U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) January 2011, NCJ 231172 Sexual Victimization Reported by Adult Correctional Authorities, 2007 2008 Paul Guerino and Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians ---------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2204 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=406. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) is an annual collection based on official records that the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has conducted since 2004. It is one of a number of BJS data collections that are conducted to meet the mandates of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA). On behalf of BJS, staff of the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau mailed survey forms to correctional administrators in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, state prison systems, public and private jails, private prisons, jails in Indian country, and facilities operated by the U.S. military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Administrators were given the option to mail back a completed form or to complete it on the web. Data collection forms can be accessed on the BJS website at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm? ty=dcdetail&iid=406. Each sexual act, as defined by BJS, is classified by the perpetrator who carried out the incident (i.e., inmate or staff) and the type of act perpetrated. Administrators provided counts of the four types of sexual victimization that occurred during the prior calendar year: inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts, inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment. (See "Defining sexual victimization," page 2.) For each type of victimization, correctional administrators indicated how many of the allegations were substantiated (determined to have occurred), unsubstantiated, unfounded (insufficient evidence to make a final determination), and still under investigation. The administrators then completed a separate form for each substantiated allegation, providing details about the victim, perpetrator, and circumstances surrounding the incident. ----------------------------------------------------- Highlights * Correctional administrators reported 7,444 allegations of sexual victimization in 2008 and 7,374 allegations in 2007. * Total allegations of sexual victimization increased significantly between 2005 (6,241 incidents) and 2008 (7,444). * The increase in total allegations of sexual victimization between 2005 and 2008 was largely due to prisons, where allegations increased 21%, from 4,791 incidents to 5,796. * In 2008, 931 allegations of sexual victimization (13%) were substantiated, i.e., determined to have occurred upon investigation. * State prison administrators reported 589 substantiated incidents of sexual violence in 2008, up 28% from 459 substantiated incidents reported in 2005. * About 54% of substantiated incidents of sexual victimization involved only inmates, while 46% of substantiated incidents involved staff with inmates. * Female inmates were disproportionately victimized by both other inmates and staff in federal and state prisons, as well as local jails. * Approximately 12% of substantiated inmate-on-inmate sexual victimizations were committed by two or more perpetrators. * Injuries were reported in about 18% of incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimizations and less than 1% of incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimizations. -------------------------------------------------------- The 2007 and 2008 surveys included all federal and state prisons, facilities operated by the U.S. military and ICE, and a representative sample of jail jurisdictions and privately operated jails and prisons. The surveys also included jails holding adults in Indian country based on a complete enumeration of jails in 2008 and a representative sample of jails in 2007. In total, data were collected from facilities containing 2.12 million inmates in 2007 and 2.17 million inmates in 2008. (See Methodology for more information about the systems and facilities from which data were collected.) Responses were weighted to provide national-level estimates for jails and privately operated facilities. Since the estimates for jails and privately operated facilities are based on a sample rather than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. (See Methodology for description of sampling procedures.) The 2007-2008 survey results should not be used to rank systems or facilities. Given the absence of uniform reporting, caution is necessary for accurate interpretation of the survey results. Higher or lower counts among facilities may reflect variations in definitions, reporting capacities, and procedures for recording allegations, as opposed to differences in the underlying incidence of sexual victimization. Detailed tabulations of the survey results by system and sampled facility are presented in appendix tables 19-30. Detail on substantiated incidents The 2008 SSV recorded 763 substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, or incidents that were investigated and determined to have occurred. Weighting this total to take into account the sampling of local jail jurisdictions, private prisons, and private jails, the estimated total number of substantiated incidents in the nation in 2008 was 931. The 2007 SSV recorded 783 substantiated incidents of sexual victimization, which when weighted represented 1,001 incidents nationwide. For each substantiated incident reported, correctional administrators were asked to provide details on circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of pressure or physical force, sanctions imposed, and what type of victim assistance was provided, if any. They provided detail on 97% of reported substantiated incidents. These data are displayed in tables 4-7 and appendix tables 1-18. ----------------------------------------------------- Defining sexual victimization To define "sexual victimization" under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, BJS uses uniform definitions that classify each sexual act by the perpetrator who carried out the incident (i.e., inmate or staff ) and the type of act perpetrated. Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization involves sexual contacts with a victim without his or her consent or with a victim who cannot consent or refuse. The most serious incidents, nonconsensual sexual acts, include * contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight; or * contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or * penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object. Less serious incidents, abusive sexual contacts, include * intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person; and * incidents in which the intention is to sexually exploit rather than to harm or debilitate. Staff-on-inmate sexual victimization includes consensual or nonconsensual acts perpetrated on an inmate by an employee, volunteer, contractor, official visitor, or other agency representative. (Family, friends, and other visitors are excluded.) Staff sexual misconduct includes any sexual behavior or act directed toward an inmate by staff, including romantic relationships. Such acts include * intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; or * completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts; or * occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification. Staff sexual harassment includes repeated statements or comments of a sexual nature to an inmate by staff. Such statements include * demeaning references to an inmate's sex or derogatory comments about his or her body or clothing; or * repeated profane or obscene language or gestures ------------------------------------------------ Summary findings Allegations of sexual victimization The rate of sexual victimization reported by correctional administrators increased from 3.33 incidents per 1,000 inmates in 2005 to 3.82 in 2008. Overall, there were 7,374 allegations of sexual victimization in 2007 and 7,444 allegations in 2008 (table 1). Although there was no significant difference between the overall totals in the 2007 and 2008 collection years, total allegations of sexual victimization increased significantly between 2005 (6,241 allegations) and 2008. This increase was largely the result of increased allegations of sexual victimization in prisons, from 4,791 incidents in 2005 to 5,796 incidents in 2008. The number of allegations of sexual victimization in local and private jails did not increase by a statistically significant amount between 2005 and 2008. The increase in the total number of reported allegations of sexual victimization corresponds with an increase in the rate of reported allegations over time, from 2.83 allegations per 1,000 inmates in 2005 to 3.18 incidents per 1,000 in 2008. As with total allegations, this trend resulted from an increase in the rate of reported allegations in prisons, from 3.33 incidents per 1,000 inmates in 2005 to 3.82 in 2008. The rate of reported allegations of sexual victimization in jails did not increase significantly between 2005 and 2008. Allegations of inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts account for two-thirds of the total increase in reported allegations of sexual victimization between 2005 and 2008. The increase in the total number of reported allegations of sexual victimization since 2005 is due to an increase in inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts. Unlike the other three types of victimization, allegations of abusive sexual contact increased significantly over time, from 611 incidents in 2005 to 1,417 in 2008 (table 2). This increase accounted for 67% of the overall increase of 1,203 allegations between 2005 and 2008. ------------------------------------------------------------ BJS Surveys of Sexual Victimization in Correctional Facilities Section 4(a)(1) of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to "carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape" (P.L. 108-79). BJS has developed a multiple-measure, multiple-mode data collection strategy to fully implement requirements under PREA, including three surveys relating to inmate sexual victimization. The Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) collects administrative data annually on the incidence of sexual victimization in adult and juvenile correctional facilities. The National Inmate Survey (NIS) and the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NYSYC) gather data on the incidence of sexual assault as reported by inmates in prisons and jails and by youth held in juvenile facilities. ------------------------------------------------------------ Substantiated incidents of sexual victimization State prison administrators reported an increase of 130 substantiated incidents between 2005 and 2008. Administrators of all categories of correctional facilities reported 1,001 substantiated incidents of sexual victimization in 2007 and 931 substantiated incidents in 2008 (table 3). This change in all categories was not statistically significant, nor was the increase in substantiated incidents between 2005 (885 incidents) and 2008. State prisons experienced a 28% increase in substantiated incidents between 2005 (459 incidents) and 2008 (589 incidents). Local and private jails saw no statistically significant change during the same period. The rate of substantiated incidents of sexual violence follows the same pattern as total substantiated incidents. While the overall rate did not change significantly between 2005 and 2008 (for both years, it was 0.4 substantiated incidents per 1,000 inmates), the rate of substantiated incidents in prisons increased from 0.36 incidents per 1,000 inmates in 2005 to 0.43 incidents per 1,000 in 2008. The rate of substantiated incidents in jails did not change significantly between 2005 and 2008. Substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts and staff sexual harassment increased significantly between 2005 and 2008. Substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts declined from 326 in 2005 to 235 in 2008, but this decline was not statistically significant (table 4). Substantiated incidents of abusive sexual contacts increased significantly between 2005 and 2008, from 173 to 272. The increase in substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct from 338 in 2005 to 361 in 2008 was not significant. Substantiated incidents of staff sexual harassment did increase significantly, from 48 in 2005 to 63 in 2008. A greater percentage of allegations of abusive sexual contacts and incidents of staff sexual misconduct were substantiated in local jails than in prisons. Administrators reported that 19% of alleged abusive sexual contacts were substantiated, as were 12% of alleged nonconsensual sexual acts, 19% of alleged incidents of staff sexual misconduct, and 5% of alleged incidents of staff sexual harassment (table 5). The percentage of substantiated allegations varied by type of facility. Local jail administrators reported substantiating a greater percentage of allegations of abusive sexual contacts (24% in jails versus 17% in prisons). Federal and state prison administrators reported that a greater percentage of allegations of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were found to be unsubstantiated than local jail administrators. In prisons, 63% of alleged nonconsensual sexual acts and 61% of abusive sexual contacts were unsubstantiated, while 41% of nonconsensual sexual acts and 46% of abusive sexual contacts in jails were unsubstantiated. The same was true of incidents of staff sexual misconduct: 58% of alleged incidents were found to be unsubstantiated in prisons, compared to 39% in local jails. Incident-level findings For each substantiated incident of sexual victimization, administrators were asked to fill out a form that collected incident-level characteristics, such as the age and sex of the victim, the number of perpetrators, any injuries to the victim, the time and location of the victimization, and sanctions imposed on the perpetrator. Inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization Females were disproportionately victimized by inmates in state and federal prisons and local jails. Females represent 7% of sentenced prison inmates but accounted for 21% of all victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in federal and state prisons***Footnote 1 See Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008 Statistical Tables, BJS Web, 8 April 2009. *** (table 6). Similarly, females account for 13% of inmates in local jails but 32% of all victims. ***Footnote 2 See Jail Inmates at Midyear 2008 Statistical Tables, BJS Web, 31 March 2009.*** Victims and perpetrators of nonconsensual acts were more likely to be younger than 25, compared to victims and perpetrators of abusive sexual contacts. About 42% of victims of nonconsensual sexual acts and 31% of perpetrators were younger than 25, compared to 33% of victims of abusive sexual contacts and 21% of perpetrators. A greater percentage of perpetrators in local jails were younger than 25 compared to perpetrators in prisons. Perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in local jails were more likely to be under 25 (38%) than perpetrators in prisons (17%). Perpetrators in prisons were more likely than perpetrators in local jails to be ages 25-39 (48% in prisons compared to 39% in local jails) and 40 or older (35% compared to 23%). About 1 in 9 substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were committed by more than one perpetrator. Approximately 12% of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were committed by two or more perpetrators, but this varied by facility and incident type. Two or more perpetrators committed a greater percentage of substantiated incidents in local jails (14%) than in prisons (9%). In addition, two or more perpetrators committed a greater percentage of nonconsensual sexual acts (16%) than abusive sexual contacts (7%). About 1 in 5 incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization resulted in a victim injury. Under a fifth (18%) of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization resulted in an injury. There was no significant difference in the percentage of incidents resulting in an injury in prisons compared to local jails. There was a difference by incident type: nonconsensual sexual acts were significantly more likely to result in an injury (28%) than abusive sexual contacts (8%). Nonconsensual sexual acts were more likely than abusive sexual contacts to occur in the early morning hours (midnight to 6 a.m.). Abusive sexual contacts occurred more often during the day (6 a.m. to 6 p.m.) than nonconsensual sexual acts. About 32% of nonconsensual sexual acts occurred between midnight and 6 a.m., compared to 12% of abusive sexual contacts. Roughly 22% of abusive sexual contacts occurred between 6 a.m. and noon (compared to 17% of nonconsensual sexual acts), and 36% occurred between noon and 6 p.m. (compared to 24% of nonconsensual sexual acts). Solitary confinement was used most often as a sanction against perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization. Solitary confinement was the most frequent sanction imposed on perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, but the distribution of sanctions imposed varied by facility and incident type. Perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in local jails were more likely to receive legal action (51%) than were perpetrators in prisons (26%). These legal actions included arrest (22% in jail compared to 3% in prison) and referral for prosecution (34% compared to 25%). Perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization were also more likely to be placed in a higher custody level within the facility (33%) in local jails compared to prisons (22%). Perpetrators of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization in prisons were more likely than perpetrators in local jails to be placed in solitary confinement (77% in prisons compared to 67% in jails), transferred to another facility (23% compared to 9%), receive a loss of good time or increase in bad time (22% compared to 6%), and confined to their cells (14% compared to 10%). Sanctions were more severe for nonconsensual sexual acts than for abusive sexual contacts. Perpetrators were subject to legal action for 41% of nonconsensual sexual acts, compared to 23% of abusive sexual contacts. They were referred for prosecution for 36% of nonconsensual sexual acts, compared to 17% of abusive sexual contacts. About 32% of nonconsensual sexual acts resulted in the perpetrator being placed in a higher custody level, compared to 21% of abusive sexual contacts, and 27% of the more severe acts resulted in the perpetrator being transferred to another facility, compared to 17% of abusive sexual contacts. Staff-on-inmate sexual victimization Females were disproportionately victimized by staff in state and federal prisons and local jails. Following the same pattern as inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, females account for a greater proportion of victims of staff-on-inmate victimization than they do in the overall inmate population. As previously stated, females account for 7% of sentenced prison inmates, but represent about a third of all victims of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization in federal and state prisons (32%) (table 7). Similarly, females represent only 13% of inmates in local jails but over half of all victims of staff-on-inmate victimization (56%). Females perpetrated the majority of incidents of staff sexual misconduct, while males perpetrated the majority of incidents of staff sexual harassment. About 61% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct and 21% of incidents of staff sexual harassment were perpetrated by females. Males perpetrated 39% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct and over three-quarters of incidents of staff sexual harassment (79%). Over half of incidents of staff sexual harassment were reported by the victim. In over half the incidents of staff sexual harassment (58%), the victim reported the incident to administrators, compared to 26% of the incidents of staff sexual misconduct. Incidents of staff sexual misconduct were more likely than incidents of staff sexual harassment to be reported by an individual other than the victim, including another inmate (23% of staff sexual misconduct compared to 13% of staff sexual harassment), the family of the victim (29% compared to 21%), or a correctional officer or frontline staff (8% compared to 2%). Incidents of staff sexual misconduct were also more likely than incidents of staff sexual harassment to be discovered during an unrelated investigation (4% compared to 2%) or in some other way, such as through incriminating photos or notes (15% compared to 8%). About 2 in 5 incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization occurred in a program service area. The most common location for staff-on-inmate sexual victimization was in a program service area*** Footnote 3 Program service areas include the commissary, kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, workshop, and hallway.*** (38%), followed by a victim's cell or room (17%), another area (17%), outside of the facility (12%), in a dormitory (10%), in a common area (10%), and in a staff area (10%). Incidents of staff sexual misconduct were more likely to occur in a staff area (11%) or another area (18%) than incidents of staff sexual harassment (6% and 10%, respectively). Incidents of staff sexual harassment were more likely to occur in a dormitory (14%) or common area (14%) than incidents of staff sexual misconduct (9% for both). More incidents of staff sexual victimization occurred during daytime hours (6 a.m. to 6 p.m.) in federal and state prisons than in jails. More incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization occurred in federal and state prisons either between 6 a.m. and noon (45%) or noon and 6 p.m. (51%) than in local jails (21% and 36%, respectively). More incidents of staff sexual victimization occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight in local jails (51%) than in federal and state prisons (35%). -------------------------------------------------- To date, BJS has released the following reports on inmate sexual victimization in adult correctional facilities: * Sexual Victimization in Prisons and Jails Reported by Inmates, 2008-09 (NCJ 231169) * Sexual Victimization in Local Jails Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 221946) * Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 (NCJ 219414) * Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006 (NCJ 218914) * Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005 (NCJ 214646) * Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333) ----------------------------------------------------- Methodology Sampling The sampling designs for the 2007 and 2008 SSV surveys varied according to the different facilities covered under PREA. The following designs were used: Federal and state prisons In both 2007 and 2008, the survey included the Federal Bureau of Prisons and all 50 state adult prison systems. Prison administrators were directed to report only on incidents of sexual victimization that occurred within publicly operated adult prison facilities and to exclude incidents involving inmates held in local jails, privately operated facilities, and facilities in other jurisdictions. Privately operated state and federal prisons In 2007, a sample of 42 privately operated state and federal prison facilities was drawn to produce a 10% sample of the 417 private prisons identified by the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. Facilities were sorted by average daily population (ADP) in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2005. Five facilities with ADPs greater than 2,145 inmates were selected with certainty because of their size.*** Footnote 4 These facilities were given a 100% chance of selection in each sample because of their size.*** The remaining facilities were sorted by region (i.e., Northeast, Midwest, South, or West), state, and ADP, and 37 facilities were sampled systematically with probability proportional to their size.*** Footnote 5 The chance of selection was directly related to the size of the facility (i.e., within each stratum, facilities with larger ADPs had a greater chance of selection than facilities with smaller ADPs).***(See "National estimates and accuracy," page 11.) In 2008, BJS increased the sample from 42 to 85 privately operated prison facilities with the intention of increasing the precision of private prison estimates. As in 2007, facilities were ranked by ADP in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2005. The 33 facilities with an ADP of at least 1,000 inmates were included with certainty in the 2008 SSV. The remaining facilities were sorted by region, state, and ADP, and 52 facilities were sampled systematically with probability proportional to their size. Three privately operated prisons selected for the 2008 survey closed prior to data collection: * Pacific Furlough Facility, CA * Horizon Center Community Corrections Center, NY * Community Residential Treatment Services, OH. Public jails In 2007, a sample of 500 publicly operated jail facilities was selected based on data reported in the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates. First, the third-largest jail jurisdiction in 44 states and the District of Columbia was selected.*** Footnote 6 Six states have combined jail-prison systems: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.*** This minimized overlap with the 2005 and 2006 studies, in which the largest and second-largest jurisdictions in those states were chosen with certainty. An additional 132 jail jurisdictions with ADPs greater than or equal to 1,000 inmates were also selected with certainty. The remaining 2,745 jail jurisdictions on the frame were then grouped into three strata. The first stratum contained 1,527 jails with an ADP of 79 or fewer inmates, the second stratum included 796 jails with an ADP of 80 to 253 inmates, and the third stratum included 422 jails with an ADP of 254 to 999 inmates. Jail jurisdictions in these three strata were sorted by region, state, and ADP and selected systematically with probability proportional to size, resulting in 72 selections from stratum one, 85 from stratum two, and 165 from stratum three. Of the 500 selected jail jurisdictions, two did not respond to the survey: * Marion-Walthall County Regional Correctional Facility, MS * Desoto County Jail, MS. Three jail jurisdictions selected for the 2007 survey closed prior to data collection: * Haskell County Jail, TX * Galena City Jail, KS * Montevallo City Jail, AL. In 2008, a sample of 500 publicly-operated jail facilities was selected based on data reported in the 2007 Deaths in Custody Annual Summary on Inmates under Jail Supervision. First, the largest jail jurisdiction in 44 states and the District of Columbia was selected to minimize overlap with the 2006 and 2007 studies, in which the second-and third-largest jurisdictions were chosen with certainty, respectively. Another 130 jail jurisdictions with ADPs greater than or equal to 1,000 inmates were selected with certainty. The remaining 2,707 jail jurisdictions on the frame were then grouped into three strata. The first stratum contained 1,483 jails with an ADP of 84 or fewer inmates, the second stratum included 792 jails with an ADP of 85 to 263 inmates, and the third stratum included 432 jails with an ADP of 264 to 999 inmates. As in 2007, jail jurisdictions in these three strata were sorted by region, state, and ADP and selected systematically with probability proportional to their size, resulting in 63 selections from stratum one, 70 from stratum two, and 191 from stratum three. Of the 500 selected jail jurisdictions, 6 did not respond to the survey: * St. Clair County Jail, AL * Welsh City Jail, LA * Anson County Jail, NC * Northumberland County Department of Corrections, PA * Hudspeth County Jail, TX * Marathon County Adult Detention, WI. Two selected jail jurisdictions closed in 2008: * Tyrrell County Jail, NC * Trenton City Jail, MO. Private jails In 2007, a sample of 5 privately operated jails was selected based on data reported in the 2005 Census of Jail Inmates. The 42 private facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by region, state, and ADP, and 5 jails were systematically sampled with probability proportional to size. In 2008, a sample of 5 privately operated jails was selected based on data reported in the 2007 Deaths in Custody Annual Summary on Inmates under Jail Supervision. Like 2007, the 41 private facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by region, state, and ADP, and 5 jails were systematically sampled with probability proportional to size. Other correctional facilities Three additional censuses of other correctional facilities were drawn to represent * all adult jails in Indian country in 2007 *** Footnote 7 A sample of 15 of the 63 adult jails in Indian country was taken in 2008 rather than a census.*** * all facilities operated by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marines in the continental United States * all facilities operated by ICE. Of the 66 other correctional facilities surveyed in 2007, seven did not respond to the survey: * Fort Peck Police Department and Adult Detention, MT * Standing Rock Law Enforcement and Adult Detention, ND * Turtle Mountain Law Enforcement and Adult Detention, ND * Laguna Tribal Police and Detention Center, NM * Eastern Nevada Law Enforcement and Adult Detention, NV * Sisseton-Wahpeton Law Enforcement and Adult Detention, SD * ICE Port Isabel Service Processing Center, TX. Five of the 74 other correctional facilities surveyed in 2008 did not respond to the survey: * Navajo Department of Corrections, Tuba City, AZ * ICE Krome Service Processing Center, FL * ICE LaSalle Detention Facility, LA * Blackfeet Adult Detention Center, MT * ICE Aguadilla Service Processing Center, Puerto Rico. Two other correctional facilities sampled for the 2007 survey closed prior to data collection: * ICE San Pedro Processing Center, CA * Pine Ridge Police Department and Adult Detention, SD. One other correctional facility sampled for the 2008 survey closed prior to data collection: * ICE San Pedro Processing Center, CA. Data for each correctional system and sampled facility are displayed in appendix tables 19-30. In each table, a measure of population size has been included to provide a basis for comparing victimization counts. Reports of sexual victimization Since BJS first developed uniform definitions of sexual victimization, correctional administrators have significantly enhanced their abilities to report uniform data on sexual victimization. In 2008, administrators in 46 state prison systems were able to report incidents of abusive sexual contacts separately from nonconsensual sexual acts. This was an increase of 4 systems since 2006. One state limited counts of nonconsensual sexual acts to substantiated incidents, and one state limited counts of nonconsensual sexual acts to completed (versus attempted and completed) acts. The majority of state prison systems were able to report data on staff sexual misconduct using survey definitions. Three systems were unable to separate staff sexual harassment from misconduct, and one system did not track incidents of staff sexual harassment in a central database. Public jail administrators were less likely than prison administrators to report sexual victimization based on the definitions provided. About a quarter of public jail jurisdictions did not record abusive sexual contacts separately from the more serious nonconsensual sexual acts in 2008. This is an improvement over the 2006 SSV, in which a third of public jail jurisdictions did not record this information. Ten public jail jurisdictions did not record allegations of abusive sexual contacts, 12 based counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on completed acts only, and 15 based counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on substantiated allegations only. Finally, 5 public jail jurisdictions did not keep records on allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts. Published estimates are not adjusted to account for systems and facilities that were unable to meet BJS reporting standards. However, these systems and facilities are footnoted in appendix tables 19-30. National estimates and accuracy Survey responses were weighted to produce national estimates by type of correctional facility. Data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, all state systems, 2008 jails in Indian country, military facilities, and ICE facilities received a weight of 1.00, since these systems and facilities were all selected with certainty. Among public jails, private jails, private prisons, and 2007 jails in Indian country, facilities were assigned a weight equal to the inverse of their probability of selection. Estimates for responding public jail jurisdictions were adjusted for nonresponse by multiplying each estimate by the ratio of the total ADP in all jurisdictions within the jail's sampling stratum to the ADP among participating jurisdictions within the jail's sampling stratum. Survey estimates for public jails, private jails, and private prisons are subject to sampling error. The estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate and the size of the base population. Estimated standard errors were calculated using SUDAAN.*** Footnote 8. See Research Triangle Institute (2008). SUDAAN Language Manual Release 10.0. Research Triangle Park, NC.*** For summary statistics, the 2007 and 2008 data files were treated separately. For each file, the sampling information was retained by treating each facility-level sample as its own stratum (or multiple strata in the case of the public jail sample), for a total of 10 strata in 2007 and 10 strata in 2008. The 2007 and 2008 incident report data files were combined and treated as one data file. The sampling information for each year was retained by treating each facility-level sample as its own stratum (or multiple strata in the case of the public jail samples), for a total of 19 strata across both years. A finite population correction was utilized for both summary- and incident-level estimation. Estimates of the standard errors are included in appendix tables 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18. These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, rates, and percentages), as well as differences between these estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percentage of male victims of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization is approximately 77% plus or minus 1.96 times 1.2% resulting in a 95% confidence interval of 74.6% to 79.4%. Tests of statistical significance 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 for significance at the 95% level of confidence. For example, the difference in the total number of incidents of sexual victimization in 2005 (6,241 incidents) compared to 2008 (7,444), is statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence (table 1). In all tables providing detailed comparisons, statistical differences at the 95% level of confidence have been designated with two asterisks (**). The comparison group has been designated with one asterisk (*). Appendix tables Appendix tables 1-6 have more detailed information on characteristics of inmate-on-inmate incidents. Characteristics of staff-on-inmate sexual victimization are described in table 5 and appendix tables 7-18. Detailed tabulations of the survey results by system and sampled facility are presented in appendix tables 19 30. All appendix tables are available on the BJS website at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svraca0708.pdf. Office of Justice Programs * Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods * http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. James P. Lynch is Director. This Special Report was written by Paul Guerino under the supervision of Allen J. Beck. Ebony Nicholson, Kyle Harbacek, and Allina Boutilier verified this report. Brian R. Higgins (Lockheed Martin) and Jill Duncan edited the report, Barbara Quinn produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris J. James. January 2011, NCJ 231172 This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS website: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2204. 1/19/2011/ JER/ 4:30