Inmate sexual assault
This study investigated the application of “empirically validated static and dynamic risk ma[r]kers for violence in the community to sexual predation and victimization in prisons” (p.2). Twelve chapters follow and abstract and executive summary: an introduction to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and the study; methodology; the sexual behavior of incarcerated men and women; early life markers for sexual predation and victimization; violence and criminality as risk markers; sex risk markers; affective and perceptual states as risk markers; personality risk markers; structured and actuarial instruments for assessing violence risk; social environment risk markers; CHAID (Chi Square Automated Interaction Detector) classification for sexual behavior in prison; and conclusions and references. Many of the risk markers for sexual behavior in prisons are the same risk markers that predict violent behavior outside of prison. Sexual acts are “consistently associated with higher levels of threatened, physical, and relational violence within both the male and female institutions” (p.30).
This is an excellent presentation for youth about the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). It is intended to be used during orientation to the facility. Sections contained in this presentation are: Introductions—what’s it really like; Part 1—understanding your rights versus privileges; Part 2—zero tolerance means zero; Part 3—ensuring safety--i.e. grooming, letting others know of inappropriate touch, sharing of contraband by staff, sharing of personal information by staff, bullying by other youth; making reports—feeling free to report problems and the many ways to do so; Part 5—safety for girls; and Conclusion—do the program, be well, and stay safe.
This publication is an excellent graphic novel for male youthful inmates, those under 18 years of age, which provides them vital information about possible exposure to sexual abuse in adult correctional settings. "The novel raises several important issues including: (1) the code of silence among inmates and correctional staff in a facility; (2) beliefs about protective pairing; (3) the experience of gender non-conforming inmates; and (4) and female staff as perpetrators of sexual abuse". It is a prime educational tool developed with the Inmate Education Standard, § 115.33 of the National PREA Standards released on May 17, 2012. A separate set of discussion questions are also available.
These guidelines were developed “to screen for risk of sexual victimization and for abusiveness, including questions to be asked of inmates, residents, and detainees, and the best use of the information from the screening to inform housing decisions … While specifics will vary by type of facility, including the age and gender of the individuals, these general principles will hold true in a wide range of contexts” (p. 2). Sections of this publication address: what the purpose of screening is and what are its limitations; what the key elements of a screening instrument are; requirements for different facility types such as prisons and jails, lockups, community confinement facilities, and juvenile facilities; developing a screening instrument; screening women for vulnerability; what the appropriate ways to use PREA screening information are--whether facilities should base housing decisions on the information gotten from the screening instrument; and what is needed for a successful rollout of a screening instrument.
“Under certain circumstances correctional officers and their supervisors can be subject to civil liability for sexual abuse of inmates and detainees under their care. Liability for sexual abuse can attach whether the abuse was perpetrated by a correctional officer, facility employee or volunteer, or by a fellow inmate or detainee. This document provides an overview of sexual abuse cases in both state and federal courts, focusing on what types of conduct most often result in individual and supervisory liability. It does not address other issues that may arise in sexual abuse litigation, such as exhaustion requirements under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, qualified immunity for officers acting in an official capacity, or Eleventh Amendment immunity for states and their employees. Facilities should be mindful that these issues can complicate sexual abuse litigation”. Cases are organized into the 11 Circuits (with their corresponding states) and the D.C. Circuit. Citations are listed according to a successful inmate claim or a successful agency defense for male correctional staff/male inmate, female correctional staff/male inmate, male correctional staff/female inmate, inmate on inmate, juvenile, juvenile—detainee on detainee, juvenile—correctional staff/detainee, or juvenile—male correctional officer/female detainee.
“This report provides state- and national-level estimates of juvenile sexual victimization by type of activity, including estimates of youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual contact, staff sexual misconduct, and level of coercion. It also explores sexual victimization by the characteristics of both the perpetrator and youth at high risk of victimization, location and time of incidents, and nature of the relationship between youth and facility staff prior to sexual contact.” Approximately 9.5% of the youth surveyed were sexually victimized one or more times-- 2.5% involving another youth, 7.7% involving facility staff.
This report presents statistics regarding the sexual victimization of prison and jail inmates by other inmates or staff. Sections of this publication cover: highlights; National Inmate Survey; incidents of sexual victimizations; facility-level rates; demographic and other characteristics; special inmate populations—inmates ages 16 to 17; special inmate populations—inmates with mental health problems; and special inmate populations—inmates with a non-heterosexual sexual orientation. Some of the key findings include: 4% of prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized; 1.8% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 reported being victimized by another inmate, with 3.2% reporting staff sexual misconduct; 6.3% of mentally ill inmates in prison reported sexual victimization by another inmate, with those in jails at 3.6%; and non-heterosexual inmates having the highest sexual victimization rates by another inmate of 12.2% in prison and 8.5% in jail, 5.4% and 4.3% respectively by staff.
This report presents “counts of nonconsensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported to correctional authorities in adult prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities in 2009, 2010, and 2011. An in-depth examination of substantiated incidents is also presented, covering the number and characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of the injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators … Correctional administrators reported 8,763 allegations of sexual victimization in prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities in 2011, a statistically significant increase over the number of allegations reported in 2009 (7,855) and 2010 (8,404) … About half of all allegations (51%) involved nonconsensual sexual acts (the most serious, including penetration) or abusive sexual contacts (less serious, including unwanted touching, grabbing, and groping) of inmates with other inmates. Nearly half (49%) involved staff sexual misconduct (any sexual act directed toward an inmate by staff) or sexual harassment (demeaning verbal statements of a sexual nature) directed toward inmates.”
This report presents national estimates of non-consensual sexual acts, abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment reported by correctional authorities in state juvenile correctional systems and local and private juvenile correctional facilities from 2007 to 2012. The report also examines substantiated incidents, including characteristics of victims and perpetrators, location, time of day, nature of injuries, impact on the victims, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators. Companion tables in the Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007 – 2012 Statistical Tables include counts of allegations and substantiated incidents of sexual victimization for each state juvenile correctional system, juvenile correctional facility in Indian country, and sampled locally and privately operated juvenile correctional facility. Data are from BJS's Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has been conducted annually since 2004. Highlights: In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and 613 in local or private facilities and Indian country facilities; The number of allegations per year has fluctuated in state juvenile systems and the rate more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 youth in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012; In locally and privately operated facilities, the number of allegations dropped from 2009 to 2011 and then began to rise in 2012. Based on 2-year rolling averages, the rate in 2012 was 13.5 per 1,000 youth, up from 7.2 per 1,000 in 2010; From 2007 to 2012, nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization of youth were reported in state or local and private facilities--Fifty-five percent involved youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 45% involved staff-on-youth sexual victimization; Upon investigation, 25% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 10% of the allegations of staff-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated during the 6-year period.
Results from focus group interviews of correctional personnel from 2 women's facilities (one jail and one prison) are reported. Observations are presented according to the following areas: summary of findings; staff perspectives on sexual assault in women's correctional facilities; knowledge about sexual assault; inmate reports of sexual violence; role of previous violence and institutional behavior; characteristics of vulnerable and predatory female inmates; staff sexual misconduct -- consequences, knowledge of policy, safety, inmate-initiated misconduct, risk factors, reporting, and false accusations; procedures for responding to sexual assault; staff training; staff recommendations; and conclusion.