U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2005-06 July 2008, NCJ 215337 ---------------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrjca0506.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., BJS Statistician Devon B. Adams, Policy Analyst, and Paul Guerino, Statistician ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop new national data collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence within adult and juvenile correctional facilities. This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(1) of the Act for the collection and reporting of data in juvenile facilities. In July 2005, BJS published Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333), detailing the results from the first-ever national survey of administrative records on sexual violence in adult and juvenile correctional facilities. This report provides the findings from surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 in juvenile residential placement facilities only. BJS, with the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau as its collection agent, conducted the 2005 Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV) between January and June 15, 2006, and the 2006 SSV between January 1 and July 31, 2007. These surveys of state juvenile correctional systems and local or private juvenile facilities were designed to measure the number of reported incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence and staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and harassment. The surveys provide an understanding of what corrections officials know, what information is recorded, how allegations are handled, where incidents occur, and how officials respond to allegations brought to their attention. The surveys also collected detailed information on substantiated incidents. Items included the circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, the type of physical force or pressure used, victim injuries, and sanctions imposed. The administrative records surveys were not designed to rank systems or facilities. During 2007, BJS completed development and testing of methodologies for the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) that rely on reports of victimization provided directly from youth. These methodologies utilize self-administered surveys that offer anonymity for victims to report their experiences. The survey will be administered using audio computer- assisted self interview procedures. Youth will use headphones to follow audio instructions and a touch-screen to interact with a computer-assisted questionnaire. When NSYC is completed by yearend 2008, these methodologies are expected to provide the data needed to permit reliable facility-level comparisons. In 2004, BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual violence. Incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts (the most serious violent forms of sexual assault) or abusive sexual contacts (less serious, but unwanted). Incidents involving staff were separated into staff sexual misconduct (any act of a sexual nature directed toward a youth) or staff sexual harassment (repeated verbal statements of a sexual nature to a youth). For this report, all such incidents are considered sexual violence. (See Methodology for detailed definitions.) Detailed tabulations of the results of the 2005 and 2006 SSV surveys are presented by state systems and sampled facilities in appendix tables 1a through 5d, available on the BJS web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svrjca0506.pdf. 2005 and 2006 surveys covered all state systems and a representative sample of local and private facilities The surveys included all state-operated juvenile systems. In addition, a representative sample was drawn from locally and privately operated facilities. Entire systems were selected to maximize reporting coverage. Local and private facilities were sampled to ensure at least one in each state and with probabilities proportionate to the number of youth assigned beds at the time of the last facility census. (See Methodology for a description of sampling procedures.) As enumerated in the most recent Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), there were 2,746 locally or privately operated juvenile facilities in 2004. ***Footnote 1. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census is conducted every two years by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice***. Altogether, the administrative surveys covered 279 local or private facilities in 2005 and 330 in 2006, which met the requirement of sampling not less than 10% of facilities covered under the Act. More than 2,000 allegations of sexual violence reported each year in juvenile facilities Reports of sexual violence varied across state juvenile systems. Every state except Montana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming reported at least one allegation. Among sampled local or private facilities, 87 (of 262 participating facilities) reported an allegation in 2005 and 100 (of 309 facilities) reported an allegation in 2006. (See Methodology for the list of non-participating facilities.) Taking into account weights for sampled juvenile facilities, the estimated total number of allegations for the nation was 2,047 in 2005 and 2,025 in 2006 (table 1). Expressed as rates, there were 16.7 allegations of sexual violence per 1,000 youth held in juvenile facilities in 2005 and 16.8 per 1,000 in 2006. The rate of allegations of sexual violence in state juvenile correctional systems was more than 5 percentage points higher than the rate in local or private facilities in 2006 and slightly less (nearly 4 points higher) in 2005. These differences were statistically significant at the 95% confidence level in 2006 but were not significant in 2005. (See Methodology for calculation of confidence intervals.) About 36% of the reported allegations of sexual violence in state juvenile systems and local or private juvenile facilities involved youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts; 21% involved youth-on-youth abusive sexual contacts; 32% involved staff sexual misconduct; and 11% involved staff sexual harassment (table 2). About 1 in 5 allegations of sexual violence were substantiated Allegations of sexual violence were classified as * substantiated, if they were determined to have occurred * unsubstantiated, if the evidence was insufficient to make a final determination that they occurred * unfounded, if they were determined not to have occurred * investigation ongoing, if a final determination had not been made at the time of the data collection. Upon completion of an investigation, 38% of youth-on-youth and 46% of staff-on-youth allegations of sexual violence were determined to have been unfounded (table 3). Another 40% of the youth-on-youth allegations and 35% of the staff-on-youth allegations were unsubstantiated. A total of 21% of youth-on-youth allegations and 18% of the staff-on-youth allegations were substantiated. Overall, there were 732 substantiated incidents of youth sexual violence in juvenile facilities (table 4). An estimated 437 incidents involved youth-on-youth and 295 involved staff-on-youth. The observed rates of substantiated incidents of sexual violence were higher instate juvenile systems (3.7 per 1,000 youth)than in local or private juvenile facilities (2.7 per 1,000 youth), but this difference was not statistically significant. The rates of substantiated incidents of sexual violence were higher in juvenile facilities than in adult prisons and jails. In 2005 and 2006, juvenile administrators reported 3.0 substantiated incidents per 1,000 youth. This rate was higher than the number reported in publicly operated local jails (0.52 substantiated incidents per 1,000 inmates) and state prisons (0.46 per 1,000) during 2006.***Footnote 2. See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities,2006 (NCJ 218914) at .*** In part, these differences may reflect the impact of state and local laws that specify that all sexual acts involving youth below certain ages are nonconsensual. In every state, facility staff and administrators are also required by law to record all allegations and report them to law enforcement authorities and to child protective services. Differences between rates of sexual victimization in adult and juvenile facilities may largely be the result of more complete reporting of incidents and more thorough investigations when incidents of sexual violence involve youth. Juvenile authorities provided detail on 90% of substantiated incidents Juvenile administrators were asked to provide detailed information on each substantiated incident of sexual violence. Using a separate incident form, the 2005 and 2006 surveys obtained incident-based data, allowing for an in-depth analysis of sexual violence. Data included details on the circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of physical force, threat of force, pressure used, sanctions imposed, and victim assistance provided. Incident-level data were reported on 660 of the 732 total substantiated incidents (90%). A total of 17 substantiated incidents were missing from state reports, including 7 from Nebraska, 4 from Hawaii, and 2 from Illinois. An additional 55 (weighted) incidents were missing due to the lack of incident-level reporting by 15 sampled local or private juvenile facilities. Since most systems and facilities reported fully, there was no evidence of any selection bias among the 660 incidents. Across all state systems and local or private facilities, incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence accounted for nearly two-thirds of substantiated incidents (table 5). Approximately equal percentages of these incidents were reported as voluntary sexual contact between youth (22%), unwanted touching for sexual gratification (21%), and nonconsensual sexual acts involving force or pressure (21%). Sexual misconduct accounted for the greatest percentage of incidents involving staff (28%), while sexual harassment accounted for the smallest percentage (8%). Data provided on substantiated incidents revealed that -- * Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the victims of sexual violence in state systems and local or private facilities were male and a third (36%) were female (table 6). Females were over represented among victims because at the time of the most recent census in 2006, they represented 15% of youth in residential placement.***Footnote 3. See Sickmund, M., Sladky, T.J., and Kang, W., Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, 2006, at .*** * More than half (54%) of the victims were white, compared to 35% of all youth in juvenile facilities nationwide. * Among victims of sexual violence, 33% were black and 11%, Hispanic; however, among all youth held in residential placement or juvenile correctional facilities in 2006, 40% were black and 20%, Hispanic. * About 46% of victims were age 16 or 17, which was not statistically different from their representation among all youth held (52%). Victims of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence were more likely to be male (73%) than victims of staff-on-youth violence (49%). Victims of staff sexual violence were more likely to be female (51%) than victims of youth-on-youth sexual violence (27%). Nearly 60% of the victims of youth-on-youth sexual violence were age 15 or younger compared to 16% of the victims of staff sexual violence. Victims of staff sexual violence were typically older (65% age 16 or 17 and 19% age 18 or older) than other victims. Most sexual violence occurred outside the victim's room and in the evening More than 60% of victims reported that sexual violence occurred in a location other than their room or dormitory. A quarter of incidents took place in a common area (such as a shower or day room), 19% in a program service area (such as commissary, kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, workshop, hallway, classroom, or clinic), and 17% outside of the facility. A quarter occurred in the victim's room, and 16% in a dormitory (table 7). Youth-on-youth incidents were more likely to occur in the victim's room (37%)or in a common area (32%), compared to staff-on-youth incidents (7% and 13%,respectively). Nearly a third of staff-on-youth incidents occurred outside the facility (31%), and a quarter occurred in a dormitory (24%). While incidents of sexual violence occurred at all times of the day, the majority occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight (44%) or between noon and 6 p.m. (35%). The most common times for youth-on-youth incidents to occur were between noon and 6 p.m. (37%) and 6 p.m. and midnight (36%), while staff-on-youth incidents were most likely to occur between 6 p.m. and midnight (59%). In more than two-thirds of the incidents, the victim or another youth reported the incident. Facility staff completed the initial report in about one-third of substantiated incidents. Juvenile authorities reported that force, threat of force, or pressure was involved in 36% of youth-on-youth incidents (table 8). About the same percentage of incidents (35%) was reported as voluntary. The remainder involved unwanted touching for sexual gratification (32%). Force or threat of force was more common among male victims (32%) of youth-on-youth sexual violence than among female victims (6%). Victims under age 16 were more likely to have been persuaded or talked into participating in the sexual act (35%) than victims age 16 or older (13%). A third of older victims had been injured, physically forced, held down, or threatened (34%). Approximately 10% of the substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual violence involved force or pressure (not shown). An additional 21% involved sexual harassment (14%), inappropriate touching (5%), or indecent exposure (2%). Two-thirds of the incidents (66%) were characterized as "a romantic relationship" or as "appeared to be willing." (See the BJS web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ssv5.pdf for changes in the reporting options in the 2005 and 2006 surveys.) Regardless of how correctional authorities reported these incidents, they are considered an abuse of power, involve an unknown level of coercion, and as such, classified as sexual violence. Most perpetrators of youth-on-youth sexual violence were male, age 16 or older; most perpetrators of staff misconduct were male, age 25 to 29 Most incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (88%) involved one victim and one perpetrator (not shown). Overall, 5% of youth-on-youth incidents involved a single victim and multiple perpetrators; 4% involved multiple victims and a single perpetrator; and 3% involved multiple victims and multiple perpetrators. * Perpetrators of youth-on-youth sexual violence were typically male (78%) and age 16 or older (57%). An estimated 49% of the perpetrators were black; 40%, white; and 9%, Hispanic (table 9). * About half of staff perpetrators were male (54%) and a majority were under the age of 30 (63%). Among staff perpetrators, 37% were white; 44%, black; and 19%, Hispanic (table 10). * Supervision staff was involved in 69% of female staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and harassment and in 39% of male staff-on-youth sexual misconduct and harassment. Among incidents involving male staff, more than half were educational or other program staff. * Contract employees were involved in 5% of substantiated staff-on-youth incidents. * Among male staff perpetrators, more than a quarter (27%) had worked at the facility for less than 6 months. Among female staff perpetrators, nearly half (48%) had worked at the facility for less than 6 months. Victims received physical injuries in 12% of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence; about half received some form of medical follow-up Across all substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence, about 1 in 8 victims (12%) sustained an injury (table 11). Anal or vaginal tearing was reported in 8% of the incidents. Victims received medical attention and counseling or mental health treatment in nearly two-thirds of the incidents. Among the most serious incidents (i.e., nonconsensual sexual acts), 52% of the victims were given a medical examination; 10% were administered a rape kit; and 65% were provided counseling or mental health treatment. Nearly half of the victims of staff-on-youth sexual misconduct or harassment received counseling or mental health treatment (table 12). About two-thirds of victims of staff sexual misconduct or harassment in state juvenile correctional systems did not receive medical follow-up, compared to 44% of victims in local or private facilities. One in five victims in local or private facilities was tested for HIV/AIDS (20%) or for another sexually transmitted disease (STD) (20%). The most common responses following a reported incident of youth-on-youth sexual violence was to move the victim within the facility (24%), place the victim in segregation or protective custody (10%), or transfer the youth to another facility (10%). In about half of the incidents (52%), there was no change in the housing assignment or custody level of the victimized youth. Most youth-on-youth perpetrators received legal sanctions or solitary confinement; most staff were arrested, referred for prosecution, or discharged * A legal sanction, including referral to law enforcement, arrest, referral for prosecution, or a new sentence, was imposed on perpetrators in 63% of all substantiated incidents involving youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts and in 27% of the incidents involving abusive sexual contact. * In the most serious incidents, youth perpetrators were moved to solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation (28%) or transferred to another unit/facility (51%). * Even in the least serious incidents (those involving voluntary sexual activity between youth), many perpetrators received legal sanctions (31%), were transferred to another unit/facility (37%), or given solitary/ disciplinary confinement (25%). * Nearly 40% of perpetrators of staff misconduct or harassment were arrested or referred for prosecution (table 13). * Among the multiple types of sanctions imposed on staff, discharge was the most common 67% of the staff were discharged. * Almost all staff perpetrators lost their job in local or private facilities (99%), compared to 75% of staff perpetrators in state systems. Methodology Sampling designs The 2005 and 2006 SSV included all state-operated juvenile residential placement facilities used to house juveniles and youthful offenders, regardless of age or reason for placement. As defined in the 2004 Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), residential placement facilities included detention centers, training schools, long-term secure facilities; reception or diagnostic centers; group homes or halfway houses; boot camps; ranches; forestry camps, wilderness or marine programs, or farms; runaway or homeless shelters; and residential treatment centers for juveniles. All states and the District of Columbia operated a total of 501 juvenile facilities in 2004. Separate samples of locally and privately operated facilities were drawn in accordance with the requirement that BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10 percent of all facilities covered under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003(P.L. 108-79). In the 2005 survey, facilities were first grouped into locally operated facilities (700) and privately operated facilities (2,046) and sampled independently: 1. 37 locally operated facilities were selected because they were the largest in their respective states. 2. 37 other locally operated facilities were selected with probabilities proportionate to size, where the measure of size was the total number of persons assigned to beds in the facility. One was selected with certainty due to its size; 36 were sampled from 8 strata based on region and commitment status. Region had 4 levels (midwest, northeast, south, and west), while commitment status had 2 levels. Detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and shelters were considered non-commitment facilities, and schools, ranches, camps, farms, halfway houses, and group homes were considered commitment facilities. 3. 51 privately operated juvenile facilities were sampled with certainty because they were the largest in their respective states. An additional 4 privately operated facilities were selected with certainty due to their size. 4. 150 of the remaining 1,991 private facilities were sampled from 8 strata defined by region and commitment status. Probabilities of selection were proportionate to size, with equal sample proportions across strata. While 279 non-state facilities were sampled in the 2005 survey, an additional 51 units were included in the sample in 2006, bringing the total number of non-state facilities in the 2006 sample to 330. The sample was expanded to ensure representation of non-state detention facilities. In the 2006 survey, non-state facilities were grouped into 3 categories: locally operated facilities (256), privately operated facilities (1,921)and detention facilities (569): 1. 37 locally operated facilities were sampled with certainty because they were the largest in their respective states, and 1 additional facility was included in the sample based on its size alone. 2. 20 locally operated facilities that were not the largest in their respective states were sampled with probabilities proportionate to size from 2 strata based on commitment status only. 3. 51 privately operated facilities were sampled with certainty as the largest in their respective states, and 1 additional facility was included in the sample based on its size alone. 4. 112 other privately operated facilities were sampled with probabilities proportionate to size from 2 strata defined by commitment status only. 5. 108 non-state detention facilities were sampled. Fourteen facilities were included in the sample based on their sizes alone, while the remaining 94 facilities were stratified by region and selected with probability proportionate to size. Data for each state system and sampled facility are displayed in the Appendix tables. In each table, a measure of population size (based on the number of youth held at yearend) has been provided as a basis of comparison; however, the survey results should not be used to rank systems or facilities. Variations in the number of allegations and substantiated incidents may reflect differences in definitions and reporting criteria, as well as variations in procedures for recording allegations and in the thoroughness of subsequent investigations. Survey participation All state systems and the District of Columbia participated in the surveys in both years. In the 2005 survey, all 74 locally operated facilities and 188 (of 205)privately operated facilities responded to the survey. Among those not responding, 11 had closed or were not eligible. Six facilities refused or did not respond to repeated requests, including: * Wilderness Program for Boys, Enterprise, Alabama * Tuolumne House, Turlock, California * Brown House, Turlock, California * Excelsior Youth Center, Aurora, Colorado * Colorado Boys Ranch, La Junta, Colorado Klingberg Family Centers, Inc., New Britain, Connecticut. In the 2006 survey, 55 (of 58) locally operated facilities, 149 (of 164) privately operated facilities, and 105 (of 108) non-state detention facilities responded. Among nonrespondents, 15 had closed or were not eligible. Seven facilities refused or did not respond to repeated requests, including: Camp John Munz, Lake Hughes, California Camp Karl Holton, San Fernando, California Main Campus, Chatsworth, California Oak Hill Youth Center, District of Columbia Sargent House, Boston, Massachusetts Hennipen County Home School, Minnetonka, Minnesota Buchanan County Academy, St. Joseph, Missouri Definitions of sexual violence In 2004, BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual violence. All incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence involve sexual contacts with any person without his or her consent, or with a person who is unable to 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. The 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. Incidents of staff-on-youth sexual violence are separated into two categories. Staff sexual misconduct includes any behavior or act of a sexual nature, either consensual or nonconsensual, directed toward a youth by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. 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 involves repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to a youth by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. Such statements include demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or profane or obscene language or gestures. National estimates and accuracy Survey responses were weighted to produce national estimates by type of facility. Data from the state juvenile systems received a weight of 1.00, because these systems were all selected (i.e., sampled with certainty). Data from local and private facilities were assigned a weight equal to the inverse of their probabilities of selection. Survey estimates for local and private juvenile facilities are subject to sampling error. The error, as measured by an estimated sampling error, varies by the size of the estimate and the size of the base population. Estimates of the standard errors for selected survey items are presented in tables 14 and 15. These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, rates, and percentages), as well as differences in these estimates. The 95% confidence interval around the number of allegations of sexual violence in local or private juvenile facilities in 2006 is approximately 1,239 plus or minus 1.96 times 216. Statistically, this implies a 95% confidence that the true number of allegations in 2006 was between 816 and 1,661. Detail on substantiated incidents The 2005 and 2006 surveys recorded 405 substantiated incidents of youth sexual violence that is, incidents that were investigated and determined to have occurred. Taking into account the sampling of local and private juvenile facilities, the estimated total number of substantiated incidents for the U.S. was 732. Juvenile authorities provided detail on an estimated 660 incidents (or 90% of all substantiated incidents). Through the use of a separate incident form, the survey collected details on circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of force, threat of force, pressure used, sanctions imposed, and victim assistance provided. Because the number of substantiated incidents were relatively infrequent (2.4 per 1,000 youth in 2006 and 5.7 per 1,000 youth in 2005), and because the standard errors for estimates in non-state facilities were relatively large, the survey results for each year were combined to provide more accurate estimates. Standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around these combined survey estimates. For each combined estimate, the standard error may be calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each standard error squared in each survey year. The standard error for the number of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual violence in 2005 was 45.2 in 2005 and 27.7 in 2006. The pooled standard error was 53.0 (or the square root of 45.22 plus 27.72). Statistically, this implies a 95% confidence that the true number of substantiated youth-on-youth incidents in 2005 and 2006 was 439 plus or minus 1.96 times 53.0 (between 335 and 543). The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey Sedgwick is the director. Allen J. Beck, Devon B. Adams, and Paul Guerino wrote this report. Laura M. Maruschak provided statistical assistance. Georgette Walsh edited the report, Tina Dorsey produced the report, and Jayne Robinson prepared the report for final printing, under the supervision of Doris J.James. Greta B. Clark, directed the data collection and processing, under the supervision of Charlene M. Sebold and Pamela H. Butler, Governments Division, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Shannon James, Kathryn DiMeglio, Nicole Adolph, Patricia D. Torreyson, and Garry Smith assisted in the data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the facility samples and provided sampling weights. July 2008 NCJ 215337 This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: . Office of Justice Programs Innovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov 7/30/2008 /JER