U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, 2007 December 2007, NCJ 219414 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- 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/svsfpri07.htm ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., and Paige M. Harrison, BJS Statisticians ------------------------------------------------------------- The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79) requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape. This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act to provide a listing of State and Federal prisons ranked according to the incidence of prison rape. Between April and August 2007, BJS completed the first National Inmate Survey (NIS) of 146 State and Federal prisons. The survey, conducted by RTI International (Research Triangle Park, NC), was restricted to adult confinement facilities, including prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The NIS excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release centers. The sample was designed in accordance with the requirement that BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10% of prison facilities. (See Methodology for sample description.) Unlike previous BJS surveys of sexual violence that were based on administrative records, the NIS collected reports of sexual violence directly from inmates. The NIS survey consisted of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self Interview (ACASI) in which inmates, using a touch-screen, interacted with a computer-assisted questionnaire and followed audio instructions delivered via headphones. A small number of inmates (2% of all participants in the survey) completed a short paper form. These were inmates housed primarily in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed. Inmate self-reports provide a basis for comparing and ranking facilities Past surveys of administrative records could not provide reliable facility-level estimates of sexual violence because they were limited to incidents reported to correctional authorities. Some victims may be reluctant to report incidents to correctional authorities due to lack of trust in staff, fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among inmates, or personal embarrassment. Moreover, administrative records may vary in the way incidents and allegations are defined, reported, and recorded, which further complicate facility-level comparisons. The NIS is a self-administered survey which provides anonymity to respondents and encourages fuller reporting of victimization. The survey employs computer-assisted technology to provide more uniform conditions under which inmates complete the survey. Facility-level comparisons in the NIS are further enhanced through the application of statistical methods that ensure that the estimates reflect the entire population of each facility, rather than only the inmates who participated in the survey. (See Methodology for sample description and non-response adjustments.) For purposes of calculating comparative rates, the NIS limited the reports of sexual victimization to incidents that occurred at the sampled facilities during the 12 months prior to the date of the interview. Inmates who had served less than 12 months were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. Despite efforts of survey staff to reassure inmates that their survey responses about sexual violence would be kept confidential, some inmates may not have felt confident to report experiences of sexual victimization since admission or in the past 12 months. At the same time, some inmates may have made false allegations. In 2006, about a quarter of the allegations brought to the attention of State and Federal correctional authorities, upon completion of an official investigation, were determined to have been unfounded (not to have occurred).***Footnote 1: See Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2006, at .*** Although the effects may be offsetting, the relative extent of underreporting and false reporting in the NIS is unknown. An estimated 60,500 inmates experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization Among the 23,398 inmates who participated in the 2007 survey, 1,109 reported one or more incidents of sexual victimization. Because the NIS is a sample survey, weights were applied for sampled facilities and inmates within facilities to produce national-level and facility-level estimates of sexual violence. The estimated number of State and Federal inmates experiencing sexual violence totaled 60,500 (or 4.5% of the Nation's prisoners). Nationwide, about 2.1% of inmates (27,500) reported an incident involving another inmate, and 2.9% (38,600) reported an incident involving staff. Some inmates (0.5%) said they had been sexually victimized by both other inmates and staff. The NIS screened for specific sexual activities. Using uniform definitions of sexual violence developed by BJS in 2004, reports of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were classified as either nonconsensual sexual acts or abusive sexual contacts only. Approximately 1.3% of all inmates (16,800, nationwide) said they had nonconsensual sex with another inmate, including giving or receiving sexual gratification and oral, anal or vaginal sex. An additional 0.8% of all inmates (10,600) said they had only experienced an abusive sexual contact, that is, unwanted touching by another inmate of specific body parts in a sexual way. (See Methodology for specific survey questions and definitions.) Among inmates reporting experiences of sexual misconduct by staff, the number that reported they had sex or sexual contact willingly (22,700) was nearly identical to those who reported contact as a result of physical force, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges (22,600). A majority of victims of staff misconduct reported activity beyond simple touching in a sexual way. 10 facilities had prevalence rates of 9.3% or greater; 6 facilities had no reported incidents Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 6 had no reports of sexual victimization from the sampled inmates; 10 had an overall victimization rate of at least 9.3% (table 1). Though other measures may be considered when comparing facilities, the overall victimization rate is a measure of prevalence that includes all experiences, regardless of the level of coercion and type of sexual activity. Statistically, the NIS is unable to identify the facility with the highest prevalence rate. Since the estimates are based on a sample of inmates, rather than a complete enumeration, they are subject to sampling error. The precision of each facility-level estimate can be calculated based on the estimated standard error. For example, the victimization rate of 15.7% recorded for the Estelle Unit (Texas) has a precision of plus or minus 5.1% with a 95% level of confidence. This precision, based on the standard error of 2.6% multiplied by 1.96, implies that we are 95% confident that the true prevalence rate in the Estelle Unit is between 10.6% and 20.8%. As a consequence of sampling error, the NIS cannot provide an exact ranking for all facilities as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. However, detailed tabulations of the survey results by facility and State are presented in Appendix tables 1 through 9. Facility prevalence rates vary by level and type of victimization, and observed differences between facilities will not always be statistically significant. Consequently, these measures cannot be used to reliably rank facilities from 1 (the highest) to 146 (the lowest). Despite limitations of sampling errors, the NIS does provide the ability to statistically identify a small group of facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization. Based on the confidence interval around the Estelle Unit (15.7% plus or minus 5.1%), 6 facilities would be included in the interval, but these facilities also have estimated rates with surrounding confidence intervals. By placing a 95%-confidence interval around the difference between the Estelle Unit and the Coffield Unit (Texas), we can identify a group of 10 facilities with the highest prevalence of sexual victimization. Since the confidence interval around the observed difference (6.4% plus or minus 6.5%) includes zero, the Coffield Unit is considered statistically similar to the Estelle Unit. However, facilities with rates lower than the Coffield Unit (9.3%) would be considered statistically different (assuming a standard error of 2.1%). (See Methodology for calculation of confidence intervals comparing facilities.) Identification of the 3 facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization depends on non-statistical judgments Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence rates, 3 had prevalence rates of staff sexual misconduct that exceeded 10% (table 2). The rate was highest in Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (Nebraska), in which 12.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents of staff sexual misconduct. This rate was followed by a rate of 11.6% in the Clements Unit (Texas) and 11.4% in the Charlotte Correctional Institution (Florida). Among these 3 facilities, the Charlotte facility had the smallest standard error (2.6%); its 95%-confidence interval ranged from 6.3% to 16.5%. Rockville Correctional Facility (Indiana) had the highest reported rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization; 10.2% of inmates reported one or more incidents. Its 95%-confidence interval ranged from 5.7% to 14.7%. Three other facilities had rates that exceeded 5%: Mountain View Unit (Texas), 8.7%; Estelle Unit (Texas), 8.5%; and Valley State Prison for Women (California), 7.9%. For more serious types of sexual victimization (e.g., nonconsensual acts among inmates and unwilling sexual contact with staff involving more than touching), 3 facilities had rates of 10% or higher (table 3). Charlotte Correctional Institution had the highest rate of nonconsensual sexual acts (12.1%), followed by Estelle Unit (11.3%) and Tecumseh State Correctional Institution(11.2%). The confidence interval for the Charlotte Correctional Institution was 6.8% to 17.4%. Similar to types of sexual victimization, levels of coercion also varied among facilities. Among the 10 facilities with the highest overall prevalence of sexual victimization, 3 facilities had high levels of physical force in inmate-on-inmate victimization. The Mountain View Unit (Texas) had the highest percent of inmates reporting physical force by another inmate (7.5%), followed by the Rockville Correctional Facility (6.5%) and the Estelle Unit (5.1%). Inmates in 2 facilities reported high rates of physical force used by staff: Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (7.5%) and Great Meadow Correctional Facility (6.0%). An estimated 0.8% of inmates nationwide reported being injured as a result of the sexual victimization. Approximately 0.5% of the inmates had been injured by another inmate, and 0.3% had been injured by staff. Injuries included anal or vaginal tearing, knife or stab wounds, broken bones, chipped or knocked out teeth, internal injuries, bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, scratches, swelling, or welts. Although injury rates from sexual victimization were generally low, 2 facilities among the 10 with the highest prevalence of overall victimization had rates of injury by other inmates that exceeded 3% (table 4). Rockville Correctional Facility (3.7%) and Allred Unit (3.3%) had the highest rates of inmate-on-inmate injury. Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (3.9%) and Clements Unit (3.1%) had the highest rates of injury resulting from staff sexual misconduct. Using these different measures of sexual victimization, comparisons among the 10 facilities with the highest overall rates may be made. The 3 highest facilities may be selected based on one or more of these measures. Inmates reported an estimated 165,400 incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts with other inmates or staff In the 2007 NIS inmates were also asked the number of times they had experienced each type of sexual victimization. For each type, inmates were asked to select one of four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, or 11 times or more. Categories containing ranges were provided, rather than more detailed categories, because of concerns that (1) some inmates would be unable to accurately report exact counts and (2) some inmates would be re-traumatized by a request to recount each incident. The total number of incidents by type in each facility was estimated by assigning the value 5 to the category of 3 to 10 times and 12 to the category of 11 times or more. (See Methodology for additional details.) Based on these measures, the 1,109 inmates participating in the NIS who reported one or more allegations of sexual victimization said they had experienced a total of 1,205 incidents of nonconsensual sexual activity with another inmate and 1,794 incidents of unwilling sexual contact with staff. Taking into account weights for sampling facilities and inmates within facilities, the estimated number of incidents nationwide totaled 165,400 (65,100 nonconsensual sexual acts with other inmates and 100,300 incidents of unwilling sexual contact with staff). Expressed as a rate, nationwide an estimated 123 incidents of sexual victimization per 1,000 inmates held in State and Federal prisons were reported by inmates. This excludes unwanted touching by other inmates and willing sexual contacts with staff. By type of incident, an estimated 49 incidents of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts per 1,000 inmates and 75 incidents of unwilling sexual contacts with staff per 1,000 inmates were reported. 11 facilities had nonconsensual sex rates of 300 or more incidents per 1,000 inmates Among the 146 prison facilities in the 2007 NIS, 11 had incident rates of nonconsensual sex that exceeded 300 incidents per 1,000 inmates (table 5). The 5 facilities recording the highest prevalence rates also recorded the highest incident rates. Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (with 928 incidents of nonconsensual sex per 1,000 inmates) had the highest rate, followed by the Charlotte Correctional Institution (476 per 1,000) and the Clements Unit (430 per 1,000). In each of these facilities, unwilling sexual contact with staff was the most frequently reported type of sexual victimization. An estimated 94,900 incidents nationwide involved "willing" sexual contacts with staff. These incidents of staff sexual misconduct, though reported as willing by inmates, are considered nonconsensual by law. A total of 71 such incidents of staff sexual misconduct per 1,000 inmates were reported as willing (see Appendix table 9). Further analyses of sexual victimization and facility variations underway In response to other provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, BJS will conduct further analyses of sexual victimization and facility variations. Expected to be completed by June 30, 2008, these analyses will examine victim characteristics and provide detailed descriptions of the circumstances surrounding reported incidents. They will include items on characteristics of perpetrators, reporting of incidents to staff or others, reasons for not reporting, and subsequent actions taken by administrators. In addition, BJS will examine characteristics of facilities that may correlate with sexual victimization, such as size, crowding, types of inmates held, security level, staff-to-inmate ratios, staff characteristics, and rates of assault on inmates and staff. Facility characteristics are based on data from the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities and other items included in the 2007 NIS. BJS is conducting a survey of sexual victimization in local jails, using the same sampling procedures and ACASI collection methodologies. Data collection in local jails is expected to be completed in January 2008. A report listing the 302 sampled local jail facilities ranked according to the incidence of sexual victimization is expected to be issued in April 2008. Methodology The National Inmate Survey (NIS) was conducted in 146 State and Federal prisons between April and August 2007, by RTI International under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NIS comprised two questionnaires - a survey of sexual victimization and a survey of past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Inmates were randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so that at the time of the interview the content of the survey remained unknown to facility staff and the survey interviewers. A total of 23,398 inmates participated in the survey. The interviews, which averaged 27 minutes in length, used computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and audio computer-assisted self interviewing (ACASI) collection methods. For approximately the first 5 minutes, survey interviewers conducted a personal interview using CAPI to obtain background data, date of admission to the facility, conviction status, and current offense. For the remainder of the interview, respondents interacted with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touch-screen and synchronized audio instructions delivered via headphones. Respondents completed the ACASI portion of the interview in private, with the interviewer either leaving the room or moving away from the computer. A shorter paper questionnaire was made available for inmates who were unable to come to the private interviewing room. The paper form was completed by 530 inmates (2.3% of all interviews), housed primarily in administrative or disciplinary segregation or considered too violent to be interviewed. Before the interview, inmates were informed verbally and in writing that participation was voluntary and that all information provided would be held in confidence. Interviews were conducted in either English (95%) or Spanish (5%). Selection of State and Federal prisons A sample of 130 State prisons was drawn to produce a 10% sample of the 1,267 adult State confinement facilities identified in the 2005 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities. The 2005 census was a complete enumeration of State prisons, including all publicly operated and privately operated facilities under contract to State correctional authorities. The 2007 NIS was restricted to confinement facilities -- institutions in which fewer than 50% of the inmates were regularly permitted to leave, unaccompanied by staff, for work, study, or treatment. Such facilities included prisons, penitentiaries, prison hospitals, prison farms, boot camps, and centers for reception, classification, or alcohol and drug treatment. The 2007 NIS excluded community-based facilities, such as halfway houses, group homes, and work release centers. State confinement facilities were systematically sampled with probabilities of selection proportionate to size (as measured by the number of inmates held on December 31, 2005). Facilities on the sampling frame were first sorted by public or private operation, gender housed, region, and State. Prior to selection, the size measures for facilities housing female inmates were doubled to ensure a sufficient number of women to allow for meaningful analyses of sexual victimization by gender. Facilities were sampled ensuring that at least one facility in every State was selected. The remaining facilities were selected from each region with probabilities proportionate to size. Overall, these procedures resulted in the selection of 114 male facilities and 16 female facilities. Based on 2005 census data, these 130 facilities held 250,873 inmates (or 20% of inmates held in State confinement facilities nationwide on December 31, 2005). Somewhat different sampling procedures were used to select Federal prisons. Facilities were selected based on data reported in the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) Weekly Population Report on September 28, 2006. At that time the Federal system had 176 BOP-operated facilities and 13 privately-managed facilities. Combined, these facilities held 180,152 inmates. Contract juveniles, long-term boarders, and offenders held in halfway houses, home confinement, and jail/short term detention were excluded. Facilities on the sampling frame were sorted by population size, region, and public or private operation. They were selected based on probabilities proportionate to the inmate count, regardless of gender of inmate housed. The sample resulted in the selection of 17 BOP-operated facilities and 3 private facilities. Of the 150 selected State and Federal facilities, 4 were excluded from the survey for the following reasons: *Federal Transfer Facility (Oklahoma City, OK) -- Inmates moved through this facility too quickly (within 24 hours) to permit data collection. *Huron Valley Complex -- Women (Ypsilanti, MI) -- Interviewing was terminated early due to concerns regarding data quality as many of the inmates were involved in a class action lawsuit against the facility. *Taft Correctional Institute (Taft, CA) -- The facility was selected twice, once as a State prison and once as a Federal facility. (It was excluded from the State sample, but left in the sample as a Federal facility.) *Southern Michigan Correctional Facility (Jackson, MI) -- The facility was scheduled to be closed prior to data collection. All other selected prison facilities participated fully in the survey. Selection of inmates The number of inmates sampled in each facility varied based on 5 criteria: *an expected prevalence rate of sexual victimization of 4%. *a desired level of precision based on a standard error of 1.75%. *a projected 70% response rate among selected inmates. *a 10% chance among participating inmates of not receiving the sexual victimization questionnaire. *size of the facility. A roster of inmates was obtained just prior to the start of interviewing at each facility. Inmates under age 18 and inmates expected to be released prior to the date of data collection were deleted from the roster. Each eligible inmate was assigned a random number and sorted in ascending order. Inmates were selected from the list up to the expected number of inmates determined by the sampling criteria. A total of 37,362 inmates were selected. (See Appendix table 1 for the number of inmates sampled in each facility.) Overall, 26,157 inmates participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 72% (after an additional 1,017 ineligible inmates were excluded). Approximately 90% of the participating inmates (23,398) received the sexual assault survey. Weighting and non-response adjustments Responses from sampled interviewed inmates were weighted to provide national-level and facility-level estimates. Each interviewed inmate was assigned an initial weight corresponding to the inverse of the probability of selection within each sampled facility. A series of adjustment factors were applied to the initial weight to minimize potential bias due to non-response and to provide national estimates. Bias occurs when the estimated prevalence is different from the actual prevalence for a given facility. First, in each facility, bias could result if the random sample did not accurately represent the facility population. Second, bias could result if the non-respondents were different from the respondents. Post-stratification and non-response adjustments were made to the data to compensate for these two possibilities. These adjustments included: *calibration of the weights of the responding inmates within each facility so that the estimates accurately reflected the facility's entire population in terms of known characteristics. These characteristics included distributions by inmate age, gender, race, date of admission, and sentence length. This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the entire population of the facility and not just the inmates who were randomly sampled. *calibration of the weights so that the weight from a non-responding inmate is assigned to a responding inmate with similar characteristics. This adjustment ensures that the estimates accurately reflect the full sample, rather than only the inmates who responded. For each inmate these adjustments were based on a generalized exponential model, developed by Folsom and Singh, and applied to the sexual assault survey respondents.***Footnote 2: R.E. Folsom, Jr. and A.C. Singh, The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification, Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research Methods, 598-603, 2002.*** Survey estimates and accuracy Survey estimates are subject to sampling error arising from the fact that the estimates are based on a sample rather than a complete enumeration. Within each facility, the estimated sampling error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the facility. Estimates of the standard errors for selected measures of sexual victimization are presented in Appendix tables 2 through 5 and 8. These standard errors may be used to construct confidence intervals around survey estimates (e.g., numbers, percents, and rates), as well as differences in these estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval around the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Julia Tutwiler Prison (Alabama) is approximately 6.3% plus or minus 1.96 times 1.5% (or 3.4% to 9.2%). Based on similarly constructed samples, 95% of the intervals would be expected to contain the true (but unknown) percentage. The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences between facility estimates. For example, the 95% confidence interval comparing the percent of inmates reporting sexual victimization in the Julia Tutwiler Prison (Alabama), 6.3%, with the Estelle Unit (Texas), 15.7%, may be calculated. The confidence interval around the difference of 9.4% is approximately 1.96 times 3.0% (the square root of the pooled variance estimate, 9.01%). The pooled variance estimate is calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each standard error squared, e.g., the square root of (1.5)2 plus (2.6)2. Since the interval (3.5% to 15.3%) does not contain zero, the difference between the Tutwiler prison and the Estelle Unit is statistically significant. Exposure period For purposes of calculating comparative rates of sexual victimization, respondents were asked to provide the most recent date of admission to the current facility. If the date of admission was at least 12 months prior to the date of the interview, inmates were asked questions related to their experiences during the past 12 months. If the admission date was less than 12 months prior to the interview, inmates were asked about their experiences since they had arrived at the facility. Overall, the average exposure period of inmates participating in the sexual victimization survey was 8.5 months. Measuring sexual victimization The survey of sexual victimization relied on the reporting of the direct experience of each inmate, rather than inmates reporting on the experience of other inmates. Questions were asked related to inmate-on-inmate sexual activity separately from questions related to staff sexual misconduct. (See pages 9 and 10 for specific survey items.) The ACASI survey began with a series of questions that screened for specific sexual activities, without restriction, including both wanted and unwanted sex or sexual contacts with other inmates. As a means to measure fully all sexual activities, questions related to the touching of body parts in a sexual way were followed by questions related to explicit giving or receiving of sexual gratification, and questions related to acts involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. The nature of coercion (including use of physical force, pressure, or other forms of coercion) was measured for each type of reported sexual activity. Once the types of sexual activity and the nature of coercion were established, inmates were asked to report on the number of times they had experienced each form of sexual victimization. Incidents were separated into two categories: nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts. (See Definition of terms on this page.) In reporting the number of times for each type of incident, inmates could select one of four pre-coded categories: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, and 11 times or more. ACASI survey items related to staff sexual misconduct were asked in a different order from inmate-on-inmate activity. Inmates were first asked about being pressured or being made to feel they had to have sex or sexual contact and then asked about being physically forced. In addition, inmates were asked if any facility staff had offered favors or special privileges in exchange for sex. Finally, inmates were asked if they willingly had sex or sexual contact with staff. All reports of sex or sexual contact between an inmate and facility staff were included in the total sexual victimization classification, regardless of level of coercion. Inmates were also asked to report on the number of times they had experienced each form of staff sexual misconduct, willing or unwilling. The same pre-coded categories were provided: 1 time, 2 times, 3 to 10 times, and 11 times or more. The ACASI survey included additional questions related to both inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. These questions, known as latent class measures, were included to assess the reliability of the survey questionnaire. After being asked detailed questions, all inmates were asked a series of general questions to determine if they had experienced any type of unwanted sex or sexual contact with another inmate or had any sex or sexual contact with staff. (See page 11 for specific survey items.) The entire ACASI questionnaire and the shorter paper and pencil survey form (PAPI) are available on the BJS web site at . ---------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey Sedgwick is Director. Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report. RTI International statisticians, under the direction of Marcus Berzofsky, produced tables in the appendix. Allen J. Beck, Paige M. Harrison, and RTI staff provided statistical review and verification. Doris J. James and Tina Dorsey produced and edited the report. Jayne E. Robinson prepared the report for publication. Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Beck, was project manager for the National Inmate Survey. RTI staff, under a cooperative agreement and in collaboration with BJS, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored data collection and data processing: Rachel Caspar, Principal Investigator/Instrumentation Task Leader; Christopher Krebs, Co-Principal Investigator; Ellen Stutts, Co-Principal Investigator and Data Collection Task Leader; Susan Brumbaugh, Logistics Task Leader; Jamia Bachrach, Protection of Human Subjects Task Leader; David Forvendel, Research Computing Task Leader; Ralph Folsom, Senior Statistician; and Marcus Berzofsky, Sampling and Statistical Analysis Task Leader. April 2008 NCJ 219414 ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Office of Justice Programs Innovation Partnerships Safer Neighborhoods http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov ----------------------------------------------------------- End of file 03/07/2008 tld