U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------- Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 June 2008, NCJ 221946 -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svljri07.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. and Paige M. Harrison, BJS Statisticians The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape for each calendar year. This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act to provide a list of local jails according to the prevalence of sexual victimization. In December 2007, BJS published Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prison Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414), which details the findings from 23,398 inmates held in 146 sampled prisons in the National Inmate Survey (NIS). This report presents the findings for the 282 local jails in the NIS sample. The survey on sexual victimization, conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, NC), was administered to 40,419 jail inmates between April and December 2007. (See Methodology for sample description.) The NIS is part of the National Prison Rape Statistical Program, which collects administrative records of reported sexual violence as well as collecting allegations of sexual violence directly from victims through surveys of current and former inmates. Administrative records have been collected annually since 2004. Data collections from former inmates under active supervision and youth held in state and locally operated juvenile facilities are underway. The 2007 NIS survey consisted of an audio computer-assisted self interview (ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones. A small number of jail inmates (223) completed a short paper form. These were primarily inmates housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed. The NIS is a self-administered survey designed to encourage reporting by providing anonymity to respondents. Computer-assisted technologies provide uniform conditions under which inmates complete the survey. In each facility, respondents are randomly selected. Before the interview, inmates are informed verbally and in writing that participation is voluntary and that all information will be held in confidence. Overall, two-thirds (67%) of eligible sampled jail inmates participated in the survey. To provide reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence, the NIS limited reporting of sexual victimization to incidents that occurred at the sampled jail facilities during the 6 months prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who had served less than 6 months were asked about their experiences since admission to the facility. The NIS collects only allegations of sexual victimization. Because participation in the survey is anonymous and reports are confidential, the NIS does not permit any follow-up investigation or substantiation through review of official records. Some allegations in the NIS may be untrue. At the same time, some inmates may remain silent about sexual victimization experienced in the facility, despite efforts of survey staff to assure inmates that their survey responses would be kept confidential. Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting and false reporting in the NIS is unknown. ------------------------------------------------------------ Detailed information is available in appendix tables in the online version of this report on the BJS Website at . ------------------------------------------------------------- 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization Among the 40,419 jail inmates participating in the 2007 survey, 1,330 reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level estimates. The estimated number of local jail inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled 24,700 (or 3.2% of all jail inmates, nationwide). About 1.6% of inmates (12,100, nationwide) reported an incident involving another inmate, and 2.0% (15,200) reported an incident involving staff. Some inmates (0.4%) said they had been sexually victimized by both other inmates and staff (table 1). The NIS screened for specific sexual activities, then asked respondents if they were forced or pressured to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff. (See appendices 7 through 9 for specific survey questions.) Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts. Approximately 0.7% of jail inmates (5,200)said they had nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including giving or receiving sexual gratification, and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An additional 0.9% of jail inmates (6,900) said they had experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only, that is, unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way by another inmate. An estimated 1.3% of all inmates (10,400) reported that they had sex or sexual contact unwillingly with staff as a result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges. An estimated 1.1% of all inmates (8,400) reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Regardless of whether an inmate reported being willing or unwilling, any sexual contact between jail inmates and staff is illegal; however, the difference may be informative when addressing issues of staff training, prevention, and follow-up. 18 jails had prevalence rates of at least twice the national average of 3.2% Of the 282 jail facilities in the 2007 NIS, 18 had an overall victimization rate of at least twice the national average of 3.2% (table 2). The overall victimization rate is a measure of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of the level of coercion and type of sexual activity. Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with the highest prevalence rate. Because the estimates are based on a sample of inmates rather than a complete enumeration, the estimates are subject to sampling error. The precision of each facility estimate can be calculated based on the estimated standard error. For example, the victimization rate of 13.4% recorded for the Torrance County Detention Facility (New Mexico) has a precision of plus or minus 8.0% with a 95% confidence level. This precision, based on the standard error of 4.1% multiplied by 1.96, indicates a 95% confidence that the true prevalence rate in the Torrance County Detention Facility is between 5.4% and 21.4%. Within each facility, the estimated standard error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. Although the sampling procedures are designed to produce the same level of precision within all facilities (a standard error of 1.75%), the actual standard errors varied depending on the response rate and characteristics of the responding inmates. (See Methodology for further discussion of standard errors.) As a consequence of sampling error, the NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed tabulations of the survey results are presented by facility and state in appendix tables 1 through 6.***Facility level information and estimates are provided for all sampled jails in appendix tables 1 and 2. Appendix tables 3 through 6 exclude those jails with no reported incidents of sexual victimization and rates not statistically different from zero. Facility prevalence rates vary*** by level and type of victimization, and observed differences between facilities will not always be statistically significant. Consequently, these measures cannot be used to reliably rank facilities from 1 (the highest) to 282 (the lowest). Unlike the results of the 2007 NIS in state and federal prisons, the NIS in local jails does not provide a statistical basis for identifying a small group of facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization. Based on the large confidence interval around the Torrance County Detention Facility (13.4% plus or minus 8.0%), 38 other facilities would be included in the interval, but these facilities also have estimated rates and confidence intervals. By constructing 95% confidence intervals around the differences between facility estimates, we can determine the number of facilities with statistically similar rates of victimization. For example, the confidence interval around the observed difference between the Torrance County Detention Facility and the Polk County Jail (Iowa) is 8.6% plus or minus 9.5%. Since the interval includes zero, these facilities are considered to be statistically similar. Overall, 53 jail facilities are statistically similar to the Torrance County Detention Facility. Facilities with rates lower than the 4.8% in the Polk County Jail are statistically different from Torrance County. Terrebonne Parish Jail (Louisiana) had the next highest rate, 4.7%. Since the 95% confidence interval around the observed difference with Torrance County (8.7% plus or minus 8.4%) does not include zero, the Terrebonne Parish Jail is considered statistically different. (See Methodology for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.) Nearly a third of all facilities had rates indistinguishable from zero Eighteen jail facilities had no reported incidents of sexual victimization (table 3). Cameron County Jail (Texas) was the largest jail (1,368 inmates) with no reported incidents, followed by Northwest Ohio Regional Correctional Center (Ohio), with 662 inmates, and Orange County Work Release Center (Florida), with 300 inmates. An additional 69 facilities had rates that were not statistically different from zero at the 95% confidence level. Thirty-seven of these facilities had rates below 1.5% (not shown), and 21 were large facilities with more than 1,000 inmates in custody. The Bexar County Adult Detention Center (Texas), with 4,179 inmates in custody, was the largest facility surveyed that had a rate of sexual victimization indistinguishable from zero (1.6% plus or minus 1.8%). Identification of the facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization depends on non-statistical judgments Of the 18 facilities that had the highest overall prevalence rates of sexual victimization, 3 facilities were consistently high on measures restricted to the most serious forms of sexual victimization (table 4). The Torrance County Detention Facility (New Mexico) had the highest rate--10.1% when sexual victimization excluded willing activity with staff and 8.9% when victimization excluded abusive sexual contacts (allegations of touching only). The Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail and the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center (New Mexico) were also among the top five facilities on each of these more serious measures of sexual victimization. Of the 282 sampled facilities, 19 jails had statistically significant rates of injury related to sexual victimization (table 5). Overall, 0.6% of all jail inmates reported an injury related to sexual victimization. The Riverside County Robert Presley Detention Center (California) had the highest observed rate with 4.6% of inmates reporting an injury, followed by Garfield County Jail (Colorado) with 4.0%, and San Diego County George F. Bailey Detention Facility (California) with 3.6%. The Brevard County Detention Center (Florida), with an injury rate of 3.1%, and the Southeastern Ohio Regional Jail (Ohio), with an injury rate of 2.5%, were also among the 5 facilities recording the highest overall rates of sexual victimization and the highest rates of nonconsensual sexual activity. Most victims of sexual violence in jails did not report an injury. Nationwide, approximately 20% of the estimated 24,700 victims said they had been injured as a result of the sexual victimization. The majority of injured victims reported minor injuries, such as bruises, cuts, or scratches (16%). Most injured victims (85%) also reported at least one more serious injury. Among all victims, 8% reported being knocked unconscious, 6% reported anal or rectal tearing, 6% internal injuries, 3% broken bones, and 2% knife or stab wounds. Rates of sexual victimization were unrelated to basic facility characteristics Data collected in the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates and the 2006 Census of Jail Facilities were analyzed in conjunction with the NIS data to determine whether any facility characteristics were associated with higher rates of sexual victimization (table 6). An initial examination of selected facility characteristics revealed few measurable differences at the 95% level of statistical confidence. *Inmates in long-term facilities (those with the authority to house inmates convicted of felonies with sentences of more than a year) had an overall sexual victimization rate (3.4%) that was similar to the rates reported by inmates in short-term facilities (3.5%) and in detention-only facilities (3.0%). *Victimization rates in female-only facilities were the highest (5.0%), largely due to incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.9%). Women in coed facilities had similar rates (5.0%). Therefore, the rate appears to reflect higher overall rates reported by women, regardless of the type of facility (not shown in a table). *Sexual victimization was reported at slightly lower levels (2.1%) in small facilities (those holding fewer than 100 inmates). Because of the small number of inmates in these facilities, comparisons with other facilities were not statistically significant. *Though crowding is often assumed to be linked to prison violence, the highest rates of sexual victimization (3.7%) were reported in facilities that were the least crowded (operating at less than 90% of capacity). As with other comparisons, these differences were not statistically significant. *Inmates in facilities that had opened or been renovated in the last 5 years reported lower rates of sexual victimization (3.2%) than inmates in other facilities. Again, differences in these rates were not statistically significant. Rates of sexual victimization were more strongly related to inmate characteristics than to facility characteristics Rates of sexual assault among inmates varied across demographic categories: *Female inmates were more likely than male inmates to report a sexual victimization (table 7). An estimated 5.1% of female inmates, compared to 2.9% of male inmates, said they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization. *Persons of two or more races reported higher rates of sexual assault in jails (4.2%), compared to white (2.9%), black (3.2%), and Hispanic inmates (3.2%). *About 4.6% of inmates ages 18 to 24 reported being sexually assaulted, compared to 2.4% of inmates age 25 and older. Inmates with a college education reported higher rates of sexual assault (4.6%) than inmates with less than a high school degree (2.8%). The largest differences in sexual victimization rates were found among inmates based on their sexual preference and past sexual experiences: *Inmates with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual reported significantly higher rates of sexual victimization. An estimated 2.7% of heterosexual inmates alleged an incident, compared to 18.5% of homosexual inmates, and 9.8% of bisexual inmates or inmates indicating "other" as an orientation. *Inmates with 21 or more sexual partners prior to admission reported the highest rates of victimization (4.1%); inmates with 1 or no prior sexual partners reported the lowest rates (2.4%). *Inmates who had experienced a prior sexual assault were about 6 times more likely to report a sexual victimization in jail (11.8%), compared to those with no sexual assault history (1.9%). *Among inmates who reported having been sexually assaulted at another prison or jail in the past, a third reported having been sexually victimized at the current facility. Inmate-on-inmate victimization occurred most often in the victim's cell; staff-on-inmate victimization occurred in a closet, office, or other locked room Circumstances varied between inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate incidents. An estimated 48% of inmate-on-inmate incidents occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight, while 47% of staff-on-inmate incidents occurred from midnight to 6 a.m. (table 8). Over half of inmate-on-inmate victimizations took place in the victim's cell or room (56%), while a closet, office, or other locked room was the most common location for staff-on-inmate victimizations (47%). Inmate-on-inmate sexual assault victims most often reported being threatened with harm or a weapon (44%) or "persuaded or talked into it" (41%). Staff-on-inmate sexual assault victims were most often "given a bribe or blackmailed" (52%). Two-thirds (67%) of inmate-on-inmate incidents involved one perpetrator, compared to 80% of staff-on-inmate incidents. About half of the victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual assault said the most serious incidents (nonconsensual sexual acts) had occurred only once. One in 7 victims said they had been a victim of a nonconsensual sexual act 11 times or more. Among victims of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct, 34% said they had unwilling sexual contact once; 15% reported 11 times or more. One in 4 victims of an inmate-on-inmate assault told someone else within or outside the facility about the incident; about 1 in 7 victims of staff-on-inmate incidents said they reported the incident to someone. Nearly 62% of all reported incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved female staff with male inmates; 8% involved male staff with female inmates. Female staff were involved in 48% of incidents reported by male inmates who said they were unwilling and in 79% of incidents with male inmates who said they were willing. In an effort to better understand the allegations of staff sexual misconduct, the 2008 NIS will include questions to determine how often sexual contact reported as unwilling occurred in the course of pat downs or strip searches. Methodology The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 282 local jails between April and December 2007, by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised two questionnaires--a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that, at the time of the interview, the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers. The interviews, which averaged 26 minutes in length, used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection methods. For approximately the first five minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to obtain background data, date of admission, conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio instructions delivered through headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or moving away from the computer. A shorter paper questionnaire was available for inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room. The paper form was completed by 223 inmates (0.6% of all sexual violence interviews), primarily those housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed. Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were conducted in English (94%) or Spanish (6%). Selection of local jail facilities A sample of 303 local jails was drawn to produce a 10% sample of the 3,002 local jail facilities identified in the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates. The 2005 census was a complete enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to local jail authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to jails that had more than five inmates on June 30, 2005. Based on estimates from the 2007 Annual Survey of Jails, these jails held an estimated 772,800 inmates age 18 or older on June 29, 2007. Local jail facilities were systematically sampled to ensure that at least one jail was selected in each state, except in Alaska (with 14 facilities operated by local municipalities) and in Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont, in which there were no jails. In these states, facilities with jail functions were state-operated and were included in the 2007 NIS prison collection. All jail facilities were selected in a three-step process. First, jails on the sampling frame were sorted by region and state. Jails in six states were determined to lack a sufficient total number of inmates statewide to meet the one facility-per-state requirement. These facilities were grouped to form separate strata. One facility from each stratum was selected with probability proportionate to size. Overall, six jails in these small states were selected. Second, 294 jails in the remaining 44 large states and the District of Columbia were selected. Thirty-two were selected with certainty, in that their large population yielded a probability of selection equal to 1.0. After ordering the remaining facilities by region and state, 262 facilities were selected based on their size relative to the total number of inmates in all noncertainty facilities. Third, two of the selected jails were determined to be multi-facility jail jurisdictions (New York City and Cook County, IL). Initial size measures for these jurisdictions included all facilities. As a result, jail facilities in these jurisdictions were enumerated and then sampled three in New York City and two in Cook County with probabilities proportionate to the number of inmates in the facility relative to the total reported for the jurisdiction. Of the 303 selected jails, 21 facilities were excluded from the survey (table 9). Five facilities refused to participate in the survey. Eight facilities were determined to be ineligible, because more than 90% of inmates in each were pre-arraigned or held for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the U.S. Marshals Service or because the facility was a community-based facility. (The 2008 NIS will include all inmates held for ICE and U.S. Marshals Service.) Eight facilities were unable to participate due to lack of space or staffing or because the jail was being renovated. All expect to be included in the 2008 NIS. All other selected jails participated fully in the survey. Selection of inmates The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied based on 5 criteria: *an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 4% *a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 1.75% *a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates *a 10% chance among participating inmates of not receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire *a pre-arraignment adjustment factor equal to 1 in facilities where the status was known for all inmates, and less than 1 in facilities where only the overall proportion of prearraigned was known. An initial roster of inmates was obtained in the week prior to the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and inmates who had not been arraigned were deleted from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. Due to the dynamic nature of jail populations, a second roster of inmates was obtained on the first day of data collection. Eligible inmates on the second roster who were not on the initial roster were identified. These inmates had either been arraigned since the initial roster was created or were newly admitted to the facility and arraigned. A random sample of these new inmates was selected using the same probability of selection derived from the first roster. A total of 74,713 inmates were selected. (See appendix table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in each facility.) After selection, an additional 7,314 ineligible inmates were excluded 6,549 were transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 676 were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, and 89 were under age 18. Overall, 45,414 inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 67%. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (40,419) received the sexual assault survey. Of all selected inmates, 18% refused to participate in the survey; 4% were not available to be interviewed (e.g., in court, in medical segregation, determined by the facility to be too violent to be interviewed, or restricted from participation by another legal jurisdiction); and 11% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers and transfers to another facility after interviewing began). Weighting and non-response adjustments Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias due to non-response and to provide national estimates. Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different from the actual prevalence for a given facility. In each facility, bias could result if the random sample of inmates did not accurately represent the facility population. Bias could also result if the non-respondents were different from the respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two possibilities. These adjustments included: *calibration of the weights of the responding inmates within each facility so that the estimates accurately reflected the facility's entire population in terms of known demographic characteristics. (These characteristics included distributions by inmate age, gender, race, date of admission, and sentence length.) This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the entire population of the facility and not just the inmates who were randomly sampled. *calibration of the weights so that the weight from a non-responding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather than only the inmates who responded. For each inmate, these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents. ***2R.E. Folsom, Jr., and A.C. Singh, (2002), "The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification," Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603.*** A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made to provide national-level estimates for the total number of inmates held in jails with an average daily population of more than six inmates at midyear 2007. These ratios represented the estimated number of inmates by gender in the survey estimates and accuracy of the 2007 Annual Survey of Jails divided by the number of inmates by gender in the 2007 NIS after calibration for sampling and non-response. Survey estimates and accuracy Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of sexual victimization are presented in tables 10 and 11 and in appendix tables 2 through 5. These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (that is, numbers, percents, and rates), as well as around differences in these estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Torrance County Detention Facility (New Mexico) is approximately 13.4% plus or minus 1.96 times 4.1% (or 5.4% to 21.4%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of the intervals would be expected to contain the true (but unknown) percentage. The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval comparing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Riverside County Robert Presley Detention Center (California), 6.4%, with the Torrance County Detention Facility (New Mexico), 13.4%, may be calculated. The confidence interval around the difference of 7.0% is approximately 1.96 times 4.7% (the square root of the pooled variance estimate, 21.7%). The pooled variance estimate is calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each standard error squared, i.e., the square root of (2.22) plus (4.12). Since the interval (-2.2% to 16.2%) contains zero, the difference between the Riverside County facility and the Torrance County facility is not statistically significant. Exposure period For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of admission was at least 6 months prior to the date of the interview, inmates were asked questions related to their experiences during the past 6 months. If the admission date was less than 6 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. Overall, the average exposure period for sexual victimization among sampled jail inmates was 2.6 months. Among sampled inmates, approximately 20% had been in jail for 2 weeks or less; 15% between 2 weeks and a month; 17% between 1 and 2 months; 30% between 2 and 6 months; and 18% more than 6 months. Measuring sexual victimization The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of the direct experience of each inmate, rather than on the reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For specific survey questions see appendices 7 and 8.) The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction, including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual contacts with other inmates. As a means to fully measure all sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each type of reported sexual activity. ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were asked in a different order. Inmates were first asked about being pressured or being made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact with the staff and then asked about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All reports of sex or sexual contact between an inmate and facility staff, regardless of the level of coercion, were classified as staff sexual misconduct. The ACASI survey included additional questions related to both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. These questions, known as latent class measures, were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates were asked a series of general questions to determine if they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See appendix 9.) The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as National Inmate Survey) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at . Definition of terms Sexual victimization--all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; handjobs; touching of the inmate's buttocks, thighs, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way; abusive sexual contacts; and both willing and unwilling sexual activity with staff. Nonconsensual sexual acts--unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, handjobs, and other sexual acts. Abusive sexual contacts only--unwanted contacts with another inmate or any contacts with staff that involved touching of the inmate's buttocks, thigh, penis, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way. Unwilling activity--incidents of unwanted sexual contacts with another inmate or staff. Willing activity--incidents of willing sexual contacts with staff. These contacts are characterized by the reporting inmates as willing; however, all sexual contacts between inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual. The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey Sedgwick is the Director. Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report. The statistical unit of RTI, under Marcus Berzofsky, produced the appendix tables. Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Harrison, Paul Guerino, and RTI staff provided statistical review and verification. Tina Dorsey produced the report, Catherine Bird edited it, and Jayne E.Robinson prepared the report for publication, under the supervision of Doris J. James. Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate Survey. RTI, International staff, under a cooperative agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored data collection and data processing, including Rachel Caspar, Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Leader; Christopher Krebs, Co-principal Investigator; Ellen Stutts, Co-principal Investigator and Data Collection Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Human Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader. June 2008 NCJ 221946 This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: . Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 6/24/08 JER