U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics ------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5560 This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=63 ------------------------------------------------------- ************** Special Report ************** Sexual Victimization Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2007–12 Allen J. Beck and Ramona R. Rantala, BJS Statisticians ************************************************************ ************** Highlights ************** * In 2012, juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems and 613 in local or private facilities and Indian country facilities. * The number of allegations per year has fluctuated in state juvenile systems and the rate more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 youth in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012. * In locally and privately operated facilities, the number of allegations dropped from 2009 to 2011 and then began to rise in 2012. Based on 2-year rolling averages, the rate in 2012 was 13.5 per 1,000 youth, up from 7.2 per 1,000 in 2010. * From 2007 to 2012, nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization of youth were reported in state or local and private facilities. Fifty-five percent involved youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 45% involved staff-on-youth sexual victimization. * Upon investigation, 25% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual victimization and 10% of the allegations of staff-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated during the 6-year period. * Relative to the number of youth held, the rates of sexual victimization were significantly higher in state juvenile systems (5.9 per 1,000 youth) than in local or private facilities (2.3 per 1,000) during the 6-year period. * Across state systems and in locally or privately operated facilities, youth-on-youth sexual victimization accounted for more than three-quarters (76%) of substantiated incidents from 2007 to 2012. * Fewer than a fifth (18%) of substantiated incidents were reported as nonconsensual sexual acts between youth, involving force or threat of force and penetration, and more than a third (35%) were reported as abusive sexual contact, involving unwanted touching for sexual gratification. * Force or threat of force was involved in nearly a quarter (22%) of youth-on-youth substantiated incidents. * Victims were physically injured in 5% of substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, and the majority of all victims (61%) received some form of medical follow-up. * Sixty-four percent of perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct and 31% of perpetrators of staff sexual harassment were female. * Among all substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct between 2007 and 2012, 64% involved a sexual relationship that “appeared to be willing.” These incidents were considered an abuse of power, with an unknown level of coercion, and were illegal. * An estimated 13% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved unwanted touching for sexual gratification, 9% involved pressure or abuse of power, and 6% involved indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyeurism. * The most commonly imposed sanctions for staff sexual misconduct were loss of job (in 92% of incidents) and arrest and referral for prosecution (51%). * Nearly half of the staff (49%) involved in sexual harassment of juveniles lost their jobs, 43% were reprimanded or disciplined, 5% were demoted, and 4% were transferred to another facility. About 16% of the perpetrators of staff sexual harassment were arrested or referred for prosecution. ************************************************************ On behalf of BJS, staff of the U.S. Census Bureau mailed survey forms to correctional administrators in state juvenile systems, juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country, and a sample of locally or privately operated juvenile correctional facilities. The administrators provided summary counts of allegations and substantiated incidents for each survey year. They also completed a separate form for each substantiated incident, providing details about the victim, perpetrator, and circumstances surrounding the incident. Administrators were given the option of mailing back a completed form or completing it on the Internet. Data collection forms can be accessed on the BJS website. Each sexual act, as defined by BJS, is classified by the perpetrator who carried it out (i.e., inmate or staff) and the type of act. Administrators provided counts for each of the four types of sexual victimization that occurred during the prior calendar year: youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, youth- on-youth abusive sexual contact, staff sexual misconduct, and staff sexual harassment. (See text box, Defining sexual victimization.) ************************************************************ ****************************** Defining sexual victimization ****************************** To define sexual victimization under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–79), the Bureau of Justice Statistics uses uniform definitions that classify each sexual act by the perpetrator who carried out the incident (i.e., youth or staff) and the type of act. Youth-on-youth sexual victimization involves sexual contact with a person without his or her consent or with a person who is unable to consent or refuse. Nonconsensual sexual acts are the most serious victimizations, and include-- * contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight; 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. Abusive sexual contacts are less serious victimizations, and include-- * intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person; and * incidents in which the intent was to sexually exploit (rather than to harm or debilitate). Staff-on-youth sexual victimization includes both consensual and nonconsensual acts perpetrated on a youth by staff. Staff includes an employee, volunteer, contractor, official visitor, or other agency representative. Family, friends, and other visitors are excluded. Staff sexual misconduct includes any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender 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 verbal statements or include comments of a sexual nature to a juvenile or youthful offender by staff. Such statements include-- * demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or * repeated profane or obscene language or gestures. ************************************************************ For each type of victimization, juvenile correctional administrators indicated how many of the allegations were substantiated (determined to have occurred), unsubstantiated (insufficient evidence to make a final determination), unfounded (determined not to have occurred), and still under investigation. The administrators then completed a separate form for each substantiated incident, providing details about the victim, perpetrator, and circumstances surrounding the incident. In each year, survey responses were weighted to produce national estimates for all state systems, locally and privately operated juvenile facilities, and juvenile facilities in Indian country. Weights for locally and privately operated facilities were adjusted for nonresponse by multiplying the initial sampling weights in each stratum by the ratio of the sum of the weights for active facilities in the stratum to the sum of the weights for participating facilities. (See Methodology for a description of sampling procedures and weighting.) Detailed tabulations for state systems and sampled facilities for each year are presented in the companion report, Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007–12 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 249143, BJS web, January 2016) which provides unweighted counts of the number of allegations and substantiated incidents by type of sexual victimization. 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. Between 2007 and 2012, BJS also conducted the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC), which relies on reports of victimization directly from youth. First conducted in 2008–09 and again in 2012, the NSYC uses methodologies that provide the data needed to permit reliable facility- and state-level comparisons. The NSYC is administered using audio computer-assisted self-interview procedures, which allow victims to report their experiences anonymously. Youth use headphones to follow audio instructions and a touch screen to interact with a computer-assisted questionnaire. For facility- and state-level rankings, see Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 (NCJ 241708, BJS web, June 2013). ************************************* Allegations of sexual victimization ************************************* From 2005 to 2012, the rate of allegations of sexual victimization rose steadily in state systems but varied in local and private facilities ********************************************* State juvenile correctional administrators reported 865 allegations of sexual victimization in 2012, a significant increase over the 735 allegations reported in 2011 (table 1). The annual number of allegations has fluctuated, rising from 771 in 2005 to 912 in 2007, then dropping to 690 in 2010. At the same time, the number of youth held in state juvenile systems declined sharply, from 38,580 at yearend 2006 to 19,095 at yearend 2012 (not shown). As a result, the rate of allegations per 1,000 youth held in state juvenile systems more than doubled, from 19 per 1,000 in 2005 to 47 per 1,000 in 2012 (figure 2). In locally and privately operated juvenile facilities, the estimated number of allegations of sexual victimization dropped sharply after 2008 and then began to rise in 2012. National estimates, based on reports from administrators in sampled locally and privately operated juvenile facilities and in Indian country facilities, are subject to survey sampling error. However, even after smoothing year-to-year variations by relying on 2-year moving averages, the number of allegations dropped from approximately 1,247 per year between 2005 and 2008 to 382 by 2011. (See appendix table 1 for standard errors for each 2-year estimate.) The declining number of youth held partially explained the drop in the reported allegations of sexual victimization in local or private juvenile facilities. On census day in October 2006, local and private juvenile facilities held 57,677 youth; by 2012, they held 38,542 youth ***Footnote 1 Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., and Sladky, A. (2009). Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006: Selected Findings (NCJ 228128). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., and Sladky, A. (2015). Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2012: Selected Findings (NCJ 247207). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.***. Administrators in these facilities reported about 15 to 18 allegations of sexual victimization per 1,000 youth each year from 2005 to 2009. The rates declined to 7 per 1,000 in 2010 and 8 per 1,000 in 2011, then increased to 14 per 1,000 in 2012. The reasons for the sharp contrast between rates of allegations of sexual victimization in state juvenile systems (47 per 1,000 in 2012) and those in local or private facilities (14 per 1,000) are not known. The rates may reflect differences in the types of youth held in these facilities, with state systems holding youth who have more serious behavioral problems and other risk factors associated with sexual victimization. The rates might also reflect differences in facility or staff characteristics--such as size, crowding, understaffing, or inadequate training or management--that are associated with sexual victimization. The differing rates may also be due to variations in reporting capabilities. Most state systems are able to report on the four types of allegations of sexual victimization in the SSV, while record systems in locally and privately operated facilities might be less able to report on the four types of allegations separately. (See Methodology for reporting capabilities.) Nearly 9,500 allegations of sexual victimization were reported from 2007 to 2012 ********************************************* Correctional administrators in state juvenile systems reported more than 4,900 allegations of sexual victimization between 2007 and 2012 (table 2). Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, administrators of locally and privately operated juvenile facilities and in Indian country facilities reported more than 4,500 allegations. Thirty-eight percent of the reported allegations were for staff sexual misconduct and 7% were for staff sexual harassment. About 29% of the allegations involved youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts, the most serious form of sexual victimization among youth, and 26% involved youth-on-youth abusive sexual contact. Staff sexual misconduct accounted for nearly half (47%) of all allegations in state systems, compared to less than a third (29%) in local or private facilities. Youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts represented a higher percentage of allegations reported in local or private facilities (40%) than in state systems (18%). Allegations of staff sexual harassment were less common, accounting for 10% of all allegations in state systems and 4% in local or private facilities and in Indian country facilities. Most allegations of sexual victimization were unsubstantiated or unfounded ********************************************* Based on completed investigations between 2007 and 2012, 53% of youth-on-youth and 49% of staff-on-youth allegations were unsubstantiated (i.e., the evidence was insufficient to determine whether the alleged victimization occurred) (table 3). These investigations determined that about 1 in 5 allegations involving other youth and 2 in 5 allegations involving staff were unfounded (i.e., the investigation determined that the event did not occur). During the 6-year period, 10% of allegations of staff-on- youth sexual victimization were substantiated, compared to 25% of allegations involving youth-on-youth victimization. In 2012, 192 of the estimated 1,477 allegations (13%) of sexual victimization in juvenile facilities were substantiated based on follow-up investigation. A third (32%) of these incidents involved staff sexual misconduct or staff sexual harassment directed toward a juvenile or youthful offender (not shown). During the 6-year period, the outcomes of investigations differed significantly between state juvenile systems and locally or privately operated facilities. In state systems, 32% of the allegations of youth-on-youth sexual victimization were substantiated, compared to 20% in local or private facilities. Approximately 48% of the allegations of staff sexual misconduct or harassment in local or private facilities were determined to be unfounded, compared to 38% in state systems. ************************************************ Substantiated incidents of sexual victimization ************************************************ On average, 281 allegations of sexual victimization were substantiated each year ********************************************* Between 2007 and 2012, there were 1,686 substantiated incidents of youth sexual victimization in juvenile facilities, or approximately 281 each year (table 4). An estimated 1,282 incidents involved youth-on-youth victimizations and 404 involved staff-on-youth victimizations. The number of substantiated incidents was slightly greater in state systems (877) than in local or private facilities (809) including Indian country facilities. Relative to the number of youth held, the rates of sexual victimization were significantly higher in state juvenile systems (5.9 per 1,000 youth) than in local or private facilities (2.3 per 1,000 youth). Juvenile authorities provided details on 97% of substantiated incidents ********************************************* Juvenile correctional administrators were asked to provide detailed information on each substantiated incident of sexual victimization. Using a separate incident form, the SSV obtained incident-based data, allowing for an in-depth analysis of sexual victimization. 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. Incident-level data were reported on 866 of the 877 substantiated incidents (99%) in state systems and 190 of the 208 (unweighted) substantiated incidents (91%) in local or private facilities (including Indian country facilities). Upon investigation, 56 incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization in state systems and 13 incidents in local or private facilities were reported by correctional officials as voluntary and were excluded from the analysis. There was no evidence of reporting bias among the 987 substantiated incidents with detailed data. Most state systems and facilities provided data on all substantiated incidents every year. Data from state juvenile systems were missing in Georgia (7 in 2012), Louisiana (2 in 2009), Illinois (1 in 2010), and the District of Columbia (1 in 2011). Data were missing from local and private facilities in Colorado (4 in 2007 and 2 in 2011), Indiana (6 in 2008), Georgia (3 in 2009), and Wisconsin (3 in 2008). Across all state systems and in local or private facilities, incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization accounted for nearly three-quarters (73%) of substantiated incidents (table 5). Forty-one percent of substantiated incidents in state systems involved abusive sexual contact, compared to 26% in locally or privately operated facilities. Approximately 13% of substantiated incidents in state systems were nonconsensual sexual acts, compared to 25% of incidents in local or private facilities. Sexual misconduct accounted for the largest percentage of incidents involving staff (21%), while sexual harassment accounted for the smallest percentage (6%). Approximately 20% of all substantiated incidents between youth were determined to be voluntary. Correctional authorities reported these incidents because they began as allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contact. Upon investigation, authorities determined these incidents were voluntary; however, the juveniles involved could not legally consent to these acts. Youth-on-youth victimization ******************************* Juvenile correctional administrators reported detailed data on substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, including nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contact. Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, detailed data were provided on 1,031 incidents that occurred between 2007 and 2012. These incidents involved an estimated 1,108 victims and 1,247 perpetrators. The data revealed that-- * Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the victims in state systems and three-quarters (74%) of those in locally or privately operated facilities were male, while about a third (36%) in state systems and a quarter (26%) in locally or privately operated facilities were female (table 6). Females were overrepresented among victims because at the time of the 2011 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, they represented 10% of youth in state systems and 15% of youth in locally or privately operated facilities ***Footnote 2 Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., and Puzzanchera, C. (2015). Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, available at www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/***. * More than half (55%) of all victims were white, compared to a third of all youth held in juvenile facilities (33% in state systems and 32% in local or private facilities). * Among victims, 28% were black and 12% were Hispanic. In comparison, among all youth held in juvenile correctional facilities in 2011, 40% were black and 23% were Hispanic. * Nearly half of all victims (47%) were age 15 or younger, while less than a third (30%) of all youth held nationwide were age 15 or younger. About 60% of victims in local or private facilities were age 15 or younger, compared to 38% of victims in state systems. Nearly 80% of victims and perpetrators of youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts were male ********************************************* Upon investigation, it was determined that most victims of youth- on-youth sexual assault experienced abusive sexual contact (532) or engaged in voluntary sexual acts (294). About a quarter (283) of victims experienced more serious nonconsensual sexual acts involving penetration or contact with the penis, vagina, or anus. Victims of youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts were more likely to be male (80%) than victims of other sexual assaults (64%). Across all forms of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, most perpetrators were male (70% of perpetrators in state systems and 86% in local or private facilities). As with victims, more perpetrators in local or private facilities were age 15 or younger (52%) than perpetrators in state systems (30%). Black youth accounted for 42% of perpetrators, compared to 40% of black youth held nationwide. Approximately 12% of perpetrators of youth-on-youth sexual victimizations were Hispanic, compared to 23% of Hispanic youth held in juvenile facilities overall. Most incidents of sexual victimization occurred outside the victim’s room in a common area or program service area ********************************************* More than 60% of incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization occurred in a location other than the victim’s room or dormitory (table 7). Thirty-seven percent of incidents took place in a common area (such as a shower or day room), 20% in a program service area (such as the commissary, kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, workshop, hallway, classroom, or clinic), and 8% outside of the facility or in transit. A quarter occurred in the victim’s room (25%) and 15% occurred in a dormitory. Youth-on-youth incidents in locally or privately operated facilities (39%) were more likely to occur in the victim’s room, compared to incidents in state systems (15%). More than 40% of incidents in state systems occurred in a common area and 25% occurred in a program service area. While incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization occurred at all times of the day, the majority occurred between 6 p.m. and midnight (39%) or between noon and 6 p.m. (34%). Nonconsensual sexual acts occurred most often between 6 p.m. and midnight (56%), while incidents of abusive sexual contact were spread across a broader timeframe, with the majority occurring between 6 a.m. and noon (34%), noon and 6 p.m. (38%), and 6 p.m. and midnight (29%). In two-thirds of incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, the victim (53%) or another youth (16%) reported the incident. Facility staff made the initial report in about a third of substantiated incidents. About 6% of victims were physically held down by other youth ********************************************* Juvenile correctional authorities reported that force or threat of force was involved in nearly a quarter (22%) of youth-on-youth incidents (table 8). About a third of the incidents (36%) were reported as involuntary (i.e., they involved unwanted touching for sexual gratification without force, threat of force, bribery, or other forms of coercion). Force or threat of force was more common among male victims (27%) of youth-on-youth sexual victimization than among female victims (12%). Victims age 15 or younger (30%) were more likely to have experienced force or threat of force than victims age 16 or older (17%). In about 22% of the incidents, the victims had been talked into it or otherwise persuaded to be involved in the sexual contact or activity. Victims age 15 or younger (29%) were more likely than older victims (17%) to report such forms of pressure. Victims received some form of medical follow-up in more than 60% of all incidents ********************************************* Across all substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization, 1 in 20 victims (5%) sustained an injury (table 9). Fifteen percent of victims of nonconsensual sexual acts were physically injured. The majority of victims (61%) received medical attention. Counseling or mental health treatment was provided in about half of all incidents (51%). Twenty-one percent of victims were given a medical examination, 4% were administered a rape kit, 5% were tested for HIV/AIDS, and 5% were tested for other STDs. Nearly 90% of youth who were victims of nonconsensual sexual acts received medical attention or counseling—34% were given a medical examination, 14% were administered a rape kit, 12% were tested for HIV/AIDS, 12% were tested for other STDs, and 78% received counseling or mental health treatment. Victims of other types of incidents received less medical follow up. About a third of youth involved in voluntary acts (34%) and half of the victims of abusive sexual contact (48%) received counseling or mental health treatment following the incident. The most common responses following a substantiated incident of youth-on-youth sexual victimization was to move the victim within the facility (25%), place the victim in segregation or protective custody (11%), or confine the youth to his or her room (4%). In more than half of the incidents (58%), there was no change in the housing assignment or custody level of the victimized youth. Victims of nonconsensual sexual acts (64%) were more likely to be moved than victims of abusive sexual contact. Eighteen percent were placed in segregation or protective custody, 5% were confined to their room, 36% were moved elsewhere within the facility, and 6% were transferred to another unit or facility. Most youth-on-youth perpetrators of nonconsensual sexual acts received legal sanctions or were placed in solitary confinement or higher levels of custody ********************************************* A legal sanction (including referral to law enforcement, arrest, referral for prosecution, or a new sentence) was imposed on perpetrators in 54% of all substantiated incidents involving youth-on-youth nonconsensual sexual acts and in 23% of the incidents involving abusive sexual contact. Authorities in locally or privately operated facilities (23%) were more likely to refer the incident to law enforcement than were state authorities (5%). In the most serious incidents, youth perpetrators were moved to solitary confinement or disciplinary segregation (25%), placed in higher custody (28%), or transferred to another unit or facility (20%). Even in the least serious incidents (i.e., those involving voluntary sexual activity between youth), many perpetrators received legal sanctions (13%), were transferred to another unit or facility (10%), placed in higher custody (29%), or given solitary or disciplinary confinement (18%). Among the multiple types of sanctions imposed on youth perpetrators, the most common were loss of privileges (31%), loss of good time (14%), and other sanctions (17%), including extra work, receiving a disciplinary report, and mandatory treatment or counseling. Staff-on-youth victimization ****************************** Juvenile administrators reported detailed data on substantiated incidents of staff-on-youth sexual victimization, including staff sexual misconduct and staff sexual harassment. Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, detailed data were provided on 383 incidents that occurred between 2007 and 2012. These incidents involved an estimated 446 victims and 467 staff perpetrators. The data revealed that-- * Females accounted for 10% of all youth held in state systems and 15% of youth held in locally or privately operated facilities in 2011, but represented 38% of victims of staff-on-youth sexual victimization in state systems and 23% of victims in locally or privately operated facilities (table 10). Forty percent of victims of staff sexual harassment were female. * Nearly half of the victims (49%) of staff sexual abuse were white, compared to nearly a third of all youth in juvenile facilities nationwide (32%). * Forty-two percent of victims of staff sexual misconduct and sexual harassment were black and 12% were Hispanic, compared to the proportion of black (40%) and Hispanic (23%) youth held in residential placement or juvenile correctional facilities in 2011. * More than three-quarters of the victims of staff-on-youth sexual abuse were age 16 or older (77%), which was higher than their representation among victims of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (52%) and their representation among youth held in juvenile facilities nationwide (70%). Female staff were more frequently implicated in incidents of sexual misconduct, and male staff were more frequently implicated in incidents of sexual harassment ********************************************* The majority of staff perpetrators were female (55%), and nearly two-thirds were age 34 or younger (61%). However, the sex and age of staff differed by type of incident. Females accounted for 64% of substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and males accounted for 69% of incidents of staff sexual harassment. Perpetrators of staff sexual harassment were older than those involved in sexual misconduct. Approximately 31% of perpetrators of sexual harassment were age 45 or older, compared to 13% of staff involved in sexual misconduct. Nearly half of staff involved in sexual misconduct (46%) were age 29 or younger. For perpetrators of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment combined, 61% were white, 32% were black, and 6% were Hispanic. The involvement of staff by race or Hispanic origin did not differ by type of facility or type of incident. Most perpetrators of staff sexual abuse were supervision staff ********************************************* Supervision staff were responsible for approximately 80% of all incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment. These staff were involved in 86% of substantiated incidents in local or private facilities and 76% in state systems. Educational staff were involved in nearly 10% of substantiated staff-on-youth incidents and medical, health care, and counseling staff were involved in 4%. Full-time or part-time employees (92%) accounted for the majority of perpetrators, 6% were contract employees, and 2% were other employees such as interns and volunteers. The sexual relationship “appeared to be willing” in nearly two-thirds of the incidents of staff sexual misconduct ********************************************* Juvenile correctional authorities reported that sexual contact between the youth and staff “appeared to be willing” in 50% of substantiated incidents (table 11). Few incidents of staff sexual harassment were determined to be willing (2%). When limited to incidents of staff sexual misconduct, 64% of incidents were classified as “appeared to be willing.” Regardless of how juvenile correctional authorities reported these incidents, they were considered an abuse of power, involved an unknown level of coercion, and were illegal. Nine percent of incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved physical force, pressure, or abuse of power. An estimated 13% of incidents of staff sexual misconduct involved unwanted touching for sexual gratification and 6% involved indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or voyeurism. The nature of staff-on-youth sexual victimization also differed by type of facility. Physical force, pressure, or abuse of power were more common among substantiated incidents in local or private facilities (13%) than in state systems (8%). Sexual harassment or repeated verbal statements of a sexual nature were more common among substantiated incidents in state systems (32%) than in local or private facilities (18%). Nearly a third of the incidents of staff sexual misconduct occurred in a program service area ********************************************* The most common location for staff-on-youth sexual misconduct (33%) was in a program service area, such as the commissary, kitchen, storage area, laundry, cafeteria, workshop, classroom, or hallway. Other locations included a common area, such as a dayroom, bathroom, or shower (29%); the victim’s room (20%); or a dormitory (13%). Although the location of incidents varied somewhat among types of facilities, the differences were not statistically significant. Incidents of staff sexual harassment were more likely to occur in a common area (43%) or a dormitory (23%) than were incidents of staff sexual misconduct (29% in a common area and 13% in a dormitory). Incidents of staff sexual victimization occurred at all times of the day ********************************************* Staff sexual victimization occurred at all times of the day. The peak time for staff-on-youth incidents to occur was between 6 p.m. and midnight (46%) for staff sexual misconduct and between noon and 6 p.m. (48%) for staff sexual harassment. A higher percentage of incidents of staff-on-youth sexual victimization occurred between noon and 6 p.m. in state systems (45%) than in local or private facilities (21%). When reported, staff sexual victimization was reported by the victim or another youth, rather than by staff ********************************************* In more than half of the incidents of staff sexual victimization, either the victim (46%) or another youth (17%) reported the incident to correctional authorities. Line staff reported 20% of the incidents and administrative staff reported 13% of the incidents. The person reporting the incident to authorities differed depending on the type of incident. Significantly fewer incidents of staff sexual misconduct were reported by victims (39%), compared to incidents of staff sexual harassment (69%). Incidents of staff sexual misconduct (13%) were more likely than incidents of sexual harassment (2%) to have been discovered from an anonymous report, hotline report, interception of a letter, community member, or relative or family member. Less than half of the victims of staff sexual misconduct received counseling or mental health treatment ********************************************* More than half of the victims of staff sexual misconduct (52%) did not receive any medical follow-up (table 12). Victims of staff sexual misconduct in local or private facilities (60%) were more likely than victims in state systems (36%) to receive medical follow-up. The most common type of medical follow-up after an incident of staff sexual misconduct was counseling or mental health treatment (42%). Victims of staff sexual misconduct in local or private facilities (54%) were more likely than victims in state systems (29%) to receive counseling or mental health treatment. Among all facilities, 10% of the victims were given a medical examination, 6% were tested for HIV/AIDS, and 7% were tested for other STDs. None of the victims sustained physical injuries from staff-on-youth sexual misconduct (not shown). Staff perpetrators lost their job or faced legal action in 82% of incidents ********************************************* Staff were discharged in 58% of substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct or harassment, resigned in 25% of substantiated incidents, and were arrested or referred for prosecution in 43% of incidents (table 13). In approximately 21% of incidents, staff were reprimanded, disciplined, demoted, or transferred to another facility. More staff were discharged or resigned from local or private facilities (90%) than from state systems (76%). Sanctions against staff differed by type of incident. The most commonly imposed sanctions for staff sexual misconduct were loss of job (92%) and legal action (51%). Staff sexual harassment resulted in loss of job (49%) and sanctions other than legal action (52%), including reprimand or discipline (42%), demotion or diminished responsibilities (5%), and transfer to another facility (4%). About 16% of the perpetrators of sexual harassment received legal sanctions. *************** Methodology *************** Sample designs *************** The Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV), conducted each year from 2007 to 2012, included all state-operated juvenile residential placement facilities used to house juveniles and youthful offenders, regardless of age or reason for placement. Residential placement facilities include 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. The survey relied on the Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) and the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), which the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention conducts in alternating years. The JRFC in 2006, 2008, and 2010 was used as a sampling frame for the SSV in 2007, 2009, and 2011. The CJRP in 2007, 2010, and 2011 was used for the SSV in 2008, 2010, and 2012. In each year, the SSV samples included all facilities within the juvenile correctional systems operated by the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Based on the JRFC and CJRP, the SSV included 501 state-operated juvenile facilities in 2007, 495 in 2008, 473 in 2009, 450 in 2010, 450 in 2011, and 422 in 2012. In each year beginning in 2008, the survey also included all juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country. Based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Annual Survey of Jails in Indian Country, facilities that held only juveniles were determined to be eligible. There were 20 juvenile correctional facilities in Indian country in the SSV in 2008, 19 in 2009, 18 in 2010, 16 in 2011, and 20 in 2012. 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 each year, 330 locally or privately operated facilities were selected. In the 2012 survey, facilities were first grouped into locally operated facilities (623) and privately operated facilities (1,003) and sampled independently. Of the 330 nonstate facilities in the sample, 35 locally operated facilities and 48 privately operated facilities were selected because they were the largest in their respective states. The remaining sample was allocated proportionally across seven strata that were defined by type of facility and region: (1) detention facilities, Midwest; (2) detention facilities, Northeast; (3) detention facilities, South; (4) detention facilities, West; (5) local noncommitment facilities; (6) local commitment facilities; and (7) privately operated facilities. Based on the number of persons assigned to beds, 17 nonstate detention facilities, 4 locally operated facilities, and 8 privately operated facilities were too large compared to other facilities in their strata and were selected with certainty. The remaining facilities were selected systematically with probabilities proportionate to size: * stratum 1: 23 (of 154) facilities * stratum 2: 7 (of 64) facilities * stratum 3: 22 (of 149) facilities * stratum 4: 22 (of 106) facilities * stratum 5: 3 (of 33) facilities * stratum 6: 30 (of 141) facilities * stratum 7: 111 (of 867) facilities. Similar sampling procedures were employed in all other survey years for locally and privately operated juvenile facilities. Survey participation ********************* All state systems and the District of Columbia participated in the survey in the 6 years of data collection. During the 5 years of data collection in Indian country, three juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: two in 2008 and one in 2009. One facility did not respond to the survey: * Gerald Tex Fox Justice Center Juvenile Detention, New Town, ND (2009 and 2011). During the 6 years, 14 locally operated juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: 1 in 2007, 5 in 2009, 2 in 2010, 5 in 2011, and 1 in 2012. Two facilities did not respond to the survey: * Camp Glenn Rockey, San Dimas, CA (2012) * Dorothy Kirby Center, Los Angeles, CA (2009). During the 6 years, 29 privately operated juvenile correctional facilities closed prior to data collection: 9 in 2007, 8 in 2008, 3 in 2009, 2 in 2010, and 7 in 2011. Eighteen facilities did not respond to the survey: * Big Brothers Home Away from Home #2, Courtland, AL (2011) * Bonnie Brae Farms, Liberty Corner, NJ (2009) * Carmela House Girl’s Detention, Feura Bush, NY (2010) * Catholic Charities Services (Parmadale), Cleveland, OH (2009) * Eckerd Youth Development Center, Clearwater, FL (2009) * Excelsior Youth Center, Aurora, CO (2007) * Harmony Center, Baton Rouge, LA (2009) * Harmony Hill School, Chepachet, RI (2007) * High Point School, Pittsfield, MA (2008) * Hilo Emergency Shelter, Hilo, HI (2007 and 2008) * Madison Center for Children, South Bend, IN (2009) * Newton Campus, Wichita, KS (2009) * Pathways, Kern County, TX (2009) * St. Gabriel’s Hall, Audubon, PA (2010) * Three Springs, Mountain Home, ID (2009, 2010, and 2011) * Three Springs Residential Treatment Center, Courtland, AL (2008) * Youth Bridge Therapeutic Group Home and Substance Abuse Program, Fayetteville, AL (2011) * Youth Farm Campus, Peoria, IL (2009). Reports of sexual victimization ********************************* Since BJS first developed uniform definitions of sexual victimization, juvenile correctional administrators have enhanced their abilities to report uniform data on sexual victimization. In 2012, administrators in all 49 state juvenile systems and the District of Columbia recorded both attempted and completed nonconsensual sexual acts (versus completed acts only). Arkansas did not report any state-level data after it placed all of its youth in locally or privately operated juvenile facilities. Administrators in the 47 state juvenile systems and the District of Columbia were also able to report allegations of abusive sexual contact separately from nonconsensual sexual acts, an increase of two systems since 2007. All state juvenile systems were able to report data on staff sexual misconduct using survey definitions. Two systems were unable to separate staff sexual harassment from misconduct, and one did not track allegations of staff sexual harassment in a central database. Administrators of locally operated juvenile facilities were less likely than state juvenile administrators to report sexual victimization based on the definitions provided. Nearly a fifth (18%) of the 148 locally operated juvenile correctional facilities selected in 2012 did not record abusive sexual contacts separately from the more serious nonconsensual sexual acts. One local juvenile correctional facility did not record allegations of abusive sexual contact and one based counts of nonconsensual sexual acts on completed acts only. All local juvenile correctional facilities kept records on allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts, and all facilities counted all allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts (rather than counting only those that were substantiated). Most administrators of local juvenile facilities were able to report staff-on-youth sexual victimization based on the SSV definitions. Administrators of all local facilities except one recorded allegations of staff sexual misconduct, while one recorded substantiated incidents only. One did not record allegations of staff sexual harassment. Sixteen percent were unable to separate allegations of staff sexual harassment from allegations of staff sexual misconduct. Administrators of all sampled privately operated juvenile facilities except one kept records on allegations of both types of youth-on-youth sexual victimization (nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contact). A quarter (25%) of these administrators were unable to separate abusive sexual contact from nonconsensual sexual acts. One privately operated facility recorded only substantiated incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts, and two recorded completed acts only. All administrators of privately operated facilities kept records on staff-on-youth sexual abuse. Four recorded only substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct, and 32 (18%) were unable to separate staff sexual harassment from staff sexual misconduct. Nonresponse adjustments ************************** In each year, survey responses were weighted to produce national estimates by type of correctional facility. Data from all state systems received a weight of 1.00 because they were all selected with certainty and had 100% survey participation. Data from locally and privately operated juvenile facilities were assigned an initial weight equal to the inverse of the probability that they would be selected. Within each stratum, a nonresponse weighting adjustment factor was calculated by summing the product of the measure of size (population on the census frame) for each active facility and the initial sampling weight of each selected facility in each stratum and dividing by the sum of the product of the measure of size and the initial sampling weights of each responding facility. nh Σi=1 MOShi × Whi × ACTIVEhi NRh = __________________________ nh Σi=1 MOShi × Whi × RESPONDhi where NRh = nonresponse weighting adjustment factor for stratum h nh = number of sampled facilities in stratum h Whi= sample weight for facility i in stratum h MOShi = measure of size (population) for facility i in stratum h. The final weight, FWhi, for each responding facility is FWhi = Whi × NRh As a result, the sum of the final weights in each stratum equaled the sum of weights of the active facilities in each stratum. Tests of statistical significance ************************************ Estimated standard errors were calculated using SUDAAN ***Footnote 3 Research Triangle Institute. (2013). SUDAAN Release 11.0.1, Research Triangle Park, NC***. For summary statistics, the 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 data files were treated separately. For each year, the sampling and weighting information was retained for each stratum. Each file had 8 strata: 1 certainty stratum (including state systems and large locally or privately operated facilities selected with certainty); 4 noncertainty strata representing detention facilities in the Midwest, Northeast, South, and West; 2 noncertainty strata representing noncommitment and commitment private facilities; and 1 noncertainty stratum representing locally operated facilities. Substantiated incident data files were combined and treated as one file. The sampling information for each year was retained by treating each facility-level sample as its own stratum, for a total of 48 separate strata, and then combining strata within years to obtain 20 separate strata to ensure sufficient data for calculation of standard errors. Estimates of the standard errors are included in the appendix tables. These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, rates, and percentages) and around differences between these estimates. For example, based on estimates in table 3 and standard errors in appendix table 3, the 95% confidence interval around the percentage of youth-on-youth allegations that were substantiated was 25.2% plus or minus 1.96 times 1.8%, resulting in a confidence interval of 21.7% to 28.7%. To facilitate the analysis, differences in the estimates of sexual victimization for subgroups in the tables have been tested for significance at the 95% confidence level. For example, the difference in percentage of youth-on-youth allegations in state systems (32.4%) compared to locally or privately operated facilities (20.4%) is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (table 3). In all tables that provide detailed comparisons, statistical differences at the 95% confidence level have been designated with two asterisks (**). The comparison group has been designated with one asterisk (*). Other BJS reports on sexual victimization in juvenile facilities ********************************************* Jurisdiction- and facility-level counts are provided in the companion report, Survey of Sexual Violence in Juvenile Correctional Facilities, 2007–12 - Statistical Tables (NCJ 249143, BJS web, January 2016). The tables in this report provide counts of allegations and substantiated incidents by type of victimization for every jurisdiction and facility that responded to the 2007–12 surveys. Each table includes a measure of population size (based on the number of youth held at yearend) as a basis of comparison. However, the survey results should not be used to rank systems or facilities. The SSV has annually collected official records on allegations and substantiated incidents of youth-on-youth and staff-on-youth victimization since 2004. Past reports of sexual victimization in juvenile facilities include-- * Sexual Violence Reported by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2005–06 (NCJ 215337, BJS web, July 2008). * Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2004 (NCJ 210333, BJS web, July 2005). The SSV is one of a number of BJS data collections that are conducted to meet the mandates of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108–79). BJS also collects data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual victimization directly from victims through surveys of youth held in state juvenile systems and locally or privately operated facilities that hold adjudicated youth under state contract. Past reports based on victim self- reports include-- * Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2012 (NCJ 241708, BJS web, June 2013). * Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008–09 (NCJ 228416, BJS web, January 2010). ************************************************************ The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is director. This report was written by Allen J. Beck and Ramona R. Rantala. Ramona R. Rantala and Jessica Stroop verified the report. Greta B. Clark carried out data collection and processing under the supervision of Stephen G. Simoncini, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Linda Gehring and Patricia Torreyson assisted in the data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the facility samples and provided sampling weights. Irene Cooperman and Jill Thomas edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced the report. January 2016, NCJ 249145 ************************************************************ ************************************************** Office of Justice Programs Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods www.ojp.usdoj.gov ************************************************** ********************** 10/19/2016/JER/10:55am **********************