U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ----------------------------------------------------- This report is one in series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all reports in the series go to http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=63 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://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4654 ------------------------------------------------------ Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2011-12 Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. BJS Statistician Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI International May 2013, NCJ 241399 *************************************************************** Bureau of Justice Statistics William J. Sabol Acting Director BJS Website: www.bjs.gov askbjs@usdoj.gov The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. William J. Sabol is the acting director. This report was written by Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician, and Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Rachel Caspar, and Christopher Krebs, Ph.D., RTI International. Paige M. Harrison (former BJS statistician) was the project manager for the NIS-3. RTI International staff, under a cooperative agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored the data collection and processing. The staff included 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; and Marcus Berzofsky, Statistics Task Leader. Ramona Rantala, BJS statistician, and RTI staff, including Heather Meier, Barbara Alexander, and Rodney Baxter, verified the report. Morgan Young and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn designed and produced the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. May 2013, NCJ 241399 *************************************************************** ********** Contents ********** Highlights 6 National Inmate Survey-3 8 Incidents of sexual victimization 8 Facility-level rates 10 Demographic and other characteristics 17 Special inmate populations--Inmates ages 16 to 17 20 Special inmate populations-- Inmates with mental health problems 24 Special inmate populations--Inmates with a non-heterosexual sexual orientation 30 Methodology 32 Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 41 Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 42 Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 42 ********************** List of tables *********************** Table 1. Adult inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of facility and incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 9 Table 2. Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12 10 Table 3. Facilities with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 12 Table 4. Facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 13 Table 5. Facilities with low rates of sexual victimization, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 15 Table 6. Rates of sexual victimization in special correctional facilities, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey,2011– 16 Table 7. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 17 Table 8. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 18 Table 9. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 19 Table 10. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 21 Table 11. Juvenile inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 21 Table 12. Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 22 Table 13. Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 23 Table 14. Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status and history of mental health problems among inmates, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 24 Table 15. Prevalence of serious psychological distress among adults in prisons, jails, and the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 2011–12 26 Table 16. Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 27 Table 17. Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 28 Table 18. Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health status and type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 29 Table 19. Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 30 Table 20. Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and non-heterosexual inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 31 ************************************************************************ ******************** List of figures ******************** Figure 1. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 11 Figure 2. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 11 Figure 3. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for prisons with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 14 Figure 4. Confidence intervals at the 95% level for jails with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 14 ************************************************************************* ********************** List of appendix tables ********************** Appendix table 1. Characteristics of state and federal prisons and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 43 Appendix table 2. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 49 Appendix table 3. Percent of prison inmates reporting sexual victimization by level of coercion, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 55 Appendix table 4. Percent of prison inmates reporting n onconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 61 Appendix table 5. Characteristics of jails and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 67 Appendix table 6. Percent of jail inmates reporting victimization, by type of incident and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 75 Appendix table 7. Percent of jail inmates reporting sexual victimization, by level of coercion and facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 83 Appendix table 8. Percent of jail inmates reporting nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 91 Appendix table 9. Characteristics of special correctional facilities and prevalence of sexual victimization, by facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 99 Appendix table 10. Standard errors for table 2: Prevalence of sexual victimization across inmate surveys, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2007, 2008–09, and 2011–12 99 Appendix table 11. Standard errors for table 7: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 100 Appendix table 12. Standard errors for table 8: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 101 Appendix table 13. Standard errors for table 9: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate criminal justice status and history, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 101 Appendix table 14. Standard errors for table 10: Juvenile inmates reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 102 Appendix table 15. Standard errors for table 11: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and age of inmate, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 102 Appendix table 16. Standard errors for table 12: Prevalence of sexual victimization among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of incident and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 103 Appendix table 17. Standard errors for table 13: Circumstances surrounding incidents among juveniles ages 16–17 and inmates ages 18–19 and 20–24, by type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 103 Appendix table 18. Standard errors for table 14: Prevalence of victimization by current mental health status and history of mental health problems among inmates, by type of facility, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 104 Appendix table 19. Standard errors for table 15: Prevalence of serious psychological distress among adults in prisons, jails, and the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population, 2011–12 104 Appendix table 20. Standard errors for table 16: Prevalence of inmate-on-inmate victimization, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 105 Appendix table 21. Standard errors for table 17: Prevalence of staff sexual misconduct, by current mental health status and inmate characteristics, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 105 Appendix table 22. Standard errors for table 18: Circumstances surrounding incidents among adult inmates, by current mental health status and type of victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 106 Appendix table 23. Standard errors for table 19: Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and inmate sexual orientation, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 106 Appendix table 24. Standard errors for table 20: Circumstances surrounding incidents of sexual victimization among heterosexual and non-heterosexual inmates, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 107 ************************************************************************ ************ Highlights ************ ----------------------------------- Prevalence of sexual victimization ----------------------------------- * In 2011-12, an estimated 4.0% of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. * Using the same methodology since 2007, the rate of sexual victimization among state and federal prison inmates was 4.5% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2011-12; but, the difference was not statistically significant. Among jail inmates, the rate of sexual victimization remained unchanged—3.2% in 2007 and 3.2% in 2011-12. * Among state and federal prison inmates, 2.0% (or an estimated 29,300 prisoners) reported an incident involving another inmate, 2.4% (34,100) reported an incident involving facility staff, and 0.4% (5,500) reported both an incident by another inmate and staff. * About 1.6% of jail inmates (11,900) reported an incident with another inmate, 1.8% (13,200) reported an incident with staff, and 0.2% (2,400) reported both an incident by another inmate and staff. * From 2007 to 2011-12, reports of “willing” sexual activity with staff (excluding touching) declined in prisons and jails, while reports of other types of sexual victimization remained stable. ------------------ Facility rankings ------------------ * Eleven male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were identified as high-rate facilities based on the prevalence of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 2011-12. Eight male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 12 jails were identified as high rate based on the prevalence of staff sexual misconduct. Each of these facilities had a lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was at least 55% higher than the average rate among comparable facilities. * Seven male prisons, 6 female prisons, and 4 jails were identified as low-rate facilities based on a small percentage of inmates reporting any sexual victimization by another inmate or staff and a low upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval around the rate. * Among the 225 prisons and 358 jails in the survey, 13 prisons and 34 jails had no reported incidents of sexual victimization. * Two military facilities and one Indian country jail had high rates of staff sexual misconduct in 2011-12. The Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility (Fort Lewis, Washington) (6.6%) and the Naval Consolidated Brig (Miramar, California) (4.9%) had high rates of staff sexual misconduct that were more than double the average of prisons (2.4%) and jails (1.8%) nationwide. The Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (Pine Ridge, South Dakota) (10.8%) reported the highest rate of staff sexual misconduct among all tribal and nontribal jails in the survey. ---------------------------------- Variations in victimization rates ---------------------------------- * Patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 2011-12 were consistent with patterns in past surveys. Rates reported by prison and jail inmates were higher among females than males, higher among whites than blacks, and higher among inmates with a college degree than those who had not completed high school. * Variations in staff sexual misconduct rates were also similar across surveys. Rates reported by inmates were higher among males in jails than females in jails, higher among black inmates in prisons and jails than white inmates in prisons and jails, and lower among inmates age 35 or older than inmates ages 20 to 24 in both prisons and jails. * Inmates held for violent sexual offenses reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.7% in prison and 3.9% in jails) than inmates held for other offenses. ---------------------------- Special inmate populations ---------------------------- * In 2011-12, juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in adult prisons and jails did not have significantly higher rates of sexual victimization than adult inmates: ** An estimated 1.8% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in prisons and jails reported being victimized by another inmate, compared to 2.0% of adults in prisons and 1.6% of adults in jails. ** An estimated 3.2% of juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in prisons and jails reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct. Though higher, these rates were not statistically different from the 2.4% of adults in prisons and 1.8% f adults in jails. ** Juveniles (ages 16 to 17) and young adults (ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24) reported similar rates of sexual victimization for most of the key subgroups (sex, race or Hispanic origin, body mass index, sexual orientation, and offense). * Inmates with serious psychological distress reported high rates of inmate-on-inmate and staff sexual victimization in 2011-12: ** Among state and federal prison inmates, an estimated 6.3% of those identified with serious psychological distress reported that they were sexually victimized by another inmate. In comparison, among prisoners with no indication of mental illness, 0.7% reported being victimized by another inmate. ** Similar differences were reported by jail inmates. An estimated 3.6% of those dentified with serious psychological distress reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, compared to 0.7% of inmates with no indication of mental illness. ** Rates of serious psychological distress in prisons (14.7%) and jails (26.3%) were substantially higher than the rate (3.0%) in the U.S. noninstitutional population age 18 or older. ** For each of the measured demographic subgroups, inmates with serious psychological distress reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates without mental health problems. * Inmates who reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other were among those with the highest rates of sexual victimization in 2011-12: ** Among non-heterosexual inmates, 12.2% of prisoners and 8.5% of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized by another inmate; 5.4% of prisoners and 4.3% of jail inmates reported being victimized by staff. ** In each demographic subgroup (sex, race or Hispanic origin, age, and education), non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than heterosexual inmates. ** Among inmates with serious psychological distress, non-heterosexual inmates reported the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (21.0% of prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates). *************************** National Inmate Survey-3 *************************** Between February 2011 and May 2012, BJS completed the third National Inmate Survey (NIS-3) in 233 state and federal prisons, 358 jails, and 15 special confinement facilities operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Military, and correctional authorities in Indian country. The survey, conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, North Carolina), was administered to 92,449 inmates age 18 or older, including 38,251 inmates in state and federal prisons, 52,926 in jails, 573 in ICE facilities, 539 in military facilities, and 160 in Indian country jails. The survey was also administered to juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in adult prisons and jails. Based on 527 completed interviews of juveniles in state prisons and 1,211 interviews in local jails, the NIS-3 provides the first-ever national estimates of sexual victimization of juveniles held in adult facilities. The NIS-3 is part of the National Prison Rape Statistics Program, which collects reported sexual violence from administrative records and allegations of sexual victimization directly from victims through surveys of inmates in prisons and jails and surveys of youth held in juvenile correctional facilities. Administrative records have been collected annually since 2004. Reports by victims of sexual victimization have been collected since 2007. The NIS-3 survey consisted of an audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) in which inmates used a touch-screen to interact with a computer- assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones. Some inmates (751) completed a short paper form instead of using the ACASI. Most of these inmates were housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or were considered too violent to be interviewed. *************************************************************** The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79; PREA) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of incidents and effects of prison rape for each calendar year. This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4c(2)(B)(ii) of the act to provide a list of prisons and jails according to the prevalence of sexual victimization. *************************************************************** As in the NIS-1 (conducted 2007) and the NIS-2 (conducted 2008-09), the NIS-3 collected only allegations of sexual victimization. Since participation in the survey is anonymous and reports are confidential, the survey does not permit any follow-up investigation or substantiation of reported incidents through review. Some allegations in the NIS-3 may be untrue. At the same time, some inmates may not report sexual victimization experienced in the facility, despite efforts of survey staff to assure inmates that their responses would be kept confidential. Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of under reporting and false reporting in the NIS-3 is unknown. *********************************** Incidents of sexual victimization *********************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2011-12, 4.0% of prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization --------------------------------------------------------------------- Among the 91,177 adult prison and jail inmates participating in the NIS-3 sexual victimization survey, 3,381 reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Since the NIS-3 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 prison and jail inmates experiencing sexual victimization totaled 80,600 (or 4.0% of all prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates nationwide) (table 1). Among all state and federal prison inmates, 2.0% (or an estimated 29,300 prisoners) reported an incident involving another inmate, and 2.4% (34,100) reported an incident involving facility staff. Some prisoners (0.4% or 5,500) reported sexual victimization by both another inmate and facility staff. Among all jail inmates, about 1.6% (11,900) reported an incident with another inmate, and 1.8% (13,200) reported an incident with staff. Approximately 0.2% of jail inmates (2,400) reported being sexually victimized by both another inmate and staff. The NIS-3 screened for specific sexual activities in which inmates may have been involved during the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Inmates were then asked if they were forced or pressured to engage in these activities by another inmate or staff. (See appendices 1, 2, and 3 for specific survey questions.) Reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts. (See text box for Terms and definitions.) Approximately 1.1% of prisoners and 0.7% of jail inmates said they were forced or pressured to have nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including manual stimulation and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration. An additional 1.0% of prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates said they had experienced one or more abusive sexual contacts only or unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way by another inmate. An estimated 1.5% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail inmates 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 1.4% of all prison inmates and 0.9% of jail inmates reported they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. Any sexual contact between inmates nd staff is illegal, regardless of whether an inmate reported being willing or unwilling, but this difference between willing and unwilling may be informative when addressing issues of staff training, prevention, and investigation. ************************** Terms and definitions ************************** Sexual victimization--all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; 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, hand jobs, 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. Staff sexual misconduct--includes all incidents of willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts with facility staff. The NIS-3 recorded slightly lower rates of sexual victimization in prisons compared to the NIS-1 and NIS-2, which was largely driven by a decline in the reported rates of staff sexual misconduct (table 2). Overall, the rate of sexual victimization was 4.5% in 2007 and 4.0% in 2011-12, but the difference was not statistically significant. (See Methodology for discussion of significance testing and standard errors.) Staff sexual misconduct considered “willing” by the victims was the only rate to show a decline, from 1.8% in 2008-09 to 1.4% in 2011-12. This drop was limited to willing sexual activity, excluding touching. In addition, willing sexual activity with staff (excluding touching only) in 2011-12 was significantly different from 2007 (dropping from 1.5% to 1.2%). Among jail inmates, the overall rates of sexual victimization remained unchanged (3.2% in 2007, 3.1% in 2008-09, and 3.2% in 2011-12). The rates of staff sexual misconduct in jails were 2.0% in 2007, 2.0% in 2008-09, and 1.8% in 2011-12, but this decline was not statistically significant. Jail inmates in 2011-12 were less likely to report experiencing willing sexual activity with staff (0.9%) than jail inmates in 2007 (1.1%) and 2008-09 (1.1%). This decline was limited to willing sexual activity, excluding touching. ********************* Facility-level rates ********************* -------------------------------------- The NIS-3 provides a basis for identifying high rate and low rate facilities -------------------------------------- As required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the NIS-3 provides facility-level estimates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. Since these estimates are based on a sample of inmates rather than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. (See Methodology for description of sampling procedures.) The precision of each of the facility-level estimates can be calculated based on the estimated standard error. Typically, a 95%-confidence interval around each survey estimate is calculated by multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding and subtracting the result from the sample estimate to create an upper and lower bound. This interval expresses the range of values that could result among 95% of the different samples that could be drawn. For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the case with facility- level estimates of sexual victimization by type of incident, the use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence interval may not be reliable. An alternative method developed by E. B. Wilson has been shown to perform better than the traditional method.***Footnote 1Brown, L.D., Cai, T., & DasGupta, A. (2001).“Interval Estimation for a Binomial Proportion.” Statistical Science, 16(2), pp. 101–117.*** *** Footnote 2 Wilson, E.B. (1927). “Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference.” Journal of the American Statistical Association,22(158), pp. 209–12.. *** This method provides asymmetrical confidence intervals for facilities in which the lower bound is constrained to be no less than 0%. It also provides confidence intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are 0% (but other similarly conducted samples could yield non-zero estimates). Although the NIS-3 provides facility-level estimates and measures of precision, it cannot provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct differ across facilities, but the observed differences are not always statistically significant. To address PREA requirements, facilities have been categorized as having high rates or low rates based on criteria applied to the lower and upper bounds of the 95%-confidence interval for each facility (figure 1 and figure 2). As with the NIS-2, the criterion that the lower bound of the confidence interval be at least 55% higher than the average rate for comparable facilities was used in the NIS-3 to identify high-rate male prisons, female prisons, and jails. The criterion that the upper bound of the confidence interval be lower than 65% of the average rate for comparable facilities was used to identify low-rate facilities. To better identify variations among correctional facilities in rates of sexual victimization, prisons and jails are compared separately by type of sexual victimization. Though informative, an analysis of a single, overall prevalence rate of sexual victimization for each sampled facility would confound differing risk factors, circumstances, and underlying causes of victimization. For the same reasons, prisons are compared separately by the sex of inmates housed. The NIS-3 sample was designed to ensure a sufficient number of female-only prison facilities (44 facilities participated) and a sufficient number of female respondents (7,141 completed the survey) to allow for valid comparisons among female prisons. Four of the 358 jails that participated in the NIS-3 housed females only and one other jail was majority female. As a result, rates of sexual victimization in jails could not be compared separately by sex of inmates housed. -------------------------------------------- 11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were identified as having high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in 2011-12 -------------------------------------------- Among the 233 prisons and 358 jails surveyed in the NIS-3, 11 male prisons, 1 female prison, and 9 jails were designated as high-rate facilities based on reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (table 3). Each of these facilities had a rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization that was at least twice the national rate of 1.7% for male prisons, 7.2% for female prisons, and 1.6% for jails. Each had a 95%-confidence interval with a lower bound that was at least 55% higher than the average rate among comparable facilities. Among male prisons, Northwest Florida Reception Center (Florida), Idaho Maximum Security Institution, and Montana State Prison recorded inmate-on- inmate sexual victimization rates of 9.0% or greater. Mabel Bassett Correctional Center (Oklahoma), with a rate of 15.3%, was the only female prison that could be classified as high rate. Eleven other female-only prison facilities had rates of 10% or greater but did not meet the requirement of a lower bound that was 55% higher than the average rate for all female prisons. (See appendix table 2.) Ripley County Jail (Indiana) recorded an inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization rate of 7.9% and Philadelphia City Riverside Correctional Facility (Pennsylvania), a female-only jail facility, recorded a rate of 6.7%, both of which were more than four times the average rate among jails nationwide. Two other jails—Harris County Jail, Baker Street (Texas) and Eastern Regional Jail (Martinsburg, West Virginia)—each had rates of 6% or greater. ----------------------------------------------- 8 male prisons, 4 female prisons, and 12 jails were identified as having high rates of staff sexual misconduct ------------------------------------------------ Twelve prisons were identified as high-rate facilities based on reports of staff sexual misconduct—eight male prisons and four female prisons (table 4). Twelve jails were also identified as high-rate facilities. Each had a confidence interval with a lower bound that was at least 55% higher than the national rate for male prisons (2.4%), female prisons (2.4%), and jails (1.8%) (figure 3 and figure 4). In five state prisons, at least 9% of surveyed inmates reported being the victims of staff sexual misconduct, including 10.1% of inmates in Santa Rosa Correctional Institution (Florida), 9.9% in Montana State Prison, 9.6% in Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility (Mississippi), 9.5% in Clements Unit (Texas), and 10.7% in Denver Women’s Correctional Facility (Colorado). Seven jails had staff sexual misconduct rates of at least 6%. Marion County Jail Intake Facility (Indiana) had the highest reported rate of staff sexual misconduct (7.7%), followed by Baltimore City Detention Center (Maryland) (6.7%), St. Louis Medium Security Institution (Missouri) (6.3%), and Philadelphia City Industrial Correctional Center (Pennsylvania) (6.3%). The reported use or threat of physical force to engage in sexual activity with staff was generally low among all prison and jail inmates (0.8%); however, at least 5% of the inmates in three state prisons and one high-rate jail facility reported they had been physically forced or threatened with force. (See appendix tables 3 and 7.) The Clements Unit (Texas) had the highest percentage of inmates reporting sexual victimization involving physical force or threat of force by staff (8.1%), followed by Denver Women’s Correctional Facility (Colorado) (7.3%), and Idaho Maximum Security Institution (6.0%). Wilson County Jail (Kansas) led all surveyed jails, with 5.6% of inmates reporting that staff used physical force or threat of force to have sex or sexual contact. While 0.8% of prison and jail inmates reported the use or threat of physical force, an estimated 1.4% of prison inmates and 1.2% of jail inmates reported being coerced by facility staff without any use or threat of force, including being pressured or made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact. In 8 of the 24 facilities with high rates of staff sexual misconduct, at least 5% of the inmates reported such pressure by staff. Among state prisoners, the highest rates were reported by female inmates in the Denver Women’s Correctional Facility (Colorado) (8.8%) and by male inmates in the Clements Unit (Texas) (8.7%). Among jail inmates, the highest rates were reported by inmates in the Rose M. Singer Center (New York) (5.6%) and the Contra Costa County Martinez Detention Facility (California) (5.2%). --------------------------------------------- 7 male prisons, 6 female prisons, and 4 jails were identified as low-rate facilities for sexual victimization overall --------------------------------------------- Thirteen prisons and 34 jails had no reported incidents of sexual victimization of any kind. (See appendix tables 1 and 5.) Estimates of the number of inmates who experienced a sexual victimization in each of these facilities are also subject to sampling error and could vary if a different group of inmates had been interviewed. Although the lower bound of the 95%- confidence interval in each of these facilities is 0%, the upper bound varies depending on the number of completed interviews in each facility. Combining reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct, seven male prisons and six female prisons were designated as low-rate facilities. These designations were based on their low rate of sexual victimization overall and the upper bound of their 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65% of the average rate among male and female prisons (table 5). Six of these facilities had no reported incidents of sexual victimization, while seven facilities had at least one inmate who reported sexual victimization. Danville Correctional Center (Illinois), with a reported sexual victimization rate of 0.5%, had a confidence interval with the lowest upper bound (1.8%) among male prisons. FCI Marianna Camp (operated in Florida by the Federal Bureau of Prisons), with a reported sexual victimization rate of 0.6%, had a confidence interval with the lowest upper bound (2.1%) among female prisons. Four jails were designated as low-rate facilities based on the upper bound of the 95%-confidence interval that was less than 65% of the average for jails nationwide. Woodford County Detention Center (Kentucky), with a 0.1% overall sexual victimization rate, had a confidence interval with the lowest upper bound (0.6%). -------------------------------------------- In 2011-12, two military facilities and one Indian country jail had high rates of staff sexual misconduct --------------------------------------------- The NIS-3 also surveyed 15 special confinement facilities, including 5 ICE facilities, 5 military facilities, and 5 Indian country jails. (See Methodology for sample description.) As a result of too few completed interviews, rates in two Indian country facilities—Hualapai Adult Detention Center (Arizona) and Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Detention Center (North Dakota)—could not be provided. Among ICE facilities, sexual victimization rates were highest in the Krome North Service Processing Center (Florida), in which 3.2% of detainees reported experiencing sexual victimization by another detainee and 3.0% reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct (table 6). Overall, an estimated 3.8% of detainees in this ICE facility reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization, which was somewhat lower than the 4.0% average in prisons nationwide and slightly higher than the 3.2% average in jails nationwide. (See appendix table 9.) The Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility (Washington), which is operated by the U.S. Army Corrections Command and holds pretrial offenders and short-term post-trial offenders, had a staff sexual misconduct rate (6.6%) that was more than double the average rate for prisons (2.4%) and jails (1.8%) nationwide. Inmates held at this military facility also reported a high rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (5.1%), which was also more than double the 2.0% average among prisons and 1.6% average among jails nationwide. Inmates at the Naval Consolidated Brig Mirimar (California) reported high rates of staff sexual misconduct (4.9%) and inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.0%). This facility, which is operated by the U.S. Navy, holds male inmates sentenced to terms of 10 years or less and female inmates regardless of sentence length from all military services. Among all facilities sampled, staff sexual misconduct was highest in the Oglala Sioux Tribal Offenders Facility (South Dakota) (10.8%). Based on the 6.2% lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval, the rate of staff sexual misconduct in this Indian country facility was statistically higher than the rate reported for any jail nationwide. This facility, with a peak population of 147 in June 2011, was the most crowded facility among the 80 Indian jails in operation at midyear 2011. (See Jails in Indian Country, 2011, NCJ 238978.) *************************************** Demographic and other characteristics *************************************** ---------------------------------------------- Overweight and obese prison inmates had lower rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff misconduct than inmates who were at or below a normal weight ----------------------------------------------- Variations in reported sexual victimization rates across inmate demographic categories in the NIS-3 were consistent with past surveys: * Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among prison inmates were higher among females (6.9%) than males (1.7%), higher among whites (2.9%) or inmates of two or more races (4.0%) than among blacks (1.3%), higher among inmates with a college degree (2.7%) than among inmates who had not completed high school (1.9%), and lower among currently married inmates (1.4%) than among inmates who never married (2.1%) (table 7). * Similar patterns of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were reported by jail inmates. Female jail inmates (3.6%), whites (2.0%), and inmates with a college degree (3.0%) reported higher rates of victimization than males (1.4%), blacks (1.1%), and inmates who had not completed high school (1.4%). * Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners, except for slightly lower rates among inmates age 55 or older. * Rates were lower among jail inmates in the oldest age categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older) than among jail inmates ages 20 to 24. * Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were different, with higher rates among males in jails (1.9%) than among females in jails (1.4%), and higher among black inmates in prisons (2.6%) and jails (2.1%) than among white inmates in prisons (1.6%) and jails (1.4%). * In both prisons and jails, rates of reported staff sexual misconduct were lower among inmates in the oldest age categories (ages 35 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 or older), compared to inmates in the 20 to 24 age category. With a new survey question on the inmate’s specific height in combination with a question on the inmate’s weight, the NIS-3 provides the first opportunity to determine if rates of sexual victimization vary based on an inmate’s Body Mass Index (BMI). Among state and federal prison inmates, obese inmates (with a BMI of 30 to 39) and overweight inmates (with a BMI of 25 to 30) had lower rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct than inmates with a normal weight (with a BMI of 18.5 to 24) or who were underweight (a BMI of less than 18.5). (See Methodology for calculation of BMI.) Among jail inmates, those underweight (3.5%) and those morbidly obese (BMI of 40 or greater) (3.0%) have nearly double the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates in other categories (1.6%, normal weight; 1.5%, overweight; and 1.7%, obese). There are no statistically significant variations in reported staff sexual misconduct among jail inmates across BMI categories. -------------------------------------------------- Large differences in sexual victimization were found among inmates based on their sexual orientation and past sexual experiences -------------------------------------------------- Inmates who identified their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other reported high rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct: * Among heterosexual state and federal prisoners, an estimated 1.2% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and 2.1% reported being victimized by staff. In comparison, among non-heterosexual prison inmates (including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientations), 12.2% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and 5.4% reported being sexually victimized by staff (table 8). * Among jail inmates, heterosexual inmates reported lower rates of inmate-on- inmate sexual victimization (1.2%) and staff sexual misconduct (1.7%) than non-heterosexual inmates (8.5% for inmate-on-inmate and 4.3% for staff sexual misconduct). * Inmates who experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility were also more likely than inmates with no sexual victimization history to report incidents of sexual victimization involving other inmates and staff. Among inmates who experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility, 12.0% of prisoners and 8.3% of jail inmates reported being sexually victimized by another inmate at the current facility. An estimated 6.7% of prisoners and 5.1% of jail inmates who experienced sexual victimization before coming to the facility reported sexual victimization by staff. ------------------------------------------ In 2011-12, inmates held for a violent sexual offense reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates held for other offenses ------------------------------------------ An estimated 3.7% of violent sex offenders in prison and 3.9% of violent sex offenders in jail reported being sexually victimized by another inmate in the last 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months (table 9). These rates were higher than those reported by inmates held for other offenses. Among state and federal prisoners, rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were-- * higher among prison inmates serving a sentence of life or death (2.7%) than among inmates serving a sentence of 1 to 4 years (1.8%). * higher among prison inmates who had been at their current facility for 5 years or more (2.9%) than among inmates who had been admitted in the last month (1.4%). Among jail inmates, the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization increased with the length of time served in the current facility, rising from 0.9% among inmates who had been at the facility for less than a month to 1.7% among inmates in jail for 1 to 5 months, 2.7% among inmates in jail for 6 to 11 months, and 2.6% among those in jail for 1 to 4 years. ------------------------------------------ Rates of staff sexual misconduct varied among inmates based on their criminal justice status and history ------------------------------------------ * Among state and federal prisoners, inmates with a long sentence, inmates who had served 5 years or more in prison prior to coming to the current facility, and inmates who had served 5 years or more at the current facility were more likely to report experiencing staff sexual misconduct than inmates with a sentence of 1 to 4 years, inmates who had not served any prior time, and inmates who had been admitted in the last month. * Among jail inmates, the rate of reported staff sexual misconduct increased with time served in the current facility and was higher among inmates who had previously served time in a correctional facility for 1 year or more. These variations in rates of sexual victimization among inmate subgroups based on demographic characteristics, sexual history and orientation, and criminal justice status are almost identical to those reported in the NIS-2. (See Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09, NCJ 231169, BJS Web, August 2010.) ******************************* Special inmate populations-- Inmates ages 16 to 17 ******************************* ----------------------------------------------- In 2011-12, juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult facilities reported rates of sexual victimization similar to those of adult inmates ----------------------------------------------- The NIS-3 was specially designed to provide estimates of sexual victimization for inmates ages 16 to 17 held in adult facilities. Previous NIS collections excluded inmates age 17 or younger due to special human subject issues (related to consent and assent, as well as risk of trauma in the survey process) and statistical issues (related to clustering of youth and the need to oversample to ensure a representative sample). To address issues of consent and risk, the NIS-3 juvenile sample was restricted to inmates ages 16 to 17 (who represented an estimated 95% of the 1,790 juveniles held in prisons at yearend 2011 and 97% of the 5,870 juveniles held in local jails at midyear 2011). The NIS-3 was designed to oversample for facilities that house juveniles and to oversample juveniles within selected facilities. The resulting sample was structured to provide separate nationwide estimates for juveniles in prisons and jails, while providing national-level and facility-level estimates for adult inmates that were comparable to estimates in the NIS-1 and NIS-2. (See Methodology for the juvenile sample design.) Juveniles ages 16 to 17 held in prisons and jails did not report significantly higher rates of sexual victimization than adult inmates. Although the overall rates for juveniles (4.5% in prisons and 4.7% in jails) were somewhat higher than those for adults (4.0% in prisons and 3.2% in jails), the differences were not statistically significant (table 10). Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization are unrelated to age among state and federal prisoners (table 11). When compared to inmates in every other age category, inmate ages 16 to 17 reported experiencing inmate-on- inmate sexual victimization at similar rates. Among jail inmates, the rate of staff sexual misconduct was higher for inmates ages 16 to 17 than for older inmates; however, the differences were statistically significant only for inmates age 35 or older. These data do not support the conclusion that juveniles held in adult prisons and jails are more likely to be sexually victimized than inmates in other age groups. Due to the relatively small number of juveniles held in state prisons (an estimated 1,700 inmates ages 16 to 17 at midyear 2011), BJS combined these data with reports from juveniles held in local jails (an estimated 5,700 inmates ages 16 to 17). Overall, the patterns of reported sexual victimization by juveniles were similar to those for adult inmates, including higher rates of staff sexual misconduct than rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization: * Of juveniles held in prisons and jails, 1.8% reported being victimized by another inmate in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months) (table 12). This rate was similar to the rate reported by adult prisoners (2.0%) and adult jail inmates (1.6%). * Among juveniles held in prisons and jails nationwide, 3.2% reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct. Though higher, the rate was not statistically different from that of adults in prisons (2.4%) and adults in jails (1.8%). ----------------------------------------------------- Among juveniles and young adult inmates in 2011-12, patterns of sexual victimization across demographic subgroups showed little variation ----------------------------------------------------- Across subgroups defined by sex, race or Hispanic origin, BMI, sexual orientation, and most serious offense, juveniles and young adults reported experiencing similar rates of sexual victimization. Due to the small number of juveniles within each subgroup, few differences in sexual victimization rates across age groups were statistically significant. (Tests across age group not shown; see appendix table 14 for standard errors.) Among juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 and young adult inmates ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24 -- * Young adult females reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than young adult males, while young adult males reported higher rates of staff sexual misconduct than young adult females. * White non-Hispanic young adults (ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24) reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than black non-Hispanic and Hispanic youth in the same age groups. * Inmates ages 18 to 19 and 20 to 24 with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual experienced higher rates of sexual victimization by another inmate than heterosexual inmates in similar age groups. * Male juvenile inmates reported higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (3.3%) than female juveniles (0.9%). * Juvenile inmates held for violent sex offenses reported higher rates of staff sexual misconduct (12.0%) than those held for property offenses (1.5%). Among juveniles victimized by other inmates in 2011-12, more than three- quarters experienced force or threat of force, and a quarter were injured Juveniles ages 16 to 17 who reported sexual victimization by other inmates revealed that-- * Two-thirds were victimized more than once (65.5%) (table 13). * An estimated 78.6% reported experiencing physical force or threat of force, and 39.8% were pressured by the perpetrator to engage in the sexual act or other sexual contact. * More than a quarter (27.7%) were injured in at least one of the incidents. * Fewer than 1 in 6 (15.4%) reported an incident to someone at the facility, a family member, or a friend. Among juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 who reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct-- * Three-quarters (75.8%) were victimized more than once. * An estimated 43.7% said that staff used force or threat of force. * An estimated 10.8% were injured in at least one of the incidents. * Fewer than 1 in 10 (9.0%) reported the staff sexual misconduct to someone at the facility, a family member, or a friend. ************************************* Special inmate populations-- Inmates with mental health problems ************************************* The NIS-3 collected data on the mental health problems of inmates for the first time in 2011-12. Inmates were asked whether they had been told by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder or if because of a mental health problem they had stayed overnight in a hospital or other facility, used prescription medicine, or they had received counseling or treatment from a trained professional. These items have been previously used by BJS to determine if inmates in prisons and jails had any history of mental health problems. (See Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates, NCJ 213600, BJS Web, September 2006.) ------------------------------------------- A high percentage of inmates had a history of problems with their emotions, nerves, or mental health -------------------------------------------- An estimated 36.6% of prison inmates and 43.7% of jail inmates reported being told by a mental health professional that they had a mental health disorder, as specified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (table 14). Inmates were asked specifically if they had ever been told they had manic depression, bipolar disorder, or other depressive disorder, schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, or an anxiety or other personality disorder. (See Methodology for survey items and full list of disorders.) More than a third of prison inmates (35.8%) and jail inmates (39.2%) said they had received some counseling or therapy from a trained professional for these problems. An estimated 8.9% of prisoners and 12.8% of jail inmates reported an overnight stay in a hospital or other facility before their current admission to prison or jail. Approximately 15.4% of prisoners and 19.7% of jail inmates reported taking prescription medication for these mental health and emotional problems at the time of the offense for which they were currently being held. -------------------------------------------- Inmates with a history of mental health problems had higher rates of sexual victimization than other inmates --------------------------------------------- Inmates who had been told by a mental health professional that they had a mental disorder were more likely than other inmates to report being sexually victimized while in prison or jail. Among inmates who had been told they had a specific DSM-IV disorder-- * During 2011-12, an estimated 3.8% of prison inmates and 2.9% of jail inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by another inmate. * Approximately 3.4% of prison inmates and 2.5% of jail inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by staff during 2011-12. Sexual victimization rates were also higher among inmates who had stayed overnight in a hospital or other treatment facility because of a mental health problem than among inmates who had no prior admission for mental health problems. Among those who had stayed overnight in a hospital for mental or emotional problems, 5.7% of prison inmates and 4.4% of jail inmates said they were victimized by another inmate, and 4.9% of prison inmates and 3.4% of jail inmates said they were victimized by facility staff. Differences in sexual victimization rates among inmates were similar across other mental health measures. Rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were-- * Two to three times higher among inmates who were taking prescription medications for their mental health or emotional problems at the time of the current offense than among inmates who were not taking such medications. Three to four times higher among inmates who had received mental health counseling or treatment from a trained professional in the past than among inmates who had not received such counseling or treatment. ---------------------------------------------- In 2011-12, nearly 15% of state and federal prisoners and 26% of jail inmates had symptoms of serious psychological distress ---------------------------------------------- To determine whether inmates had a current mental health problem, BJS used the K6 screening scale in the NIS-3. The K6 was previously developed by Kessler and others for estimating the prevalence of serious mental illness in noninstitutional settings as a tool to identify cases of psychiatric disorder. It has been used widely in epidemiological surveys in the U.S. and internationally.*** Foonote 3 3Kessler, R.C., Barker, P.R., Colpe, L.J., Epstein, J.F., Gfroerer, J.C., Hiripi,E., Howes, M.J., Normand, S.L., Manderscheid, R.W., Walters, E.E., &Zaslavsky, A.M. (2003). “Screening for serious mental illness in the generalpopulation.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 60, 184–189.*** ***Footnote 4 Kessler, R.C., Green, J.G., Gruber, M.J., Sampson, N.A., Bromet, E., Cuitan, M., Furukawa, T.A., et al. (2010). “Screening for serious mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: results from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative.” International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19 (Spp. 1) 4–22.*** The K6 consists of six questions that ask inmates to report how often during the past 30 days they had felt-- * nervous * hopeless * restless or fidgety * so depressed that nothing could cheer them up * everything was an effort * worthless. The response options were (1) all of the time, (2) most of the time, (3) some of the time, (4) a little of the time, and (5) none of the time. Following Kessler, the responses were coded from 4 to 0, with 4 assigned to “all of the time” and 0 assigned to “none of the time.” A summary scale combining the responses from all six items was then produced with a range of 0 to 24. The summary score was then reduced to three categories: 0 to 7 indicated no mental illness, 8 to 12 indicated an anxiety-mood disorder, and 13 or higher indicated serious psychological distress (SPD). Since 2008, the K6 scale has been used in federal epidemiological studies to measure symptoms of SPD rather than serious mental illness. Although the K6 has been demonstrated to be a good predictor of serious mental illness in prior studies, a technical advisory group, convened by the Center for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), recommended that it should be supplemented with questions on functional impairment to improve statistical prediction and validity. (See Methodology for discussion of K6 scaling rules and current applications.) Consistent with other measures of mental health or emotional problems, the K6 reveals that prison and jail inmates have high rates of SPD. An estimated 203,200 state and federal inmates and 185,500 jail inmates reported levels of psychological distress in the 30 days prior to the interview consistent with SPD. These estimates of current SPD represented nearly 15% of state and federal inmates and 26% of local jail inmates. These may be underestimates because some inmates with serious mental illness may have been unable to participate in the NIS-3 due to cognitive limitations that precluded them from fully understanding the informed consent procedures or the survey questions. --------------------------------------------------- An additional 251,700 state and federal prisoners (18.2%) and 155,800 jail inmates (22.2%) reported lower levels of psychological distress, indicative of anxiety-mood disorders. --------------------------------------------------- Rates of SPD in prisons and jails were substantially higher than the 3.0% rate of SPD observed in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey of the noninstitutional U.S. population age 18 or older, using the same K6 screener.5 Although inmate populations are demographically different from the general U.S. population, these differences in the prevalence of SPD remain significant when comparisons are restricted to demographic subgroups most commonly held in prisons and jails (table 15): * Among males, 3.0% of the general U.S. population was identified with SPD, compared to 14.7% of prisoners and 26.3% of jails inmates. * Among persons ages 18 to 44, 2.7% of the general population, 14.8% of prisoners and 26.1% of jail inmates had SPD. * Among black non-Hispanic adults, 2.6% of the general population was classified with SPD, compared to 13.0% of prisoners and 22.1% of jail inmates. * Among white non-Hispanic adults, 2.9% of the general population, 17.5% of prisoners and 30.8% of jail inmates had SPD. --------------------------------------------- Inmates with SPD or anxiety-mood disorders reported high overall rates of sexual victimization in 2011-12 ---------------------------------------------- Inmates identified with SPD reported significantly higher rates of inmate-on- inmate sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct than inmates without a mental health problem: * Among state and federal inmates, an estimated 6.3% of those identified with SPD reported being sexually victimized by another inmate, and 5.6% reported being victimized by staff. In comparison, among prison inmates with no indication of mental illness or anxiety-mood disorders, 0.7% reported being sexually victimized by another inmate and 1.1% reported experiencing staff sexual misconduct. * Similarly, jail inmates identified with SPD reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (3.6%) and staff sexual misconduct (3.6%) than inmates with no mental illness (0.7% for inmate-on-inmate and 1.0% for staff sexual misconduct). Inmates identified as having anxiety-mood disorders reported higher rates of sexual victimization than inmates who did not report a mental health problem. Inmates with anxiety-mood disorders reported lower victimization rates than inmates with SPD. Among inmates with anxiety-mood disorders-- * An estimated 2.8% of prison inmates and 1.3% of jail inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by another inmate. * About 3.0% of prison inmates and 1.4% of jail inmates reported that they were sexually victimized by staff. ------------------------------------------------ Inmates with mental illness reported higher rates of sexual victimization than inmates without mental health problems across subgroups ------------------------------------------------- For each of the measured subgroups (i.e., sex, race or Hispanic origin, age, sexual orientation, and most serious offense), inmates with SPD reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than inmates without mental health problems (table 16). With the exception of jail inmates age 45 or older, the differences were large and statistically significant. Among inmates with SPD, non-heterosexual inmates reported the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization (an estimated 21.0% of prison inmates and 14.7% of jail inmates). Patterns of staff sexual misconduct were similar to those of inmate-on-inmate victimization. Staff sexual misconduct was also higher among inmates with SPD than those without mental health problems (table 17). With the exception of female jail inmates, the differences within each demographic subgroup were statistically significant. Among inmates with SPD, non-heterosexual prison inmates recorded the highest rate (10.5%) of sexual victimization by staff. ------------------------------------------- Reports of sexual victimization differed among inmates with SPD and other inmates ------------------------------------------- Among prison and jail inmates who reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, those with SPD were more likely than those without mental health problems to be-- * victimized more than once (80.4% compared to 62.6%) * forced or threatened with force by the perpetrator (71.2% compared to 57.7%) * injured (26.4% compared to 12.3%) (table 18). Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, inmates with SPD were more likely than those without mental health problems to-- * report being pressured by staff (73.4% compared to 50.2%) or forced or threatened with force (47.2% compared to 33.8%) * be injured by staff (19.8% compared to 6.3%) * report at least one victimization to someone at the facility, a family member, or a friend (24.9% compared to 14.1%). ********************************************* Special inmate populations— Inmates with a non-heterosexual sexual orientation ********************************************* To date, all of the BJS victim self-report surveys conducted under PREA have found that inmates with the highest rates of sexual victimization are those who reported their sexual orientation as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other. For example, among non-heterosexual inmates interviewed in the NIS-2, 11.2% of prison inmates and 7.2% of jail inmates reported being victimized by another inmate in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months. Among former state prison inmates interviewed in the National Former Prisoner Survey (NFPS, conducted in 2008), more than a third of non-heterosexual males (33% of bisexuals and 39% of gays and lesbians) reported being sexually victimized by another inmate during their most recent period of incarceration. Combined with the higher rates among non- heterosexual inmates in the NIS-3 (12.2% in prisons and 8.5% in jails), the surveys clearly identify a high-risk population. Although the NIS-2 and NFPS provide detailed multivariate models that control for other risk factors, NIS-3 provides additional detail on this population. -------------------------------------------------- Across subgroups, inmate-on-inmate victimization rates were higher for non-heterosexual inmates than heterosexual inmates -------------------------------------------------- In every measured subgroup (i.e., sex, race or Hispanic origin, age, education, and mental health problems), non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates reported higher rates of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization than heterosexual inmates (table 19). Rates of sexual victimization by other inmates against non-heterosexual inmates were at least 10 times greater than that of heterosexual inmates when the victim was also male, black, Hispanic, or had less than a high school education. These differences were smaller, but still large, among non-heterosexual female inmates (2.5 times larger), whites (more than 6 times larger), and high school graduates (8 times larger). Within each of the other demographic subgroups, staff-on-inmate victimization rates were at least double for non-heterosexual inmates compared to heterosexual inmates. Among non-heterosexual prison and jail inmates, rates of staff sexual misconduct were the highest for inmates ages 18 to 24 (6.7%), blacks (6.2%), and males (6.1%). Non-heterosexual victims (82.9%) were more likely than heterosexual victims (68.0%) to report that the victimization by another inmate involved pressure, but less likely to report that it involved force or threat of force (62.0% for non-heterosexual compared to 69.7% for heterosexual victims) (table 20). In addition, non-heterosexual victims (84.2%) of staff sexual misconduct were more likely than heterosexual victims (71.4%) to report more than one incident. ************* Methodology ************* The National Inmate Survey, 2011-12 (NIS-3) was conducted in 233 state and federal prisons, 358 jails, and 15 special facilities (military, Indian country, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)) between February 2011 and May 2012. The data were collected by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS-3 comprised two questionnaires—a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of mental and physical health, past drug and alcohol use, and treatment for substance abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned to receive one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the interviewers. A total of 106,532 inmates participated in NIS-3, including the sexual victimization survey or the randomly assigned companion survey. Combined, the surveys included 43,721 inmates in state and federal prisons, 61,351 inmates in jails, 605 inmates in military facilities, 192 inmates in Indian country jails, and 663 inmates in facilities operated by ICE. The interviews, which averaged 35 minutes in length, used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI) data collection methods. For approximately the first two minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to obtain background information and date of admission to the facility. For the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with a computer- administered questionnaire using a touchscreen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via 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 made available for inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room or interact with the computer. The paper form was completed by 751 prison inmates (or 1.9% of all prison interviews)—733 were completed by adult prison inmates (1.9% of adult prison inmate interviews) and 18 were completed by prisoners ages 16 to 17 (3.4% of all prison inmate interviews of inmates ages 16 to 17). The paper questionnaire was also completed by 264 jail inmates (0.5% of all jail inmate interviews)—255 were completed by adults (0.5% of adult jail inmate interviews) and 9 were completed by jail inmates ages 16 to 17 (0.7% of jail inmate interviews of inmates ages 16 to 17). In addition, five paper questionnaires were completed by military inmates (0.9% of all military inmate interviews). Most of these inmates were housed in administrative or disciplinary segregation or were 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 either English (96% in prisons, 95% in jails, 35% in ICE facilities, and 100% in military and Indian country facilities) or Spanish (4% in prisons, 5% in jails, and 65% in ICE facilities). --------------------------------------- Selection of state and federal prisons --------------------------------------- A sample of 241 state and federal prisons was drawn to produce a sample representing the 1,158 state and 194 federal adult confinement facilities identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, supplemented with updated information from websites maintained by each state’s department of corrections (DOC) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The 2005 census was a complete enumeration of adult state prisons, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to state correctional authorities. The NIS-3 was restricted to confinement facilities—institutions in which fewer than 50% of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such facilities included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS-3 excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release centers. Based on BJS’s 2011 National Prisoner Statistics and 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities, the prisons in the study universe held an estimated 1,238,000 state and 203,800 federal inmates age 18 or older and 1,700 state inmates ages 16 to 17 at yearend 2011. Facilities that had been closed and new facilities that had opened since the 2005 census were identified via review of DOC and BOP websites. Facilities determined to be closed were removed from the NIS-3 frame and new facilities were added. State and federal confinement facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held in state prisons on December 30, 2005, and in federal prisons on September 9, 2010). Facilities on the sampling frame were stratified by sex of inmates housed, whether the facility had a mental health function, and whether the facility held five or more juveniles: * Among facilities that housed males, the measure of size for facilities that held male inmates and participated in the NIS-1 in 2007 or NIS-2 in 2008-09 were adjusted to lower their probability of selection in the NIS-3. * Among facilities with an inmate population that was at least 50% female, the measure of size for facilities that participated in the NIS-2 was reduced to lower their probability of selection in the NIS-3. * The measures of size were further adjusted to increase the probability of selection of facilities with large juvenile populations. Within each stratum, facilities in the sampling frame were first sorted by region, state, and public or private operation: * The sample measures of size for facilities housing only female inmates were increased by a factor of 5 to ensure a sufficient number of women and allow for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by sex. This led to an allocation of 51 female facilities (out of 233) in the sample. * An additional 25 facilities were allocated to the stratum with facilities that have a mental health function, and another 20 facilities were allocated to the strata that housed juveniles. * This led to the allocation of 66 facilities known to have a mental health function—49 male facilities and 17 female facilities—and 38 facilities that housed juveniles (36 facilities that housed males and 2 facilities that housed females). Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility in every state was selected. Federal facilities were grouped together and treated like a state for sampling purposes. The remaining facilities were selected from each region with probabilities proportionate to size. Of the 241 selected prison facilities, 7 had closed prior to the start of data collection: Metro State Prison (Georgia), Hillsborough Corr. Inst. (Florida), Gates Corr. Inst. (Connecticut), Brush Corr. Fac. (Colorado), Burnet Co. Intermediate Sanction Fac. (Texas), and Diamondback Corr. Fac. (Oklahoma). One facility—Chittenden Regional Corr. Fac. (Vermont)—had transitioned from holding males to females during the data collection period and was considered a closed facility. All other selected prison facilities participated fully in NIS-3. --------------------------------------- Selection of inmates within prisons --------------------------------------- A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of data collection at each facility. Inmates age 15 or younger and inmates who were released prior to data collection were deleted from the roster. Eligible inmates within a facility were placed into one of two strata based on their ages. Inmates who were ages 16 to 17 (juveniles) were placed in one stratum and inmates age 18 or older (adults) were placed in the other. Inmates age 15 or younger were considered ineligible for the NIS-3. ------------------------------------------ Selection of adult inmates within prisons ------------------------------------------ The number of adult inmates sampled in each facility varied based on six criteria-- * an expected sexual victimization prevalence rate 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 * an adjustment factor of 1.9 to account for the complex survey design the size of the facility. Each eligible adult 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. ------------------------------------------------- Selection of inmates ages 16 to 17 within prisons -------------------------------------------------- The number of inmates ages 16 to 17 sampled in each facility varied based on the number who appeared on the roster: * If fewer than 50 were on the roster, all inmates ages 16 to 17 were selected. * If between 50 and 149 were on the roster, 75% were sampled (with a minimum of 50). * If 150 or more were on the roster, 75% were sampled (with a minimum of 150). In cases in which not all inmates ages 16 to 17 were selected, each eligible inmate ages 16 to 17 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. A total of 74,655 prison inmates were selected. After selection, 2,233 ineligible inmates were excluded—1,441 (1.9%) were released or transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 657 (0.9%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 10 (0.01%) were age 15 or younger or their age could not be obtained during the interview process, 56 (0.5%) were selected in error (i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), 21 (0.03%) were only in the facility on weekends, and 47 (0.06%) were on unsupervised work release or only served time on weekends. Of all selected eligible prison inmates, 32% refused to participate in the survey, 0.5% 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 0.5% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, or transfers to another facility after interviewing began). Overall, 43,721 prison inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 60%. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (38,778) received the sexual assault survey. (See appendix table 1 for the number of participating inmates in each prison facility.) ----------------------------- Selection of jail facilities ----------------------------- A sample of 393 jails was drawn to represent the 2,957 jail facilities identified in the Census of Jail Inmates, 2005, and the sample was supplemented with information obtained during the NIS-1 and NIS-2. The 2005 census was a complete enumeration of all jail jurisdictions, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to jail authorities. The NIS-3 was restricted to jails that had six or more inmates on June 30, 2005. Jails identified as closed or ineligible during the NIS-1 and NIS-2 were removed from the NIS-3 frame. Based on estimates from the Annual Survey of Jails, 2011, the jails in the NIS-3 held an estimated 720,171 inmates age 18 or older and 5,700 inmates ages 16 to 17 on June 30, 2011. Jail facilities were sequentially sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held on June 30, 2005). * Two facilities that were unable to participate in the NIS-2 were selected with certainty in the NIS-3. * The measures of size for facilities that participated in the NIS-1 or NIS-2 were adjusted to give them a lower probability of selection. * Facilities with juveniles had their measures of size adjusted to increase their probability of selection. * Facilities were stratified such that facilities in each of the 10 largest jail jurisdictions were placed into a stratum. Within the large jurisdiction stratum, three facilities were selected from the five largest jurisdictions with probabilities proportionate to size, and two facilities were selected from the next five largest jurisdictions with probabilities proportionate to size. * All other facilities were placed in a single stratum and then sorted by region, state, and public or private operation. Facilities were sampled to ensure that at least one jail facility in every state was selected. The remaining jail facilities were selected from each region with probabilities proportionate to size. Of the 393 selected jails in the NIS-3, 20 facilities refused to participate: * Covington Co. Jail (Alabama) * Mobile Co. Metro Jail (Alabama) * Delaware Co. George W. Hill Corr. Fac. (Pennsylvania) * Montcalm Co. Jail (Michigan) * Will Co. Adult Det. Fac. (Illinois) * Northumberland Co. Prison (Pennsylvania) * Kenosha Co. Pre-Trial Det. Fac. (Wisconsin) * Carroll Co. Jail (Tennessee) * Brevard Co. Jail (Florida) * Pinellas Co. North Division (Florida) * Hillsborough Co. Falkenburg Road Jail (Florida) * Paulding Co. Det. Ctr. (Georgia) * Whitfield Co. Jail (Georgia) * Marion Co. Jail (Tennessee) * Sandoval Co. Det. Ctr. (New Mexico) * Williamson Co. Jail (Texas) * Montgomery Co. Jail (North Carolina) * Catahoula Parish Corr. Ctr. (Louisiana) * Escambia Co. Det. Ctr. (Alabama) * Orleans Parish House of Det. (Louisiana). Williamsburg Co. Jail (South Carolina), was excused due to construction at the facility. In Nassau Co. Corr. Ctr. (New York), data were collected only among inmates ages 16 to 17 due to lack of space to interview both adults and juveniles ages 16 to 17. Fourteen facilities were determined to be ineligible: six had closed, two were considered part of another facility on the sampling frame, three had fewer than six eligible inmates, two were facilities containing only unsupervised work release inmates, and one had active litigation related to sexual victimization. All other selected jail facilities participated fully in NIS-3. ----------------------------------- Selection of inmates within jails ----------------------------------- A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of data collection at each facility. Inmates age 15 or younger and inmates who had not been arraigned were removed from the roster. Eligible inmates within a facility were placed into one of two stratum based on their age. Inmates who were ages 16 to 17 (juveniles) were placed in one stratum and inmates age 18 or older (adults) were placed in the other. Inmates age 15 or younger were considered ineligible for the NIS-3. ----------------------------------------- Selection of adult inmates within jails ----------------------------------------- The number of adult inmates sampled in each facility varied based on six criteria: * an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 3% * a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 1.4% * a projected 65% response rate among selected inmates * a 10% chance among participating inmates of not receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire * an adjustment factor of 1.9 to account for the complex survey design * 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 inmates who were pre-arraigned was known. Each eligible adult 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 adult inmates who appeared on the second roster but who had not appeared on the initial roster were identified. These inmates had 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 chosen using the same probability of selection used to sample from the first roster. -------------------------------------------------- Selection of inmates ages 16 to 17 within jails -------------------------------------------------- The number of inmates ages 16 to 17 sampled in each facility varied based on the number who appeared on the roster: * If fewer than 50 were on the roster, all inmates ages 16 to 17 were selected. * If between 50 and 149 were on the roster, 75% were sampled (with a minimum of 50). * If 150 or more were on the roster, 75% were sampled (with a minimum of 150). In facilities in which not all inmates ages 16 to 17 were selected, each eligible inmate ages 16 to 17 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. As with adult jail inmates, a second roster obtained on the first day of data collection was used to identify inmates that had been arraigned since the initial roster was created or newly admitted. A random sample of these new inmates was chosen using the same probability of selection used to sample from the first roster. A total of 112,594 jail inmates was selected. After selection, 11,342 ineligible inmates were excluded—9,479 (8.4%) were released or transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 1,036 (0.8%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 25 (0.02%) were age 15 or younger or their age could not be obtained during the interview process, 296 (0.3%) were selected in error (i.e., an inmate was incorrectly listed on the facility roster), and 484 (0.4%) were on unsupervised work release or only served time on weekends. Of all selected inmates, 22% refused to participate in the survey, 1.1% 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 8% were not interviewed due to survey logistics (e.g., language barriers, releases, and transfers to another facility after interviewing began). Overall, 61,351 jail inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 61%. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (54,137) received the sexual victimization survey. (See appendix table 5 for the number of participating inmates in each jail facility.) --------------------------------------------- Selection of special confinement facilities --------------------------------------------- A sample of 16 special facilities was drawn to represent the inmate populations in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. Five military, six Indian country, and five ICE facilities were included. The military frame came from the military correctional facilities population report on April 1, 2011. The Indian country frame came from the BJS report, Jails in Indian Country, 2009, NCJ 232223, BJS Web, February 2011. The ICE frame came from the ICE integrated decision support system on March 21, 2011. Military, Indian country, and ICE facilities were sequentially selected with probability proportionate to the adjusted number of inmates in the facility. The measures of size (population) were adjusted to reduce the probability of selection among facilities included in the NIS-2. Tohono O’odham Adult Detention Facility (Arizona) refused to participate in the NIS-3. All other selected special confinement facilities participated fully in the survey. ---------------------------------------------------------- Selection of inmates in special confinement facilities ---------------------------------------------------------- For purposes of inmate selection, military facilities were treated as prisons, and Indian country and ICE facilities were treated like jails. The assumptions used to determine the sample size within a prison or jail and the corresponding selection procedures were used. However, in ICE facilities, a second sample of newly admitted inmates was not drawn due to an inability to identify new inmates on the ICE rosters. In addition, inmates in ICE facilities who did not speak English or Spanish were defined as ineligible for the study. Overall, 2,874 inmates were selected, including 910 in military facilities, 300 in Indian country facilities, and 1,664 in ICE facilities. After selection, 163 ineligible inmates were excluded—28 (1.0%) were released or transferred to another facility before interviewing began, 46 (1.1%) were mentally or physically unable to be interviewed, 3 (0.1%) were sampled in error, 2 (0.1%) were inmates in custody only on the weekend, and 84 (3.0%) in ICE facilities did not speak English or Spanish. Overall, 1,272 inmates participated in the survey (605 in military, 192 in Indian country, and 663 in ICE facilities), yielding a response rate of 68% in military, 68% in Indian country, and 43% in ICE facilities. Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (1,379) received the sexual victimization survey (539 in military, 160 in Indian country, and 573 in ICE facilities). (See appendix table 9 for the number of participating inmates in each special confinement facility.) ---------------------------------------- Weighting and nonresponse adjustments ---------------------------------------- Responses from 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 was applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias due to nonresponse 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 nonrespondents were different from the respondents. Post-stratification and nonresponse 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, sex, race, sentence length, and time since admission. This adjustment ensured that the estimates better reflected 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 was assigned to a responding inmate with similar demographic characteristics. This adjustment ensured that the estimates accurately reflected 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 victimization survey respondents.***Footnote 66Folsom, Jr., R.E., & Singh, A.C. (2002). “The Generalized ExponentialModel for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse,and Poststratification.” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association,Survey Research Methods Section, pp. 598–603.*** A final ratio adjustment to each inmate weight was made to provide national- level estimates for the total number of inmates age 18 or older and the total number of inmates ages 16 to 17 who were held in jails at midyear 2011 or in prison at yearend 2011. These ratios represented the estimated number of inmates by sex (from BJS’s 2011 Annual Survey of Jails and 2011 National Prisoner Statistics) divided by the number of inmates by sex for adults and overall for juvenile inmates ages 16 to 17 in the NIS-3, after calibration for sampling and nonresponse. The national estimates for state prisons were 1,154,600 adult males, 83,400 adult females, and 1,700 juveniles ages 16 to 17; for federal prisons, 190,600 adult males and 13,200 adult females (there were no juveniles ages 16 to 17 in federal custody); and for jails (with an average daily population of six or more inmates), 628,620 adult males, 91,551 adult females, and 5,700 juveniles ages 16 to 17. Final ratio adjustments were not applied to inmate weights in military, Indian country, and ICE facilities. Estimates for special confinement facilities were made at the facility level only. -------------------------------------------- Standard errors and tests of significance -------------------------------------------- The NIS-3 is statistically unable to provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under PREA. As with any survey, the NIS estimates are subject to error arising from the fact that they 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. A common way to express this sampling variability is to construct a 95%- confidence interval around each survey estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding or subtracting the result from the estimate produces the confidence interval. This interval expresses the range of values that could result among 95% of the different samples that could be drawn. For small samples and estimates close to 0%, as is the case with sexual victimization in most prisons and jails, the use of the standard error to construct the 95%-confidence interval may not be reliable. An alternative developed by Wilson has been shown to perform better than the traditional method when constructing a confidence interval. (See footnote 1 on page 10.) This method produces an asymmetrical confidence interval around the facility estimates in which the lower bound is constrained to be greater than or equal to 0%. It also provides confidence intervals for facilities in which the survey estimates are zero (but other similarly conducted surveys could yield non-zero estimates). (See tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 and appendix tables 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9.) When applied to large samples, the traditional and the Wilson confidence intervals are nearly identical. As a result, the tables that show national estimates display traditional standard errors. (See tables 1 and 2.) The traditional standard errors have also been used to compare estimates of sexual victimization among selected groups of inmates that have been defined by type of incident, demographic subgroup, sexual history, and criminal justice status. (See tables 7 through 9 and 11 through 20.) To facilitate the analysis, rather than provide the detailed estimates for every standard error, differences in the estimates of sexual victimization for subgroups in these tables have been tested and notated for significance at the 95%-level of confidence. For example, the difference in the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization among female prison inmates (6.9%) compared to male prison inmates (1.7%) is statistically significant at the 95%-level of confidence (table 7). In all tables providing detailed comparisons, statistically significant differences at the 95%-level of confidence or greater have been designated with two asterisks (**). ----------------- Exposure period ----------------- To calculate 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 12 months prior to the date of the interview, inmates were asked questions related to their experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission date was less than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. The average exposure period of inmates participating in the sexual victimization survey was-- * 8.8 months for federal prisoners * 8.1 months for adult state prisoners * 5.5 months for juveniles ages 16 to 17 in state prisons * 3.7 months for jail inmates * 7.6 months for inmates in military facilities * 2.8 months for inmates in ICE facilities * 2.0 months for inmates in Indian country facilities. -------------------------------------- Measurement of sexual victimization ------------------------------------- The survey of sexual victimization relied on inmates reporting their direct experiences, rather than inmates reporting on the experiences of other inmates. Questions related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity were asked separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (For specific survey questions, see appendices 1 and 2.) The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that screened for specific sexual activities without restriction, including both wanted and unwanted sex and sexual contacts with other inmates. To fully measure all sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to manual stimulation and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, and vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, and 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 sexual victimization and staff sexual misconduct. 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 3.) The entire ACASI questionnaire (listed as the National Inmate Survey-3) and the shorter paper and pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov. ------------------------------------------------------- Interviews checked for inconsistent response patterns ------------------------------------------------------- Once data collection was completed, individual response patterns were assessed to identify interviewer error, interviews that had been completed in too short of time, and incomplete interviews. In 141 interviews, the interviewers administered sex-specific survey items inconsistent with the sex of the inmate. In 693 interviews, the inmate failed to complete enough questions to be considered a completed interview. These interviews were excluded from the calculations of sexual victimization. Interviews were also examined for inconsistent response patterns. A list of 31 indicators were developed based on inmate characteristics (e.g., education, age, marital status, and time since admission) and items related to victimization (e.g., number of times, injuries, willing contact with staff, sex of staff perpetrator, and reporting of victimization). Indicators compared responses to initial questions with responses to detailed follow-up questions. The indicators were identified as unlikely, highly unlikely, or extremely unlikely. Of the 31 indicators, 21 were deemed unlikely, 7 were deemed highly unlikely, and 3 were deemed extremely unlikely. An example of an unlikely indicator is when a respondent indicated victimization occurred, but responded no to all types of victimization. An example of a highly unlikely indicator is when a responded indicated that the first time a victimization occurred was before the inmate was admitted to the facility. An example of an extremely unlikely indicator is if the inmate responded yes to 12 or more of the sex-specific victimization items and indicated being victimized 11 or more times to both staff sexual misconduct and inmate-on-inmate victimization. If any of the extremely unlikely indicators were triggered and at least one highly unlikely indicator or four or more unlikely indicators were triggered, the inmate’s data were removed. The amount of time the interview took was also reviewed. Inmates whose average time for the sexual victimization items was less than 2 seconds per item and inmates whose total time was less than 10 minutes for English respondents and less than 12 minutes for Spanish respondents had their data removed. Overall, the results revealed very high levels of consistency in survey responses. Of the 92,689 respondents to the sexual victimization survey, 87 triggered one extremely highly unlikely flag. Of these, 20 met the additional criteria for removal. In addition, data for 12 respondents were removed because their interviews did not meet the length of interview criteria. Among the 32 cases that were removed, 1 respondent was in a federal facility, 13 respondents were in state prisons (2 were juveniles ages 16 to 17), and 18 respondents were in jails. These 32 inmates came from separate facilities (i.e., only one inmate from each of these facilities was removed) and were excluded from the calculation of sexual victimization. --------------------------------------- Calculation of Body Mass Index (BMI) ---------------------------------------- BMI is a measurement of body fat, based on height and weight, that applies to both men and women ages 18 to 65. BMI can be used to determine if a person is underweight (18.5 or less), normal (18.5 to 24.9), overweight (25 to 29.9), obese (30 to 39.9), or morbidly obese (40 or greater). The calculation in the NIS-3 was based on the following formula provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: BMI = weight (pounds) / [height (inches)]2 x 703. Screening for serious psychological distress (SPD) and history of mental health problems The NIS-3 included four items to measure the prevalence of any problems with emotions, nerves, or mental health an inmate may have had in the past: R24. Have you ever been told by a mental health professional, such as a psychiatrist or psychologist, that you had… a, manic depression, a bipolar disorder or mania? b. a depressive disorder? c. schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder? d. post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)? e. another anxiety disorder, such as panic disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD)? f. a personality disorder, such as antisocial or borderline personality? g. a mental or emotional condition other than those listed above? R27. During the 12 months before you were admitted to [this facility / any facility to serve time on your current sentence], did you stay overnight or longer in any type of hospital or other facility to receive treatment or counseling for problems you were having with your emotions, nerves, or mental health? R30. At the time of the offense for which you are currently [being held / serving time], were you taking prescription medicine for any problem you were having with your emotions, nerves, or mental health? R33. Have you ever received counseling or therapy from a trained professional, such as a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or nurse, for any problem you were having with your emotions, nerves, or mental health? ------------------------- Development of the K6 ------------------------- The K6 is a six-item scale designed to provide rapid assessment of the prevalence of serious psychological distress (SPD) in population surveys. (See page 25 for the six items and response categories.) Developed by Kessler and colleagues, the K6 has become widely used in epidemiological surveys throughout the world. It is included in three general population surveys in the U.S.—the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and the National Health Interview Survey (conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (conducted by the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). The K6 has been recognized as a broad screener rather than a specific screener for any one mental disorder. Kessler and others have shown that the K6 outcomes are consistent with blinded clinical diagnoses of SPD in general population samples. Moreover, their statistical analyses of alternative scoring rules for the sex items have shown the unweighted sum (based on codes 0 to 4, with a total sum ranging from 0 to 24) to be virtually identical to sums using other weighting schemes. Although its use under PREA is to determine risk related to SPD and the incidence of sexual victimization, more specific screening scales could have been used to determine if sexual victimization was associated with particular kinds of mental disorder. Prior to 2004, the K6 was used in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to estimate the prevalence of serious mental illness. In 2008, following the recommendation of a technical advisory group, convened by the Center for Mental Health Services at the SAMHSA, NSDUH supplemented the K6 scale with questions on functional impairment. Functional impairment is defined as difficulties that substantially interfere with or limit role functioning in one or more major life activities, including basic living skills; instrumental living skills; and functioning in social, family, and vocational or educational contexts.7 However, the NIS-3 did not include any items related to functional impairment, since past measures and scales are not appropriate for inmates held in prisons or jails. The use of K6 for predicting serious mental illness has never been validated in a correctional setting. It may be expected that some inmates feel nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, sad or depressed, or worthless due to their confinement rather than due to an underlying mental health disorder. Consequently, the exact cut point for serious psychological distress may be higher than 13 among inmates than among persons in the general population. However, the link between SPD and sexual victimization rates remains strong, regardless of the exact cut point in the K6 scale. For example, had the cut point for serious psychological distress in the NIS been raised to 17 (from 13), inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization rates would have increased to 7.6% among prison inmates and 4.4% among jail inmates, and staff sexual misconduct rates would have increased to 7.2% among prison inmates and 4.4% among jail inmates. ---------------------------- Imputation of missing data ---------------------------- SPD status was determined by the sum of the responses to the K6 items. Since some inmates did not respond to all six items, inclusion and imputation criteria were developed. Only respondents who answered at least four of the K6 items were included in the estimates of SPD status. A missing K6 item was imputed in a nearest neighbor approach (i.e., the donor value for the imputed value was the nearest previous nonmissing K6 response). If the nearest K6 item was missing, then the value from the first nonmissing response preceding the missing item was used as the donor. For example, if item 2 was not answered, but item 1 was answered, then the value from the first K6 item was used as the value for the selected K6 item. If the first K6 item was missing, then the first nonmissing value that followed was used as the donor. Since only respondents who answered at least four of the K6 items were included in the analysis, the donor response was never more than two items away from the item with the missing response. In prisons, among the 38,251 adult respondents, 555 (1.5%) answered fewer than four items and thus were not included in the estimates of SPD. Of the adult prison inmates who responded to four or more items, 931 (2.4%) had one or two items imputed. In jails, among the 52,926 adult respondents, 1,106 (2.1%) answered fewer than four items and therefore were not included in the estimates of SPD status. Of the adult jail inmates who responded to four or more items, 1,840 (3.5%) had one or two items imputed. ----------------------- Terms and definitions ----------------------- Sexual victimization--all types of sexual activity, e.g., oral, anal, or vaginal penetration; hand jobs; 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, hand jobs, 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 as willing by the reporting inmates; however, all sexual contacts between inmates and staff are legally nonconsensual. Staff sexual misconduct--includes all incidents of willing and unwilling sexual contact with facility staff and all incidents of sexual activity that involved oral, anal, vaginal penetration, hand jobs, blow jobs, and other sexual acts with facility staff. ---------------------------- Related prior publications --------------------------- Eight BJS reports on sexual victimization in prisons and jails: Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333) Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005 (NCJ 214646) Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 (NCJ 218914) Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2007-2008 (NCJ 231172) Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414) Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 221946) Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09 (NCJ 231169) Sexual Victimization Reported by Former State Prisoners, 2008 (NCJ 237363). An overview of all of the BJS prison rape collections: PREA Data Collection Activities, 2012 (NCJ 238640) These reports are available on the BJS website at www.bjs.gov. ****************************************************** Appendix 1. Survey items related to inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 ****************************************************** ------- Males ------- E16. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way? E17. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, or penis in a sexual way? E22. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive a hand job? E23. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive a hand job? E26. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive oral sex or a blow job? E27. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex or a blow job? E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have anal sex? E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have anal sex? E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex? E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, hand jobs, oral sex or blow jobs, or anal sex? ---------- Females ---------- E18. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way? E19. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to let them touch your butt, thighs, breasts, or vagina in a sexual way? E24. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you give or receive oral sex? E25. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to give or receive oral sex? E28. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have vaginal sex? E29. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have vaginal sex? E32. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have anal sex? E33. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have anal sex? E34. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force to make you have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex? E35. During the last 12 months, did another inmate, without using physical force, pressure you or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact other than sexual touching, oral sex, vaginal sex, or anal sex? *************************************************** Appendix 2. Survey items related to staff sexual misconduct, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 ************************************************** These next questions are about the behavior of staff at this facility during the last 12 months. By staff we mean the employees of this facility and anybody who works as a volunteer in this facility. G4. During the last 12 months, have any facility staff pressured you or made you feel that you had to let them have sex or sexual contact with you? G5. During the last 12 months, have you been physically forced by any facility staff to have sex or sexual contact? G7. During the last 12 months, have any facility staff offered you favors or special privileges in exchange for sex or sexual contact? G2. During the last 12 months, have you willingly had sex or sexual contact with any facility staff? G11. [IF G2 OR G4 OR G5 OR G7 = Yes] During the last 12 months, which of the following types of sex or sexual contact did you have with a facility staff person? G11a. You touched a facility staff person’s body or had your body touched in a sexual way. G11b. You gave or received a hand job. G11c. You gave or received oral sex or a blow job. G11d. You had vaginal sex. G11e. You had anal sex. ******************************************************* Appendix 3. Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity, National Inmate Survey, 2011–12 ****************************************************** Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity in the screener questions for sexual activity with inmates: LCM1. During the last 12 months, did another inmate use physical force, pressure you, or make you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? LCM2. How long has it been since another inmate in this facility used physical force, pressured you, or made you feel that you had to have any type of sex or sexual contact? 1. Within the past 7 days 2. More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 3. More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months 4. More than 12 months ago 5. This has not happened to me at this facility Follow-up questions for inmates reporting no sexual activity in the screener questions for sexual activity with staff: LCM5. During the last 12 months, have you had any sex or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted to have it or not? LCM6. How long has it been since you had any sex or sexual contact with staff in this facility whether you wanted to or not? 1. Within the past 7 days 2. More than 7 days ago but within the past 30 days 3. More than 30 days ago but within the past 12 months 4. More than 12 months ago 5. This has not happened to me at this facility **************************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov **************************************************************** **************************************************************** 4/30/13/11:45pm/JER ****************************************************************