U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4881 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=63 ------------------------------------------------------- ******************* Statistical Tables ******************* Survey of Sexual Violence in Adult Correctional Facilities, 2009–11 - Statistical Tables Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statistician, Jessica Rexroat, BJS Intern, and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician In 2011, correctional administrators reported 6,660 allegations of sexual victimization in prisons. Of these, 605 were substantiated based on follow-up investigation. Local jail authorities reported 2,042 allegations, of which 284 were substantiated. About half (51%) involved allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts of inmates with other inmates, and half (49%) involved staff sexual misconduct or sexual harassment directed toward inmates. While the overall number of allegations reported by authorities in adult correctional facilities rose from an estimated 6,241 in 2005 to 8,763 in 2011, the number of substantiated incidents did not change significantly from 2005 (885) to 2011 (902). Data are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), which has annually collected official records on allegations and substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization since 2004. The SSV is one of a number of BJS data collections that are conducted to meet the mandates of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA). On behalf of BJS, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau mailed survey forms to correctional administrators in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, state prison systems, public and private jails, private prisons, jails in Indian country, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Administrators were given the option of mailing back a completed form or completing it on the internet. Data collection forms can be accessed on the BJS website. The administrators then completed a separate form for each substantiated incident, providing details about the victim, perpetrator, and circumstances surrounding the incident. The 2009, 2010, and 2011 surveys included all federal and state prisons, facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE, and a representative sample of jail jurisdictions, privately operated jails and prisons, and jails holding adults in Indian country. In total, data were collected from facilities containing 1.99 million inmates in 2009, 1.98 million inmates in 2010, and 1.97 million inmates in 2011. (See Methodology for more information about the systems and facilities from which data were collected.) The statistical tables that follow provide counts of allegations and substantiated incidents by type of victimization for every jurisdiction and facility in the 2009, 2010, 2011 surveys. These tables accompany BJS report, Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2009–11, NCJ 234904, which provides national estimates and rates of sexual victimization as well as an in- depth examination of substantiated incidents 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. ************************************************ ****************************** Defining sexual victimization ****************************** To define sexual victimization under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, BJS uses uniform definitions that classify each sexual act by the perpetrator who carried out it (i.e., inmate or staff) and the type of act. Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization involves sexual contact with a victim without his or her consent or with a victim who cannot consent or refuse. Nonconsensual sexual acts are the most serious victimizations, and include-- * contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight * contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus * penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object. Abusive sexual contacts are less serious victimizations, and include-- * intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person * incidents in which the intent was to sexually exploit (rather than to harm or debilitate). Staff-on-inmate sexual victimization includes both consensual and nonconsensual acts perpetrated on an inmate by staff. Staff includes an employee, volunteer, contractor, official visitor, or other agency representative. Family, friends, and other visitors are excluded. Staff sexual misconduct includes any act or behavior of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by staff, including romantic relationships. Such acts include— * intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire * completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts * occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification. Staff sexual harassment includes repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to an inmate by staff. Such statements include-- * demeaning references to an inmate’s sex or derogatory comments about his or her body or clothing * repeated profane or obscene language or gestures. ************************************************ ************ Methodology ************ Sampling ********** The sampling designs for the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) 2009, 2010, and 2011 Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) varied according to the different facilities covered under PREA. *************************** Federal and state prisons *************************** In each year, the survey included the Federal Bureau of Prisons and all 50 state adult prison systems. Prison administrators were directed to report only on allegations of sexual victimization that occurred within publicly operated adult prison facilities and to exclude allegations involving inmates held in local jails, privately operated facilities, and facilities in other jurisdictions. ***************************** Privately operated state and federal prisons ***************************** In each year, a sample of 125 privately operated state and federal prison facilities was drawn to produce a sample of the private prisons identified by the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. The sampling frame of privately operated prison facilities contained 417 facilities in 2009 and 2010 and 393 in 2011 (after removing prisons that had closed). Facilities were sorted by average daily population (ADP) in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2005. In 2009 and 2010, 71 facilities with ADPs of 488 or more were selected with certainty because of their size. In 2011, 69 facilities with ADPs of 445 or more were selected with certainty (i.e., given a 100% chance of selection in each sample because of their size). The remaining facilities were sorted by region (i.e., the Northeast, Midwest, South, or West), state, and ADP, and sampled systematically with probabilities proportional to their size. Fifty-four facilities were selected in 2009 and 2010, and 56 in 2011. ***Footnote 1 The chance that a facility would be selected was directly related to the size of the facility (i.e., within each stratum, facilities with larger ADPs had a greater chance being selected than facilities with smaller ADPs).*** Among the privately operated prisons selected for the survey, 3 had closed prior to data collection in 2009, 14 in 2010, and 10 in 2011. Three facilities selected in 2009 were out- of-scope. Six privately operated prisons did not respond to the survey in 2009: * Carver Correctional Center, Oklahoma City, OK * Crossroads Adult Transitional Center, Chicago, IL * Dismas Charities, El Paso, TX * Dismas House, St. Louis, MO * Joseph Coleman Center, Philadelphia, PA * Stepping Stones (Community Alcohol Drug Center), Mitchell, SD. All selected and active privately operated prisons in 2010 and 2011 participated in the survey. ************* Public jails ************* In each year, 700 publicly operated jail facilities were selected based on data reported in BJS’s Deaths in Custody Reporting Program (DCRP). Based on the DCRP data in each year prior to the survey, the largest jail jurisdiction was selected in 45 states and the District of Columbia ***Footnote 2 Five states with combined jail-prison systems had no public jails: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.*** Jail jurisdictions with ADPs greater than or equal to 1,000 inmates were also selected with certainty (128 in 2009, 131 in 2010, and 117 in 2011). The remaining jail jurisdictions on the frame were then grouped into three strata. * In the 2009 sample, 99 jails (out of 1,489) with an ADP of 85 or fewer inmates were selected in the first stratum, 317 jails (out of 770) with an ADP of 86 to 268 inmates were selected from the second stratum, and 110 jails (out of 434) with an ADP of 269 to 999 inmates were selected from the third stratum. * In the 2010 sample, 117 jails (out of 1,476) with an ADP of 85 or fewer inmates were selected in the first stratum; 247 jails (out of 762) with an ADP of 86 to 267 inmates were selected from the second stratum; and 159 jails (out of 436) with an ADP of 268 to 999 inmates were selected from the third stratum. * In the 2011 sample, 197 jails (out of 1,489) with an ADP of 87 or fewer inmates were selected in the first stratum, 120 jails (out of 773) with an ADP of 88 to 273 inmates were selected from the second stratum, and 220 jails (out of 427) with an ADP of During the three years, only one publicly operated jail closed prior to data collection (in 2009). Among the remaining selected jail jurisdictions in 2009, six did not respond to the survey: * Bessemer City Jail, Bessemer, AL * Cooke County Justice Center, Gainesville, TX * Marshall County Jail, Marshalltown, IA * Oklahoma County Jail, Oklahoma City, OK * Osage County Jail, Linn, MO * Roberts County Jail, Sisseton, SD. Among the 700 jail jurisdictions selected in 2010, 8 did not respond to the survey: * Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, Portland, ME * Erie County Holding Center, Buffalo, NY * Houston County Sheriff’s Office, Dotham, AL * Morgan County Sheriff’s Office, Decatur, AL * Pottawatomie County Sheriff’s Office, Shawnee, OK * Ray County Sheriff’s Office, Henrietta, MO * St. Louis Department of Public Safety, St. Louis, MO * Wichita Falls County Sheriff’s Office, Wichita Falls, TX. Among the 700 selected in 2011, 4 did not respond to the survey: * Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office, Portland, ME * Ostego County Jail, Gaylord, MI * Tazewell County Jail, Pekin, IL Victoria County Jail, Victoria, TX. ************** Private jails ************** In each year, a sample of 15 privately operated jails was selected based on data reported in the DCRP files. The DCRP file listed 41 privately operated jails in 2008, 38 in 2009, and 34 in 2010. The facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by region, state, and ADP. Based on their large ADP, two facilities were selected with certainty in 2009, three in 2010, and four in 2011. The remaining private jails in each year were systematically sampled with probabilities proportional to size. Among the sampled facilities, one had closed prior to data collection in 2009 and one had closed in 2010. All selected and active privately operated jails in 2009, 2010, and 2011 participated in the survey. ****************************** Other correctional facilities ****************************** A sample of 15 adult jails in Indian country was selected each year. Based on BJS’s Jails in Indian Country collection program, jails that held adults only or adults and juveniles were eligible for the sampling frame. Jails that held only juveniles were included in the juvenile SSV data collection. Each year the sample was selected through probabilities proportionate to size, with ADP as the measure of size. For sampling purposes, jails with an ADP of less than one inmate, were assigned 1 as their measure of size. Due to their relatively large size, two jails were selected with certainty in 2009, three in 2010, and three in 2011. There were 63 adult jails in Indian country in 2009, 61 in 2010, and 59 in 2011. The remaining jails were sorted by state and ADP and then selected with probability proportionate to size. Of the adult jails selected in Indian country from 2009 through 2011, one closed prior to data collection: * Truxton Canyon Adult Detention Center, AZ (closed in 2010). Five Indian country jails did not respond to the survey: * Choctaw Justice Complex Adult Division, MS (2011) * Fort Peck Police Department and Adult Detention, MT (2009) * Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility, SD (2010 and 2011) * Rosebud Sioux Tribal Police Department and Adult Detention, SD (2009) * Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Detention Center, ND (2011). Two additional censuses of other correctional facilities were conducted to represent-- * all facilities operated by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Marine Corps in the continental United States * all facilities operated by or exclusively for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were selected. ***Footnote 3 Based on information from the ICE integrated decision support system, 19 facilities were operating in 2009 and 2010, and 18 facilities in 2011. In 2011, Willacy Detention Center, TX, no longer operated as an ICE facility.*** All of the facilities under active operation by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) participated the 2009, 2010, and 2011 surveys. ********************************** Reports of sexual victimization ********************************** Since BJS first developed uniform definitions of sexual victimization, correctional administrators have significantly enhanced their abilities to report uniform data on sexual victimization. In 2011, administrators in 47 state prison systems reported allegations of abusive sexual contacts separately from nonconsensual sexual acts, an increase of 5 systems since 2006. One state limited counts of nonconsensual sexual acts to completed (versus attempted and completed) acts. The majority of state prison systems reported data on staff sexual misconduct using survey definitions. Four systems were unable to separate staff sexual harassment from misconduct, and one system did not track allegations of staff sexual harassment in a central database. Public jail administrators were less likely than prison administrators to report sexual victimization based on the definitions provided. More than a quarter (27%) of the 695 public jail jurisdictions selected in 2011 did not record abusive sexual contacts separately from the more serious nonconsensual sexual acts in 2008. This is an improvement over the 2006 SSV, in which a third (36%) of public jail jurisdictions did not record this information. Ten public jail jurisdictions did not record allegations of abusive sexual contacts, 10 based counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on completed acts only, and 22 based counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on substantiated incidents only. Finally, four public jail jurisdictions did not keep records on allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. Most public jail administrators reported staff sexual victimization based on the SSV definitions. However, 19% could not separate allegations of staff sexual harassment from allegations of staff sexual misconduct. Three did not record allegations of staff sexual misconduct, while 19 recorded substantiated incidents only. Seven did not record allegations of staff sexual harassment. **************** List of tables **************** Section 1. Federal and state prisons ************************************** Table 1. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by federal and state prison authorities, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 2. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by federal and state prison authorities, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 3. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by federal and state prison authorities, by type of victimization, 2009 Section 2. Public local jails ******************************* Table 4. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local jail authorities, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 5. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local jail authorities, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 6. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by local jail authorities, by type of victimization, 2009 Table 7. Local jail authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2011 Table 8. Local jail authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2010 Table 9. Local jail authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2009 Section 3. Privately operated prisons and jails ************************************************* Table 10. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated jail and prison authorities, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 11. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated jail and prison authorities, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 12. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by privately operated jail and prison authorities, by type of victimization, 2009 Table 13. Privately operated jail and prison authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2011 Table 14. Privately operated jail and prison authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2010 Table 15. Privately operated jail and prison authorities with no allegations of sexual victimization, 2009 Section 4. Other correctional facilities: U.S. military, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Jails in Indian Country ***************************************** Table 16. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by other correctional facility authorities, by type of victimization, 2011 Table 17. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by other correctional facility authorities, by type of victimization, 2010 Table 18. Allegations of sexual victimization reported by other correctional facility authorities, by type of victimization, 2009 **************************************************** The Bureau of Justice Statistics, located in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, collects, analyzes, and disseminates statistical information on crime, criminal offenders, victims of crime, and the operation of justice systems at all levels of government. William J. Sabol is acting director. These tables were prepared by Ramona R. Rantala, Jessica Rexroat, and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. Ramona R. Rantala and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., verified the report. Paul Guerino (former BJS statistician) and Ramona R. Rantala were the project managers for the Survey of Sexual Victimization, 2009–11. Greta B. Clark carried out data collection and processing, under the supervision of Stephen G. Simoncini, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Linda Gehring and Patricia Torreyson assisted in the data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the facility samples and provided sampling weights. Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report. January 2014, NCJ 244227 **************************************************** ************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************** *********************** 1/7/2014/JER/12:38 pm ***********************