005. The study was conducted in 30 correctional
 institutions, 23 men's and 7 women's, in 10 states. All 23 men's
 institutions were the highest-security level men's prison available in
 each state. When women's institutions were multi-security level and
 housed minimum, medium, and high-security inmates, they were selected
 from the highest-security level housing units within the institution.
 A total of 564 (409 male and 155 female) inmates were interviewed. The
 inmates to be interviewed were selected from the general prison
 population using a probability sample design. Average interview length
 was just under an hour. The sole mode of data collection was an
 open-ended, semistructured inmate interview. To ensure comparability
 of answers, surveys were designed with each query resting on a
 particular concept or variable. The same interview instrument was used
 for both male and female inmates. Questions were asked about inmate
 prison history, mental health, rape, social process, domestic violence
 and relationships, staff, institutional factors, and perception of
 social roles, and demographic information. Also included are lexical
 responses and free list questions such as "Why do inmates have sex
with other inmates?"
description: This study sought to uncover the cultural meaning
 of concepts linked to sexuality and rape using inmates' interviews to
 gather perceptions of contemporary prison social life and to transmit
 prison and race cultural history. The study did not gather rape
 prevalence or incidence data. The goal was to understand prison rape
 as a cultural concept, a cultural artifact, which inmates may know
 something about even if they had never been raped, threatened, or
physically or sexually intimidated.
description: In order to explore symbolic, linguistic, and
 functional issues in inmate culture linked to prison sexual
 aggression, this study was conducted with an ethnographic methodology.
 Given the sensitive nature of research on prison rape and to increase
 the likelihood of a positive response from state corrections
 directors, it was decided that the study would be conducted with the
 consent of the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the
 Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA). In order to
 meet this goal, an agreement of anonymity applying to regions, states,
 and institutions was reached with input from both agencies. The
 chairman of the Executive Committee of ACA sent an email letter to all
 members of ASCA, explaining the nature of the project and requesting
 cooperation. Next, two meetings were held with the ASCA research
 committee, explaining the research and responding to questions. The
 study was conducted in 30 correctional institutions, 23 men's and 7
 women's, in 10 states. All 23 men's institutions were the
 highest-security level men's prison available in each state. When
 women's institutions were multi-security level and housed minimum,
 medium, and high security inmates, interview inmates were selected
 from the highest-security level housing units within the
 institution. Between April 2004 and September 2005, a total of 564
 inmates, 409 males and 155 females, were interviewed. The inmates to
 be interviewed were selected from the prison general population using
 a probability sample design. Once selected, inmates were brought to
 interview rooms following a predetermined procedure. In each
 institution inmates were given a pass or had been placed on call-out
 the day before an interview. Inmates arrived and handed their pass to
 the liaison and waited to be picked up by an interviewer who escorted
 them to the interview room. All interviews were conducted in private
 rooms within the institution, outside of the view of correctional
 officers, other staff, other inmates, or other interview rooms. On a
 rare occasion, for institutional security purposes, correctional
 officer line staff were present in the general interview area.
 However, never was an institution staff member present in an interview
 room, nor physically close enough to hear interview content. Upon
 selection, inmates were told by institution staff they had been chosen
 for a research study. No additional information was provided to
 inmates by staff. Once inmate interviewees were settled in the
 interview room, interviewers identified themselves and began the
 informed consent procedure. The interviewer reviewed the approved
 Institution Consent Document paragraph by paragraph with each
 inmate. Interviewers stressed that the interviews were voluntary, that
 inmates could refuse to answer any question or questions, that they
 could end the interview at any time, and that early termination of an
 interview would not lead to a penalty implemented by the institution.
 Average interview length was just under an hour in length. The sole
 mode of data collection was inmate interviews an open-ended,
 semistructured inmate interview. To ensure comparability of answers,
 surveys were designed with each query resting on a particular concept
 or variable. The same interview instrument was used for both male and
 female inmates. The interview instrument was developed in a three-part
 process. First, a thorough analysis of the Prison Rape Elimination Act
 of 2003 was utilized to identify basic themes. Next, a thorough review
 of published prison sex and rape literature was conducted to ensure
 coverage of previously identified themes. Finally, detailed
 discussions of prison sexual culture, general violence, and sexual
 violence were conducted with a panel of former prison inmates
 comprised of one women and four men who had spent between 10 and 15
 years in prison. Interview data were collected in near-verbatim
 transcriptions of inmate interviews. Interviewers typed question
 responses as close to verbatim as possible into a Microsoft Word
 interview template. All narratives were coded using the qualitative
 analysis program, Atlas/ti. The co-principal investigator made final
 decisions on coding. In an attempt to offer secondary, but
 quantitative data, data for some questions were pulled by hand from
 narrative responses and placed into SPSS. The co-principal
 investigator began this process by identifying which survey questions
 would likely yield quantifiable information. Answers for the selected
 questions were then taken from each raw interview by the co-principal
 investigator. In order to verify the entered data, SPSS data entry
builder was used.
description: The quantitative data file contains demographic
 variables on the respondent including sex, age, race, street sexual
 orientation, marital status, whether ever divorced, and number of
 children. Variables on the institution include whether conjugal visits
 are allowed, months on the current living unit, inmate count, and unit
 style. Inmate prison history variables include current conviction,
 current sentence, number of prior convictions, number of months in
 prison on current conviction, whether ever in federal prison or
 juvenile detention, time spent in federal prison or juvenile
 detention, number of times sent to "the hole", and why sent to "the
 hole". Mental health variables include treatment on the street,
 voluntary treatment in prison, past abuse, and street same-sex
 experiences. Variables pertaining to rape include knowing a rapist or
 rape victim who was killed, knowing a rape victim who committed
 suicide, if there is group or one-on-one rape, if rape is a big
 threat, effect of rape on quality of life, if the friends of a rape
 victim would retaliate, if a rapist is entitled to sex, if respondent
 knows for sure a rape occurred or has heard about a rape, if rape is
 the same as turning an inmate out, if there is rape folklore, and if
 another inmate has ever been attracted to the respondent. Staff
 variables include whether officers try to prevent inmates from having
 sex, if officers try to prevent rape, if respondent knows of cases of
 officers having sex with or raping inmates, if a transfer or going to
 protective custody will help an inmate being pressed for sex, if raped
 inmates report rape to officers, if reporting rape is considered
 snitching, if homosexuals have influence over officers, and if the
 respondent has heard officers talking about rape. Institutional
 variables include if the institution can protect you from rape and if
 rape guidelines are posted. Other variables include whether family
 terms are used in the institution, if couples date, if there is
 domestic violence, whether homosexuals have power or hold important
 jobs, and the respondent's perceptions on how many inmates out of 100
 from the general prison population would be all-out gay, "on the down
 low", straight and not "on the down low", are men/studs or punks/femmes,
 and how many couples there might be. The qualitative interview files
 include the same variables but also include open-ended questions in
 areas such as why inmates have sex with other inmates, general
 attitudes towards sex and rape, descriptions of rapes the respondent
 knows or has heard about, family histories, details on questions about
 mental health treatment, same-sex experiences, relationships between
 inmates and officers, rape folklore stories, descriptions of rapists
 and rape victims, and terms used by inmates to describe those who buy
sex, sell sex, and press others for sex.
description: none
description: Response Rates: On average, two inmates per institution chose not to
participate or to terminate the interview early.
description: Presence of Common Scales: In Part 1, several Likert-type scales were used, and in Parts
2 and 3, none were used.
description: High-security male and female institutions were targeted
 within each consenting state. All 23 men's institutions were the
 highest-security level men's prison available in each state. When
 institutions were multi-security level and housed minimum, medium, and
 high-security women inmates, interviewed inmates were selected from
 the highest security level housing units within the institution.
 Therefore, all 30 institutions contained high-security, general
 population inmates. Interviewed inmates came from the general prison
 population. Not included were special inmate populations including
 inmates in administrative detention, disciplinary segregation,
 hospitalized inmates, inmates in residential substance abuse units,
 inmates in mental health residential units or protective custody,
 non-sentenced inmates, inmates in transit units, and Immigration and
 Naturalization Service (INS) detainees or deportees. In total, 409
 male inmates and 155 female inmates were interviewed. To select a
 sample of general population inmates, procedures were based on
 practices used in classical population probability sampling in which a
 systematic sample is selected using a random start and a fixed
 selection-interval number thereafter. The number of general population
 inmates on an institution's sample roster was divided by the number of
 subjects required by the projected number of interviews conducted in a
 week. A staff member was asked to pick a number in the range of one up
 to the interval number. The first potential subject corresponded to
 that inmate numbered on the sampling roster. To select the second
 inmate, the interval number was added to the number of the first
 inmate selected. This pattern was continued until the minimum number
 of inmates was selected. Fifteen to twenty inmates per institution
 were then added to account for refusals, transfers, medical care, and
other unexpected circumstances.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Quantitative Data
DS2: Male Inmate Interview Data
DS3: Female Inmate Interview Data
description: All prison inmates, male and female, in high-security
 general population, nonfederal prisons in the United States from April
2004 through September 2005. Smallest Geographic Unit: none
description: face-to-face interview(1) Details on the treatment of interview text after
 collection, including cleaning and coding, can be found in the final
 report. (2) More information on the methods used to create the
 quantitative data file can be found in the codebook. (3) The inmate
 interview files are available through restricted access procedures in
 two ZIP files. The file pkg04456-0002_REST.zip contains the 409
 interviews with male inmates and the Atlas/ti hermeneutic unit file,
 NIJ-206.hpr. File pkg04556-0003_REST.zip contains the 155 female
 inmate interviews and the Atlas/ti hermeneutic unit file,
NIJ-206.hpr.