Part III: Special
Populations
Part II: Responding to
Victims and Perpetrators
Part I: Understanding and
Preventing Sexual Abuse

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission logo

Report


Appendices

 

PART I: UNDERSTANDING AND PREVENTING SEXUAL ABUSE

Chapter 1. A Problem that Must Be Solved

1. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community. Boston: Christopher Publishing House (hereafter Clemmer, The prison community).

2. The Eighth Amendment, proportionality, and the changing meaning of “punishments.” (2009). Harvard Law Review, 122(3), 960–981.

3. McShane, M. (2008). Prisons in America. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

4. Craig, R. L. (2006). Women in corrections: Elizabeth Gurney Fry. Journal of Correctional Education. 57(2), 141–144.

5. Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. (2002). The treatment of sexual assault victims. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 67–87). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. (hereafter Dumond, “Treatment”).

6. Alan Davis conducted his groundbreaking study of sexual abuse in jail systems during this period. Davis, A. J. (1968). Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and sheriff’s vans. Transaction, 6(2), 8–16 (hereafter Davis, “Sexual assaults”).

7. Testimony of Parsell, T. J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual
Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars
(p. 33). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

8. Ibid., at 34.

9. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, 42 U.S.C. § 15601, et seq. (hereafter PREA).

10. Ibid.

11. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Data collections for the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (hereafter BJS, Data collections).

12. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (hereafter Farmer).

13. Bayard, M. (1983). Inside justice. London: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, p. 225.

14. Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850, 851–852 (9th Cir. 1951).

15. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555–556 (1974).

16. Farmer, at 833.

17. Ibid., at 834 (citing Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).

18. See Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 370 (1992); Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 858 (9th Cir. 1992); Moore v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1553, 1557 n. 4 (11th Cir. 1991); Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 336–337 (3d Cir. 1987); Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 1981); Battle v. Anderson, 564 F.2d 388, 396 (10th Cir. 1977); Thomas v. Baca, 514 F.Supp.2d 1201, 1218 (C.D.Cal. 2007).

19. See Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1991); Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269, 274 (7th Cir. 1983).

20. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 354 (1981).

21. Harris v. Fleming, 839 F.2d 1232, 1235 (7th Cir. 1988).

22. Testimony of Shirley, M. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 67). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

23. Ibid., at 69.

24. Ibid., at 71.

25. Ibid., at 73.

26. Browne, A., & Lichter, E. (2001). Imprisonment in the United States. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (Vol. 1). San Diego: Academic Press (hereafter Browne, “Imprisonment”); Young, V., & Reviere, R. (2005). Women behind bars: Gender & race in U.S. prisons. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Young, Women behind bars); Rafter, N. (1990). Partial justice: Women, prisons, and social control (2nd ed., rev.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers (hereafter Rafter, Partial justice).

27. Freedman, E. (1981). Their sisters’ keepers: Women’s prison reform in America, 1830–1930. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, p. 16.

28. Young, Women behind bars; Rafter, Partial justice.

29. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. See Griffin v. Michigan DOC, 654 F.Supp. 690 (E.D. Mich. 1982); Harden v. Dayton Human Rehabilitation Center, 520 F.Supp. 769 (S.D. Ohio 1981); Smith, B. (2003). Watching you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 15(2), 225–288.

30. See Jurado, R. (1999). The essence of her womanhood: Defining the privacy rights of women prisoners and the employment rights of women guards. American University Journal of Gender Social Policy & Law, 7(1), 21–53.

31. U.S. Department of Labor. (2007). Quick facts: Employment status for women and men in 2007. Women’s Bureau Web site. Available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-ESWM07.htm

32. Smith, B. (2008). Prosecuting sexual violence in correctional settings: Examining prosecutors’ perceptions. American University, Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2008-50 (hereafter Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence); National Institute of Corrections. (2006). State criminal laws prohibiting sexual misconduct with offenders in 1990. Available at http://nicic.org/Downloads/PDF/Library/021770.pdf

33. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence.

34. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). State laws prohibiting sexual misconduct with individuals in custody checklist. American University, Washington College of Law Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/legal_responses_to_prison_rape/fifty_state_checklist.pdf?rd=1

35. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence.

36. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). Fifty-state survey of criminal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of individuals in custody. American University, Washington College of Law Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/responses.cfm

37. Smith, Prosecuting sexual violence; Testimony of Worthy, K. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 217). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

38. Clemmer, The prison community.

39. Davis, “Sexual assaults.”

40. Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York: Plenum Press.

41. Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 67–76.

42. Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2002). Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 217–227 (hereafter Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women”).

43. Ibid., at 224–225.

44. Blackburn, A., Mullings, J., & Marquart, J. (2008). Sexual assault in prison and beyond: Toward an understanding of lifetime sexual assault among incarcerated women. The Prison Journal, 88(3), 351–377.

45. Jones, T. R., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). The prevalence of sexual violence in prison: The state of the knowledge base and implications for evidence-based correctional policy making. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(3), 280–295 (hereafter Jones, “Prevalence of sexual violence”).

46. Gaes, G., & Goldberg, A. (2004). Prison rape: A critical review of the literature. National Institute of Justice Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

47. Jones, “Prevalence of sexual violence.”

48. Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.

49. Donaldson, S. (1994). Rape trauma syndrome in male prisoners. Los Angeles: Just Detention International (hereafter Donaldson, Rape trauma).

50. Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Interview mode effects in surveys of drug and alcohol use. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58(2), 210–240 (hereafter Aquilino, “Interview mode effects”).

51. Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., Kutner, M., & White, S. (2006). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

52. Aquilino, “Interview mode effects” (stating that in studies involving sensitive information, two key factors influencing willingness to participate are the confidentiality and anonymity of the responses provided).

53. BJS, Data collections.

54. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007); Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women.”

55. PREA, at § 15601.

56. Ibid., at § 15602(4).

57. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization in local jails reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Local jails, 2007).

58. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007.

59. Beck, Local jails, 2007.

60. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006).

61. Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006).

62. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

63. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

64. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

65. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2006). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

66. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007, August 28). Data presented at the Prison Rape Elimination Act Workshop: National Survey of Youth in Custody. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

67. Ibid.

68. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

69. BJS, Data collections; Beck, Correctional authorities 2006; Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

70. Beck, State and Federal prisons, 2007.

71. Struckman-Johnson, “Sexual coercion reported by women.”

72. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

73. Useem, B. (2008). Prison state: The challenge of mass incarceration. New York: Cambridge University Press.

74. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Probation and parole in the United States—2007 statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus07st.htm

75. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Essay: Specialized caseloads. Community Corrections Quarterly. Available at http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/period13.pdf

76. Browne, “Imprisonment.”

77. Clark, J., Austin, J., & Henry, D. A. (1997). “Three strikes and you’re out”: A review of State legislation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three strikes laws (historical guides to controversial issues in America). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

78. Total Criminal Defense, Inc. (2008). Understanding “three strikes and you’re out” laws. Total Criminal Defense Web site. Available at http://www.totalcriminaldefense.com/overview/
three-strikes-law.aspx

79. Talvi, S. (2007). Women behind bars: The crisis of women in the U.S. prison system. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.

80. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance; Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

81. Hartney, C. (2006). Fact sheet: Youth under age 18 in the adult criminal justice system. National Council on Crime and Delinquency Web site. Available at http://www.nccdcrc.org/nccd/pubs/2006may_factsheet_youthadult.pdf; Equal Justice Initiative. (2007). Cruel and unusual: Sentencing 13- and 14-year-old children to die in prison. Montgomery, AL: Author.

82. Mauer, M. (1999). Race to incarcerate. New York: The New Press.

83. Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (stating that “At midyear 2006, 750 persons per 100,000 U.S. residents were in prison or jail, the equivalent to 1 in every 133 residents.”).

84. Resick, P. A. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 223–255; Burgess, A. W., & Holmstrom, L. L. (1974). Rape trauma syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131(9), 981–986 (hereafter Burgess, “Rape trauma”); Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. (1992). Violence against women: Relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA, 267(23), 3184–3189 (hereafter AMA, “Violence against women”); Donaldson, Rape trauma.

85. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter APA, Manual of mental disorders); Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick, D., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 359–370.

86. APA, Manual of mental disorders.

87. Hensley, L. G. (2002). Treatment of survivors of rape: Issue and interventions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24, 330–347 (hereafter Hensley, “Treatment of survivors”).

88. AMA, “Violence against women”; Koss, M. P., & Harvey, M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications (hereafter Koss, The rape victim); Donaldson, Rape trauma.

89. AMA, “Violence against women.”

90. Dumond, “Treatment”; Donaldson, Rape trauma.

91. APA, Manual of mental disorders.

92. Dumond, R. W. (2003). Confronting America’s most ignored crime problem: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(3), 354–360; Burgess, “Rape trauma.”

93. Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 29). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

94. Koss, The rape victim; Golding, J. M. (1999). Sexual-assault history and long-term physical health problems: Evidence from clinical and population epidemiology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191–194; Hensley, “Treatment of survivors”; Scarce, M. (2001). Male on male rape. New York: Basic Books.

95. AMA, “Violence against women.”

96. Mariner, J. (2001). Rape scenarios. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

97. Dannenberg, A. L., McNeil, J. G., Brundage, J. F., & Brookmeyer, R. (1996). Survival and HIV infection: Mortality
follow-up of 4,147 HIV seropositive military service applicants.
JAMA, 276(21), 1743–1746.

98. Testimony of DeBlasio, K. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 84). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of DeBlasio); Ross, J. I. (2006, April 18). Jailhouse blue. American Civil Liberties Union of Texas Web site. Available at http://www.aclutx.org/projects/article.php?aid=276&cid=16

99. NPREC Testimony of DeBlasio, at 85.

100. Ibid., at 87.

101. Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1996). Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and characteristics from a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetric Gynecology. 175(22), 320–325; Jenny, C., Hooton, T. M.,
Bowers, A., Copass, M. K., Krieger, J. N., Hillier, S. L., et al. (1990). Sexually transmitted disease in victims of rape. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(11), 713–716.

102. Berry v. Oswalt, 143 F.3d 1127 (8th Cir. 1998).

103. Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2003). Reentry trends in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections Today, 67(2), 66 (stating that 93 percent of prisoners will eventually be released).

104. Lovell, D., Gagliardi, G. J., & Peterson, P. D. (2002). Recidivism and use of services among persons with mental illness after release from prison. Psychiatric Services, 53(10), 1290–1296 (stating that few people receive clinically meaningful levels of service during the first year after release).

105. Ullman, S. E., Townsend, S. M., Starzynski, L. L., & Long, L. M. (2006). Correlates of comorbid PTSD and polysubstance use in sexual assault victims. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 725–743.

106. PREA, at §15601(14)(A); Petersilia, J. (2001). When prisoners return to communities: Political, economic, and social consequences. Federal Probation, 65(1), 3–8.

107. Testimony of Cahill, T. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 80). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

108. Ibid., at 82.

109. PREA, at §15601(14)(A).

110. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

111. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976) (holding that “punishment must not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” or “be grossly out of proportion to the severity of crime” to avoid implicating the Eighth Amendment). The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause offers similar protection to pretrial detainees. See Mariner, J. (2001). Legal context. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch (noting that the Eighth Amendment bars cruel and unusual punishment and so is logically limited only to convicted individuals. However, in practice, “the standards applied to pretrial detainees under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause have followed those applied to convicted prisoners under the Eighth.”).

112. Moss, A., & Wall, T. A. (2005). Addressing the challenge of inmate rape. Corrections Today, 67(5), 74–78.

113. Ibid.

114. American Jail Association Board of Directors. (2003). Staff
sexual misconduct. Available at http://www.aja.org/aja/about/resolutions.shtml#STAFF_SEXUAL_MISCONDUCT; American
Probation and Parole Association. (2003). Staff sexual misconduct. Available at http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/Dynamicpage.
aspx?site=APPA_2&webcode=IB_Resolution&wps_key=825560aa-b5da-46b7-95bf-57debadaaa5c; Association of
State Correctional Administrators. (2006). Resolution #3—Establishment of policies regarding staff sexual harassment, activity or abuse of offenders. Association of State Correctional Administrators Resolutions. Available at http://asca.net/documents/
Harassment.pdf; National Sheriffs’ Association. (2006). Develop-
ment of policies on standards of conduct for jail and local correctional facility staff. Available at http://www.sheriffs.
org/userfiles/file/2006_2NSAResolutions.pdf

115. Smith, B. V. (2008). The Prison Rape Elimination Act: Implementation and unresolved issues. American University, Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2008-49 (hereafter Smith, Implementation).

116. PREA, at §§ 15602–15607; see also Smith, Implementation.

117. Public Law 108-79 §§ 3(1), (5).

Chapter 2. Leadership Matters

1. Seidel, J. (2009, January 4). Sexual assaults on female inmates went unheeded. Detroit Free Press, p. 1 (hereafter Seidel,
“Sexual assaults”).

2. Neal v. Department of Corrections, No. 285232, *9 (Mich. App. 1/27/2009) (hereafter Neal).

3. Seidel, J. (2009, January 7). Jury awarded $15.4 million to inmates. Detroit Free Press, p. 2.

4. Neal at *1.

5. Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 391 F.3d 737, 741 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting the Michigan Women’s Commission report).

6. Ibid., at 743.

7. Settlement Agreement, Civil Action No. 97-CVB-71514-BDT, District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

8. Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”

9. Everson v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 391 F.3d 737, 745–746 (6th Cir. 2004); Caruso, P. (2009, February 17). Telephone interview (hereafter Caruso, Telephone interview); Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”

10. Seidel, “Sexual assaults.”

11. Caruso, Telephone interview.

12. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S. (2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to improving security in women’s facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Owen, Gendered violence).

13. Testimony of Wall, A. T. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 74). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Wall).

14. Zweig, J. M., & Blackmore, J. (2008). Research for practice: Strategies to prevent prison rape by changing the correctional culture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Zweig, Strategies to prevent).

15. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 75.

16. Zweig, J., Naser, R. L., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006). Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Zweig, Addressing sexual violence). According to the authors, the purpose of this study was to “provide a national snapshot of department of correction initiatives to address prison sexual violence, as well as to identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in nature” (p. i).

17. Zweig, Strategies to prevent.

18. Testimony of Horn, M. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 84–85). Miami: The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Horn).

19. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 75.

20. Thompson, R. A., Nored, L. S., & Dial, K. C. (2008). The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 414–437.

21. Cason v. Seckinger, Civil Action File No. 84-313-1-MAC (M.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 1994); Women Prisoners v. District of Columbia, 877 F.Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994); Elliott-Wilkins, T. (2007). Texas Youth Commission: Summary report for administrative review. Dallas Morning News Web site. Available at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/02-07/
0218tyc_pages1.pdf

22. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 79.

23. Kahle v. Leonard, 477 F.3d 544, 547–548 (8th Cir. 2007). All information about this case is taken from court records.

24. Ibid., at 547.

25. Ibid., at 548.

26. Clem, C., Krauth, B., & Wenger, P. (2000). Recruitment, hiring, and retention: Current practices in U.S. jails. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Clem, Recruitment).

27. Dowd, D. (2007). No vacancies? Osceola County finds keys to attract and retain officer staff. LJN Exchange, 19–24, at 19 (hereafter Dowd, “No vacancies”).

28. National Academy of Public Administration. (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter NAPA, Eliminating prison rape).

29. Stinchcomb, J. B., McCampbell, S. W., & Leip, L. (2009). The future is now: Recruiting, retaining, and developing the 21st century jail workforce. Naples, FL: Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

30. Clem, Recruitment; Scrivner, E. (2006). Innovations in police recruitment and hiring: Hiring in the spirit of service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

31. McCampbell, S. W., & Fischer, L. S. (2002). Staff sexual misconduct with inmates: Policy development guide for sheriffs and jail administrators. Naples, FL: Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc.

32. Testimony of Kupers, T. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Kupers).

33. Eigenberg, H. M. (2000). Correctional officers and their perceptions of homosexuality, rape and prostitution in male prisons. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 415–433 (hereafter Eigenberg, “Correctional officers”).

34. Harrington, P. E., Spillar, K., Lonsway, K. A., Webber, R., Baldwin, K. A., Besser, A., et al. (2001). Recruiting and retaining women: A self-assessment guide for law enforcement. Los Angeles: National Center for Women and Policing; Owen, Gendered violence.

35. NPREC Testimony of Kupers, at 117.

36. Clem, Recruitment.

37. Ibid.; Dowd, “No vacancies.”

38. Corrections Independent Review Panel. (2004). Reforming corrections: Report of the Corrections Independent Review Panel. Sacramento, CA: California Performance Review (hereafter CIRP, Reforming corrections).

39. Davenport, D. K. (2001). Performance audit, Arizona Department of Corrections, Human Resources Management. Phoenix: State of Arizona Office of the Auditor General; Clem, Recruitment; CIRP, Reforming corrections.

40. Jacobs, J. B., & Olitsky, E. (2004). Leadership and correctional reform. Pace Law Review, 24(2), 477–496.

41. Mariner, J. (2001). Anomaly or epidemic: The incidence of prisoner-on-prisoner rape. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

42. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

43. McCampbell, S. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.

44. Ibid.

45. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. (2004). Ohio correctional institution sexual assault abatement: A ten point plan. Columbus: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (2009). Safe Prison Program. Correctional Institutions Division
Web site. Available at http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/cid/cid_safe_prison_pgm.htm

46. Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.; Eigenberg, “Correctional officers”; Zweig, Strategies to prevent.

47. Hensley, C. (2000). Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

48. Owen, Gendered violence.

49. Zweig, Strategies to prevent.

50. See NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails, Standards TR-1, TR-2, OR-1, and OR-3.

51. See National Institute of Corrections. (2005). Speaking up: Discussing prison sexual assault: A tool kit designed to assist facility staff in educating women offenders to local sexual assault policies and practices [CD ROM]. Washington, D.C.: Author; Owen, Gendered violence.

52. Smith, B. V. (2002). An end to silence: Prisoners’ handbook on identifying and addressing sexual misconduct (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American University, Washington College of Law; Smith, B. V. (1998). An end to silence: Women prisoners’ handbook on identifying and addressing sexual misconduct. Washington, D.C.: National Women’s Law Center.

53. Testimony of Hennessey, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 276). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Hennessey).

54. Clem, C., Gordon, C., Sheanin, D., & Smith, T. (2006). Direct supervision jails: 2006 sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division.

55. Wener, R. (2006). Effectiveness of the direct supervision system of correctional design and management: A review of the literature. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(3), 392–410.

56. Nelson, W. R. (1993). New generation jails. In Podular, direct supervision jails: Information packet (pp. 25–41). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Jails Division (hereafter Nelson, “New generation”).

57. Testimony of Malm, C. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 95). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

58. Nelson, “New generation.”

59. Ibid.

60. NPREC Testimony of Hennessey, at 275.

61. Owen, B., & Wells, J. (2006). Staff perspectives: Sexual violence in adult prisons & jails. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections; Testimony of Beck, A. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts (p. 31). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing.

62. Tafoya v. Salazar, 516 F.3d 912 (10th Cir. 2008). All information about this case is taken from court records.

63. Ibid., at 919.

64. Testimony of Rodriguez, R. (2006, December 13–14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 10–11). Los Angeles:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

65. National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. (2005, Summer). Technology primer: Radio frequency identification. TechBeat, 6–8.

66. Financing for RFID prison system: GE public finance will offer special rates to states deploying cutting-edge prisoner tracking technology. (2002, December 31). RFID Journal.

67. Seidel, “Sexual assaults,” at 6.

68. Ibid., at 7.

69. Smith, B. V. (2003). Watching you, watching me. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism, 15(2), 225–288.

70. Levine, K. L. (2006). No penis, no problem. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33, 357–405 (discussing how men are just as constrained as women by gender stereotypes and societal expectations and, as a result, are often unable to recognize themselves as victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by women); Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2005). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

71. NPREC Testimony of Horn, at 81.

72. Testimony of Stalder, R. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 80) Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

73. Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1525 (9th Cir. 1993). All information about this case is taken from court records.

74. Colman v. Vasquez, 142 F.Supp.2d 226 (D. Conn. 2001). All information about this case is taken from court records.

75. Ibid., at 232.

76. See Cash v. County of Erie, 2007 WL 2027844 (W.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007); Herckenlaible v. Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, 491 F.Supp.2d 544 (2007). But also see Balbridge v. Jeffreys, 2009 WL 275669 (E.D. Mich. 2009).

77. Wilson v. City of Kalamazoo, 127 F.Supp.2d 855 (W.D. Mich. 2000). All information about this case is taken from court records.

78. Ibid., at 861.

79. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).

80. Ingram, J. D. (2000). Prison guards and inmates of opposite gender: Equal employment opportunity versus right of privacy. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 7, 3–27 (discussing how courts have attempted equal employment laws with constitutional privacy rights).

81. Riley v. Olk-Long, 282 F.3d 592, 594 (11th Cir. 2002). All information about this case is taken from court records.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid., at 597.

84. Raemisch, R. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.

85. Ibid.

86. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

87. Testimony of Meyers, W. (2006, December 13–14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations
(p. 13). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

88. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

89. Testimony of Gunn, J. (2006, December 14). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 132). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

90. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 80.

Chapter 3. Vulnerability and Victimization

1. Testimony of Bruntmyer, L. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 76). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer). See also Mariner, J. (2001). Case history of Rodney Hulin. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Mariner, “Case history”).

2. Berryhill, M. (1997, August 7). What really happened to Rodney Hulin? Houston Press.

3. NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer, at 75.

4. Ibid., at 76.

5. Mariner, “Case history.”

6. NPREC Testimony of Bruntmyer.

7. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833–834 (1994) (citing Cortes-Quinones v. Jimenez-Nettleship, 842 F.2d 556, 558 (1st Cir. 1988)).

8. Testimony of Stalder, R. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 77–78). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Stalder).

9. Man, C. D., & Cronan, J. P. (2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for “deliberate indifference. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92(1), 127–186 (hereafter Man, “Forecasting”); Mariner, J. (2001). Predators and victims. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Mariner, “Predators”). Warren, J. (2009). Risk markers for sexual victimization and violence in prison. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Warren, Risk markers).

10. Smith, N. E., & Batiuk, M. E. (1989). Sexual victimization and inmate social interaction. The Prison Journal, 69(2), 29–38, at 33.

11. Dumond, R. W. (2000). Inmate sexual assault: The plague that persists. The Prison Journal, 80(4) 407–414; Warren, Risk markers; Mariner, “Predators.”

12. Sisco, M. M., & Becker, J. V. (2007). Beyond predicting the risk of sexual victimization in prison—considering inmate options and reporting avenues for addressing an inherent problem. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3), 573–584 (hereafter Sisco, “Beyond predicting”); Kunselman, J., Tewksbury, R., Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Nonconsensual sexual behavior. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice and policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

13. Testimony of Martin, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 12–13). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing. All details about Martin’s experiences are based on his testimony to the Commission.

14. Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. prisons (p. 76). New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Thomas, All too familiar).

15. Hill v. New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner, 776 A.2d 828 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).

16. Testimony of Parsell, T. J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 34, 36). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

17. Testimony of Dumond, R. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Dumond).

18. Browne, A., Miller, B., & Maguin, E. (1999). Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(3–4), 301–322; Zlotnick, C. (1997). Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), PTSD comorbidity, and childhood abuse among incarcerated women. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185(12), 761–763; Bloom, B., Chesney, L. M., & Owen, B. (1994). Women in California prisons: Hidden victims of the war on drugs. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.

19. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Special report: Mental
health problems of prison and jail inmates
. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter James, Mental health problems).

20. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S. (2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to improving security in women’s facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Owen, Gendered violence).

21. Richie, B. (1995). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered, black women. New York: Routledge.

22. Peddle v. Sawyer, 64 F. Supp. 2d 12 (D.C. Conn. 1999). All information about this case is taken from court records.

23. Ibid., at 14.

24. McDermott, B. E., Hardison, K. A., & MacKenzie, C. (2005). Individuals with developmental disabilities in correctional settings. In C. L. Scott & J. B. Gerbasi (Eds.), Handbook of correctional mental health. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Publishing; Petersilia, J. R. (2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(6), 655–694 (hereafter Petersilia, “Crime victims”).

25. Petersilia, “Crime victims”; Davis, L. A. (2005). People with intellectual disabilities and sexual violence. Silver Spring, MD: The Arc of the United States.

26. Demer, L. (2009, January 13). Assaulted inmates settle suit with state. Anchorage Daily News, p. 1.

27. Kupers, T. (1999). Prison madness: The mental health crisis behind bars and what we must do about it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass (hereafter Kupers, Prison madness); Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Difficulties mentally ill prisoners face coping in prison. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch.

28. Sigurdson, C. (2000). The mad, the bad, and the abandoned: The mentally ill in prisons and jails. Corrections Today, 88(6), 70–78.

29. National Institute of Mental Health. (2008). Mental health medications. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; Kupers, Prison madness.

30. NPREC Testimony of Dumond, at 157.

31. James, Mental health problems.

32. Wooden, W. S., & Parker, J. (1982). Men behind bars: Sexual exploitation in prison. New York: Da Capo Press; Jenness, V., Maxson, C. L., Matsuda, K. N., & Sumner, J. M. (2007). Violence in California correctional facilities: An empirical examination of sexual assault. Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections; Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2006). A comparison of sexual coercion experiences reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1591–1615; Mariner, “Predators.”

33. Testimony of Long, S. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 233). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Long).

34. Berrill, K. T. (1992). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States: An overview. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Peek, C. (2004). Breaking out of the prison hierarchy: Transgender prisoners, rape, and the Eighth Amendment, Santa Clara Law Review, 44, 1211–1248 (hereafter Peek, “Breaking out”).

35. Man, “Forecasting.”

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid., at 178.

38. Testimony of Spade, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

39. White v. United States, No. 06-CF-942 (D.C. Oct. 16 2008).

40. NPREC Testimony of Long.

41. Peek, “Breaking out”; David, E. S. (1975). The law and transsexualism: A faltering response to a conceptual dilemma. Connecticut Law Review, 7, 288.

42. Testimony of Chung, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 23–24). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

43. Struckman-Johnson, C. J., & Struckman-Johnson, D. L. (2002). Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39(2): 217–227.

44. Thomas, All too familiar.

45. Testimony of Goord, G. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 265). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

46. Hardyman, P. L., Austin, J., Alexander, J., Johnson, K. D., & Tulloch, O. C. (2002). Internal prison classification systems: Case studies in their development and implementation (p. 1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Hardyman, Internal prison classification).

47. Austin, J. (1994). Managing facilities: Objective offender classification is key to proper housing decisions. Corrections Today, 56(4), 94–96, at 96.

48. Austin, J., & Hardyman, P. L. (2004). Objective prison classification: A guide for correctional agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Austin, Objective prison classification); Hardyman, P. L., Austin, J., & Peyton, J. (2004). Prisoner intake systems: Assessing needs and classifying prisoners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Hardyman, Prisoner intake); Brennan, T., & Wells, D. (1992). Importance of inmate classification in small jails. American Jails, 6(2), 49–52.

49. Hardyman, Prisoner intake; Austin, Objective prison classification.

50. Austin, J., Hardyman, P. L., & Brown, S. D. (2001). Critical issues and developments in prison classification. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, Prisons Division; Thompson, R. A. (2008). The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 414–437 (hereafter Thompson, “PREA”).

51. Austin, Objective prison classification; Sisco, “Beyond predicting.”

52. Thompson, “PREA.”

53. Sisco, “Beyond predicting”; Owen, Gendered violence.

54. Austin, Objective prison classification.

55. Testimony of Thigpen, M. L. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 280). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

56. Hardyman, Internal prison classification (citing Alexander,
J., Austin, J., Brown, S., Chan, L., He, S., & Stokes, P. (1997). Internal prison classification systems: A field test of three approaches. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency).

57. Hardyman, Internal prison classification.

58. NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails, Standard MM-1, Discussion.

59. Tarzwell, S. (2006). The gender lines are marked with razor wire: Addressing State prison policies and practices for the management of transgender prisoners. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 38(1), 167–219; Written Testimony of Daley, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Daley); Testimony of Marksamer, J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Marksamer).

60. Haney, C. (2001). The psychological impact of incarceration: Implications for post-prison adjustment. Paper presented at From Prison to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities, Washington, D.C.

61. Hardyman, Internal prison classification (citing Alexander,
J., Austin, J., Brown, S., Chan, L., He, S., & Stokes, P. (1997). Internal prison classification systems: A field test of three approaches. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency).

62. Young v. Quinlan, 960 F.2d 351, 353 n.2 (3rd Cir. 1992). All information about this case is taken from court records.

63. Ibid., at 363, 364–365.

64. Calderón-Ortiz v. LaBoy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2002). All information about this case is taken from court records.

65. Ibid., at 65 (citing Dawson v. Kendrick, 527 F.Supp. 1252, 1294 (S.D.W.Va 1981)).

66. Giraldo v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 168 Cal.App.4th 231 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). All information about this case is taken from court records.

67. Ibid., at 239.

68. Ibid., at 250–251.

69. Testimony of Spruce, K. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 28). San Francisco:
National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

70. Ibid., at 29.

71. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice (citing Correctional Association of New York. (2003). Lockdown New York: Disciplinary confinement in New York State prisons. New York: Author).

72. Struckman-Johnson, C. J., Struckman-Johnson, D., Rucker, L., Bumby, K., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Sexual coercion reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Sex Research, 33(1), 67–76 (noting that in one survey, residents of a rural Midwestern State prison identified increased supervision as the best way to prevent sexual abuse).

73. McShane, M. D., & Williams, F. D. (eds.). (1996). Encyclopedia of American prisons. New York: Routledge; O’Keefe, M. L. (2008). Administrative segregation from within: A corrections perspective. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 124–143 (hereafter O’Keefe, “Administrative”).

74. O’Keefe, “Administrative.”

75. Written Testimony of Nathan, V. M. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety (p. 7). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing; Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997a, et seq.

76. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156; Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Mentally ill prisoners and segregation. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”); Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (2006). Prison segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94; Bonner, R. L. (2006). Stressful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability in prison suicide ideators. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(2), 250–254.

77. Pizarro, J., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current practices, and effect on inmates. The Prison Journal, 84(2), 248–264; Beven, G. E. (2005). Offenders with mental illnesses in maximum- and super-maximum-security settings. In C. L. Scott & J. B. Gerbasi (Eds.), Handbook of correctional mental health. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners.”

78. Fagan, T. J., Wennerstrom, D., & Miller, J. (1996). Sexual assault of male inmates: Prevention, identification, and intervention. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 3(1), 49–65; NPREC Testimony of Marksamer.

79. Williams v. Lane, 851 F.2d 867, 881–883 (7th Cir. 1988) (finding that it was correctional administrators’ responsibility to provide substantially equivalent programming).

80. Ibid.; Lawrence, S., Mears, D. P., Dubin, G., & Travis, J.
(2002). The practice and promise of prison programming. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Lawrence, The practice) (citing Gerber, J., & Fritsch, E. (1994). The effects of academic and vocational program participation on inmate misconduct and reincarceration. In Prison education research project: Final report (pp. 23–32). Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University).

81. NPREC Testimony of Long; NPREC Testimony of Daley; NPREC Testimony of Stalder, at 77.

82. Testimony of Hennessey, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

83. Taylor v. Michigan Department of Corrections, 69 F.3d 76, 77–78 (6th Cir. 1995). All information about this case is taken from court records.

84. Ibid., at 78.

85. West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2009). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

86. Warren, Risk markers

87. Hensley, C. (2002). Introduction: Life and sex in prison. In Prison sex: Practice and policy (pp. 1–11). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Hensley, “Introduction”); Haney, C. (2006). The wages of prison overcrowding: Harmful psychological consequences and dysfunctional correctional reactions. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 22, 265–293 (hereafter Haney, “The wages”).

88. Hensley, “Introduction.”

89. Ibid.

90. Sultan, B. J. (2006). The insanity of incarceration and the maddening reentry process: A call for change and justice for males with mental illness in United States prisons. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 13(2), 357–382; Hensley, “Introduction”; Warren, Risk markers

91. Testimony of Beck, A. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts (p. 31). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing; Barrett, C. I. (2005). Does the Prison Rape Elimination Act adequately address the problems posed by prison overcrowding? If not, what will? New England Law Review, 29, 391–424; Haney, “The wages.”

92. Testimony of Harkins, G. (2005, July 19). The Systemic and Institutional Drivers of Abuse and Lack of Safety: Personal Accounts (p. 69). Newark, NJ: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons Public Hearing.

93. Haney, “The wages.”

94. Pyle, K. L. (1997). Prison employment: A long-term solution to the overcrowding crisis. Boston University Law Review, 77 (1), 151–180; Lawrence, The practice.

Chapter 4. Inside and Out: Strengthening Oversight

1. Swanson, D. (2007, February 18). Sex abuse reported at youth jail: Complaints about staffers ignored, covered up, investigation reveals. The Dallas Morning News; Blakeslee, N. (2007, February 23). Hidden in plain sight: How did alleged abuse at a youth facility in West Texas evade detection for so long? The Texas Observer (hereafter Blakeslee, “Hidden”).

2. Witness Interview Summaries: Robert Freeman. (2007). Texas Youth Commission: Summary report for administrative
review. Dallas Morning News
Web site. Available at http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/02-07/0218tyc_
pages1.pdf

3. Blakeslee, “Hidden.”

4. Ibid., para. 11.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Elias, G. (2007). How to collect and analyze data: A manual for sheriffs and jail administrators (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

8. Williams, W. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Frigo, J. (2009, March 20). Telephone interview; Archuletta, L. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Price, C., & Jordan-Williams, C. (2009, March 13). Telephone interview; Zullinger, N., Zorzina, K., Flaherty, B., & Buckley, K. (2009, April 22). Telephone interview; Fawson, D., & Dauarell, S. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

9. Written Testimony of Dretke, D. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

10. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Data collections for the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

11. National Academy of Public Administration. (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author.

12. Written Testimony of Beck, T. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Written Testimony of Beck).

13. Written Testimony of Deitch, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (Hereafter NPREC Written Testimony of Deitch).

14. NPREC Written Testimony of Beck, at 4.

15. NPREC Written Testimony of Deitch, at 4.

16. Keve, P. W. (1996). Measuring excellence: The history of standards & accreditation. Alexandria, VA: American Correctional Association.

17. Joint Select Committee on Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission. (2007). Preliminary Report of Initial Findings and Recommendations. Texas Senate Web site. Available at http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/senate/commit/c885/TYC-Report.pdf

18. Blakeslee, “Hidden,” para. 2.

19. Sandberg, L. (2007, March 9). Ranger keeps promise to kids: Investigator who broke case tells lawmakers of TYC failures. Houston Chronicle, para. 3.

20. Swanson, D. (2007, March 6). TYC sex allegations exceed 750. The Dallas Morning News.

21. Grand Jury Indictment, The State of Texas vs. Ray Edward Brookins. February Term 2007, 143rd Judicial District Court; Grand Jury Indictment, The State of Texas vs. John Paul
Hernandez
, February Term 2007, 143rd Judicial District Court.

22. Testimony of Harrell, W. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (pp. 169–170). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

23. Testimony of Oxley, J. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 62). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

24. Testimony of Cate, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 126). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

25. Written Testimony of Cate, M. (2007, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 1). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

26. Criminal Justice Section, American Bar Association. (2008). 104B urges oversight of correctional and detention facilities. American Bar Association Web site. Available at http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/policy/cjpol.html#am08104b

27. Ibid., para. 2.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Cate, M. L. (2007). 2007 annual report. Sacramento: State of California Office of the Inspector General.

31. California Penal Code § 6125-6141.

32. Schlanger, M. (2006). Civil rights injunctions over time: A case study of jail and prison court orders. New York University Law Review, 81(2), 550–630.

33. Prepared Statement of Woodford, J. (2008, April 22). Prison Abuse Remedies Act of 2007 (p. 81). Washington, D.C.: House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Hearing on H.R. 4109 (hereafter Prepared Statement of Woodford).

34. Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2000).

35. Cason v. Seckinger, Civil Action File No. 84-313-1-MAC, Permanent Injunction (1994, March 7).

36. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 199–200 (1989).

37. Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections v. District of Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634, 666 (D.D.C. 1994).

38. California’s crowded prisons [Editorial]. (2009, February 14). The New York Times, para. 1.

39. Rothfeld, M. (2009, February 10). Jurists issue tentative ruling in lawsuit brought by inmates, who say overcrowding in state prisons violates their right to adequate healthcare. The Los Angeles Times.

40. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002) (referencing the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(a) (hereafter PLRA)).

41. Camp, C., & Camp, G. (1997). Corrections yearbook 1997. Middletown, CT: Criminal Justice Institute, Inc.

42. Golden, D. (2006). The Prison Litigation Reform Act—a proposal for closing the loophole for rapists. Washington, D.C.: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

43. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736 (2001).

44. PRLA, § 1997(e)(a); Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006).

45. Prepared Statement of Woodford, at 82–83.

46. Ibid., at 83–84.

47. Ibid., at 83.

48. Herivel, T., & Wright, P. (2002). Prison nation: The warehousing of America’s poor. New York: Routledge.

49. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Committee Public Hearing. All information about his experience is taken from his testimony.

50. Ibid., at 3.

51. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2007, November 8). Testimony of Garrett Cunningham about the Prison Litigation Reform Act (pp. 1–2). Washington, D.C.: House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

52. Ibid., at 2.

53. Ibid., at 1–2.

54. Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2007). See also Mitchell v. Horn, 318 F.3d 523 (3d Cir. 2003); Camp v. Brennan, 219 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 2000); Davis v. Berks County, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9892, 2007 WL 516128 (E.D. Pa. 2007).

55. PLRA, § 1997(e)(e).

56. Hancock v. Payne, 2006 WL 21751, *3 (S.D.Miss 2006); Schlanger, M., & Shay, G. (2009). Preserving the rule of law in America’s jails and prisons: The case for amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Journal of Constitutional Law, 11(1), 139–154.

57. Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 1999).

58. PRLA, § 1997(a).

59. Carter, M. (2006, December 5). Inquiry into jail begins. Seattle Times (hereafter Carter, “Inquiry”).

60. Sullivan, J. (2006, July 25). Former King County Jail guard accused of having sex with juvenile inmates. Seattle Times, para. 7.

61. Carter, “Inquiry,” para. 7.

62. Carter, “Inquiry”; Castro, H. (2006, December 6). Feds look into King County Jail problems. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

63. Comisac, R. J. (2007, November 13). Letter to the Honorable Ron Sims about the King County Correctional Facility, p. 8.

64. Ibid.

65. King County, Department of Justice reach agreement on proposed jail improvements [press release]. (2009, January 5).
King County, Washington.

66. Ibid.

67. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: Report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice.

68. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 (1996); Mariner, J. (2001). Legal con-
text. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

PART II: RESPONDING TO VICTIMS AND PERPETRATORS

Chapter 5. Reporting, Investigation, and Punishment

1. Testimony of Ragsdale, D. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 8). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale).

2. Ibid., at 10, 13.

3. Beck, A., Harrison, P., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006); Beck, A., & Harrison, P. (2007). Sexual victimization in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

4. Testimony of Pasion, C. (2006, June 1). Elimination of Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 10). Boston: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

5. Testimony of Spruce, K. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 47). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

6. Testimony of Cunningham, G. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape (p. 63). Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

7. National Academy of Public Administration (2007). Eliminating prison rape: Policy and strategy. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter NAPA, Eliminating prison rape).

8. Thompson, R. A., Nored, L. S., & Dial, K. C. (2008). The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): An evaluation of policy compliance with illustrative excerpts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19(4), 414–437.

9. Testimony of Cate, M. (2002, December 6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 127). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

10. Testimony of Horn, M. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (pp. 48–49). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Horn).

11. Hobbs, R. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.

12. Price, C. (2009, January 29). Telephone interview.

13. Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (pp. 21–22, 26). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Brown).

14. Testimony of Anonymous Survivor in Loretta, VA. (2008). Los Angeles: Just Detention International Web site, para. 9. Available at http://www.justdetention.org/en/survivortestimony/stories/loretta_va.aspx

15. Testimony of Gutierrez, I. (2007, March 27). Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal and Youth Institutions (pp. 113–114). Austin, TX: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

16. Baron v. Hickey, 242 F.Supp.2d 66 (D. Mass. 2003). All information about this case is taken from court records.

17. Ibid., 70.

18. Testimony of Dennehy, K. (2006, March 23). Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective (p. 107). Miami: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

19. Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156 (hereafter Haney, “Mental health issues”); Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Mentally ill prisoners and segregation. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch (hereafter Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”); Miller, H. A., & Young, G. R. (2006). Prison segregation: Administrative detention remedy or mental health problem? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 7(1), 85–94 (hereafter Miller, “Prison segregation”); Bonner, R. L. (2006). Successful segregation housing and psychosocial vulnerability in prison suicide ideators. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(2), 250–254 (hereafter Bonner, “Successful segregation”).

20. NPREC Testimony of Brown, at 27.

21. Brisbin, L. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.

22. Grant, A. (2009, January 28). Telephone interview.

23. Dennehy, K. (2009, May 5). Telephone interview.

24. Dennis, G. (2009, April 23). Telephone interview.

25. Hendricks, K. (2009, January 27). Telephone interview.

26. Testimony of Rees, J. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 143). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Rees).

27. Cal. Gov. Code § 3304(d)(2005); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 112.532(6)(a);
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:2531(7)(2008); Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety § 3-106 (a)(2009); R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-28.6-4(a)(2008).

28. Testimony of Miller, G. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (pp. 304–305). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

29. Testimony of DeBottis, G. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 320). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of DeBottis).

30. Austin, J., Fabelo, T., Gunter, A., & McGinnis, K. (2006). Sexual violence in the Texas prison system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Austin, Sexual violence).

31. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

32. Zweig, J., Naser, R. L., Blackmore, J., & Schaffer, M. (2006). Addressing sexual violence in prisons: A national snapshot of approaches and highlights of innovative strategies. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute (hereafter Zweig, Addressing sexual violence).

33. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

34. Owen, B., McCampbell, S. W., & Wells, J. (2007). Staff perspectives: Sexual violence in adult prisons & jails: Investigating sexual assaults in correctional facilities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (hereafter Owen, Staff perspectives).

35. Ibid., at 6.

36. NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 14.

37. Owen, Staff perspectives.

38. Ibid.

39. Testimony of Aldrich, A. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (pp. 170–171). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Aldrich).

40. Ibid., at 166.

41. Testimony of Schnedar, C. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 210). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

42. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

43. Ibid.

44. Testimony of Wall, A. T. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 133). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Wall).

45. Owen, Staff perspectives.

46. 42 U.S.C. § 3796gg-8(a)-(b).

47. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 497 (1967) (hereafter Garrity).

48. Americans for Effective Law Enforcement. (n.d.). Interview warnings (for disciplinary and criminal investigations). Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Web site. Available at http://www.aele.org/law/warnings.html 

49. NPREC Testimony of Wall, at 124.

50. Owen, B., Wells, J., Pollock, J., Muscat, B., & Torres, S. (2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to improving security in women’s facilities (p. 42). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

51. Austin, Sexual violence, at 56.

52. National Institute of Corrections. (2007). Report to the Congress of the United States on the activities of the Department of Justice in relation to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Public Law 108-79). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (hereafter NIC, Report to the Congress).

53. Gerlicher, C. (2009, May 4). Telephone interview.

54. Owen, Staff perspectives, at 16.

55. NAPA, Eliminating prison rape.

56. Ibid.

57. Williams, W. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Hobbs, R. (2009, March 26). Telephone interview; Archuletta, L. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Lance, T., Lajoie, M., & Gallagher, M. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Crist, D. (2009, April 28). Telephone interview; Croft, G. (2009, April 22). Telephone interview; Hendricks, K. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview; Durelle, S. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

58. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

59. Owen, Staff perspectives, at 6.

60. Ibid.

61. Office on Violence Against Women. (2004). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations: Adults/adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (hereafter OVAW, A national protocol).

62. Testimony of Holland, L. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 273). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

63. Crandall, S., & Helitzer, D. (2003). Impact evaluation of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

64. National Institute of Justice. (2007). Effective responses to sexual assault. U.S. Department of Justice Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/
response.htm

65. OVAW, A national protocol.

66. Frigo, J. (2009, January 29). Telephone interview.

67. Garrity.

68. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence; OVAW, A national protocol.

69. Written Testimony of Still, W. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight(p. 3). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

70. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

71. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

72. Austin, Sexual violence.

73. Testimony of Romero, G. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 60–62). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

74. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence; Owen, Staff perspectives.

75. Longsway, K. A., Archambault, J., & Lisak, D. (2009). False reports: Moving beyond the issue to successfully investigate and prosecute non-stranger sexual assault. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Center for Prosecution of Violence Against Women. The Voice, 3(1), 1–12.

76. NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 16; See also Daughen, J. (2005, June 28). He gets 4 months for jailhouse sex. The Philadelphia Inquirer.

77. Thomas, D. Q. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. State prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch; NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale, at 13–14.

78. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice. (2005). Deterring staff sexual abuse of Federal inmates. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter OIG, Deterring staff).

79. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

80. Smith, B. V., & Yarussi, J. (2008). Prosecuting sexual violence in correctional settings: Examining prosecutors’ perceptions. American University, Washington College of Law Research Paper No. 2008-50.

81. NPREC Testimony of Horn, at 16.

82. NPREC Testimony of Rees, at 120–121.

83. Testimony of Caruso, P. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (pp. 87, 90). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

84. Ibid., at 87.

85. Ibid., at 88.

86. Neely, J. (2009, March 27). Telephone interview.

87. NIC, Report to the Congress.

88. Zweig, Addressing sexual violence.

89. Ibid.

90. NPREC Testimony of DeBottis, at 314.

91. Ibid., at 317.

92. DeBottis, G. (2009, April 6). Telephone interview.

93. NPREC Testimony of Aldrich, at 167.

94. Testimony of Hennessy, M. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (pp. 278–279). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

95. Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006.

96. Ibid.

97. Haney, “Mental health issues”; Abramsky, “Mentally ill prisoners”; Miller, “Prison segregation”; Bonner, “Successful segregation.”

98. OIG, Deterring staff.

Chapter 6. Treating Trauma

1. Daskalea v. District of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 2000). All information about this case is taken from court records.

2. Ibid., at 439.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid., at 444.

6. Ibid.

7. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). See also Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982); Inmates of Allegheny County Jail v. Pierce, 612 F.2d 754, 763 (3d Cir. 1979); Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1977).

8. Testimony of Pierce-Weeks, J. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 126). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Pierce-Weeks).

9. Foa, E., & Riggs, D. (1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder and rape. In J. M. Oldham, M. B. Riba, & A. Tasman (Eds.), Review of psychiatry. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press (hereafter Foa, “Posttraumatic stress”).

10. Resick, P. (1993). The psychological impact of rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 223–255.

11. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author; Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(4), 359–370.

12. Dumond, R. W., & Dumond, D. A. (2002). Treatment of sexual assault victims. In C. Hensley (Ed.), Prison sex: Practice & policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers (hereafter Dumond, “Treatment”).

13. Stop Prisoner Rape. (2006). Hope for healing: Information for survivors of sexual assault in detention. Los Angeles: Author.

14. Testimony of Hernandez, H. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 21). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

15. Duke, L. A., Allena, D. N., Rozeeb, P. D., & Bommaritto, M. (2008). The sensitivity and specificity of flashbacks and nightmares to trauma. Anxiety Disorders, 22(2), 319–327; Halligan, S. L. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder following assault: The role of cognitive processing, trauma memory, and appraisals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 419–431; Brewin, C. R. (2001). A cognitive neuroscience account of posttraumatic disorder and its treatment. Behavior Research and Therapy, 39(4), 373–393.

16. Dumond, “Treatment.”

17. Testimony of Martin, C. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars (p. 16). San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

18. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. (1992). Violence against women: Relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA, 267(23), 3184–3189.

19. Ibid.; Waldrop, A., Hanson, R. F., Resnick, H. S., Kilpatrick, D. G., Naugle, A. E., & Saunders, B. E. (2007). Risk factors for suicidal behavior among a national sample of adolescents: Implications for prevention. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(5), 869–879.

20. Gutierrez, P., Thakkar, R., & Kuczen, C. (2000). Exploration of the relationship between physical and/or sexual abuse, attitudes about life and death, and suicidal ideation in young women. Death Studies, 24(6), 675–688.

21. Brier, J., & Gil, E. (1998). Self-mutilation in clinical and general population samples: Prevalence, correlates, and functions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 609–620 (hereafter Brier, “Self-mutilation”).

22. Cyr, M., McDuff, P., Wright, J., Thériault, C., & Cinq-Mars, C. (2005). Clinical correlates and repetition of self-harming behaviors among female adolescent victims of sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 14(2), 49–68.

23. Brier, “Self-mutilation.”

24. Dumond, “Treatment”; Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2006). A comparison of sexual coercion experiences reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(12), 1591–1615.

25. Dumond, R. W. (1992). Male sexual assault victims in incarcerated settings. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 20(2), 135–157.

26. Donaldson, S. (1993). Prisoner rape education tapes: Overview for jail/prison administrators and staff. Brandon, VT: Safer Society Press.

27. Newman, A. B., Enright, P. L., Manolio, T. A., Haponik, E. F., & Wahl, P. W. (1997). Sleep disturbance, psychosocial correlates, and cardiovascular disease in 5,201 older adults: The cardiovascular health study. Journal of American Geriatric Sociology, 45(1), 1–7. See also Clum, G., Nishith, P., & Resick, P. (2001). Trauma-related sleep disturbance and self-reported physical health symptoms in treatment-seeking female rape victims. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(9), 618–622; Koss, M. P., & Harvey, M. R. (1991). The rape victim: Clinical and community interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage (hereafter Koss, The rape victim); Golding, J. M. (1999). Sexual-assault history and long-term physical health problems: Evidence from clinical and population epidemiology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 191–194 (hereafter Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term”); Hensley, L. G. (2002). Treatment of survivors of rape: Issue and interventions. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 24(4), 330–347; Scarce, M. (2001). Male on male rape. New York: Basic Books.

28. Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term.”

29. Holmes, M. M., Resnick, H. S., & Kilpatrick, D. G. (1996). Rape-related pregnancy: Estimates and characteristics from a national sample of women. American Journal of Obstetric Gynecology, 175(2), 320–325; Jenny, C., Hooton, T. M., Bowers, A., Copass, M. K., Krieger, J. N., Hillier, S. L., et al. (1990). Sexually transmitted disease in victims of rape. New England Journal of Medicine, 322(11), 713–716.

30. Golding, J. M. (1994). Sexual assault history and limitations in physical functioning in two general population samples. Research in Nursing and Health, 19(1), 33–44.

31. Mariner, J. (2001). Body and soul: The physical and psychological injury of prison rape. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

32. Golding, “Sexual-assault history and long-term.”

33. Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2009). Contextualization of physical and sexual assault in male prisons: Incidents and their aftermath. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 15(1), 58–77.

34. Word for word/prison rape; From thief to cellblock sex slave: A convict’s testimony. (1997, October 19). The New York Times.

35. Dickey, F. (2002, November 3). Rape, how funny is it? The Los Angeles Times.

36. Maruschak, L. M. (2008). HIV in prisons, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

37. Hammett, T. M. (2009). Sexually transmitted diseases and incarceration. Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 22(1), 77–81.

38. Testimony of Potter, R. (2005, June 14). The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape. Washington, D.C.: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

39. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). HIV transmission among male inmates in a State prison system—Georgia, 1992–2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(15), 421–428.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid., para. 13.

42. Daniels v. Delaware, 120 F.Supp.2d 411, 417 (D.C. Del. 2000). All information about this case is taken from court records.

43. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

44. Maruschak, L. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

45. James, D., & Glaze, L. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

46. Ditton, P. (1999). Mental health and treatment of inmates and probationers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

47. Wilper, A. P., Woolhandler, S., Boyd, J. W., Lasser, K. E.,
McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., et al. (2009). The health and health care of U.S. prisoners: Results of a nationwide survey. American Journal of Public Health, 99(4), 666–672.

48. Abramsky, S., & Fellner, J. (2003). Inadequate mental health treatment in prisons. In Ill-equipped: U.S. prisons and offenders with mental illness. New York: Human Rights Watch.

49. Piatek, E. (2009, April 30). Email correspondence.

50. Clemmitt, M. (2007). Prison health care. CQ Researcher, 17(1).

51. NPREC Testimony of Pierce-Weeks, at 126.

52. Koss, M. (1993). Rape: Scope, impact, interventions and public policy responses. American Psychologist, 48(10), 1062–1069.

53. Koss, The rape victim.

54. Ibid.; Foa, E. B., & Rothbaum, B. O. (2001). Treating the trauma of rape: Cognitive-behavioral therapy for PTSD. New York: Guilford Press; Foa, “Posttraumatic stress.”

55. Williams, W., & Yarborough, R. (2009, March 12). Telephone interview; Crist, D. (2009, April 28). Telephone interview; Blount, C. (2007, June 7). Presentation to the American Correctional Health Services Association’s Multidisciplinary Professional Development Conference, Reno, Nevada. 

56. Community Oriented Correctional Health Services. (2009). Sites. Community Oriented Correctional Health Services Web site. Available at http://www.cochs.org/implementations

57. Gallagher, M. (2009, March 18). Email correspondence.

58. Gibbons, J. J., & Katzenbach, N. (2006). Confronting confinement: A report of the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. Washington, D.C.: Vera Institute of Justice.

59. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (2002). Health status of soon-to-be-released inmates: A report to Congress. Chicago: Author.

60. Kimerling, R., & Calhoun, K. S. (1994). Somatic symptoms, social support, and treatment seeking among sexual assault victims. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 333–340; Draucker, C. B. (1999). The psychotherapeutic needs of women who have been sexually assaulted. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 35(1), 18–29.

61. Testimony of Beeler, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental
Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight

(p. 210). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Beeler).

62. Ibid., at 209–210.

63. Testimony of Puisis, M. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 188). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

64. NPREC Testimony of Beeler, at 205. 

65. See Testimony of Hejnar, E. (2007, March 26). Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal and Youth Institutions (p. 21). Austin, TX: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Testimony of Doe, J. (2007, March 27). Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal and Youth Institutions (pp. 92, 97). Austin, TX: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Testimony of Soto, M. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 68). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

66. Dumond, R., & Dumond, D. (2007). Correctional health care since the passage of PREA. Corrections Today, 69(5), 76–69.

67. Testimony of Still, W. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 230). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

68. National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Fees paid by jail inmates: Findings from the Nation’s largest jails. Longmont, CO: U.S. Department of Justice.

69. Peterson, M. (1996, December 2). Charging inmates for care raises issues of health risk. The New York Times.

70. Written Testimony of Stana, R. (2000, April 6). Federal prisons: Containing health care costs for an increasing inmate population. Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight Hearing.

71. Written Testimony of Matheson, S. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight. New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

72. Ibid.

PART III: SPECIAL POPULATIONS

Chapter 7. When Children Are Involved

1. Schlozman, B. J. (2005, September 9). Letter to Mitch Daniels, Governor, Indiana, Regarding Investigation of the Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility, Indiana (hereafter Bradley, Letter to Mitch Daniels).

2. Ibid., at 6–7.

3. Ibid., at 7.

4. Ibid., at 6.

5. Settlement Agreement, United States v. State of Indiana, the Logansport Intake/Diagnostic Facility and the South Bend
Juvenile Correctional Facility.
(2006).

6. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2008). Easy access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Web site. Available at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp

7. Scott, E. S., & Grisso, T. (1997). The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 137–189 (hereafter Scott, “The evolution of adolescence”); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 14–16 (1967).

8. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570 (2005) (banning death penalty for youth who committed crime before the age of 18).

9. Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (1999). A developmental perspective on serious juvenile crime: When should juveniles be treated as adults? Federal Probation, 63, 52–57.

10. Scott, “The evolution of adolescence.”

11. Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. Somerville, MA: YouthBuild USA.

12. Woolard, J. L., & Reppucci, N. D. (2000). Researching juveniles’ capacities as defendants. In T. Grisso & R. G. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: Developmental perspective on juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (hereafter Woolard, “Researching juveniles”; Berliner, L., & Conte, J. R. (1990). The process of victimization: The victim’s perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14(1), 29–40.

13. Morrissette, P. J. (1999). Post-traumatic stress disorder in childhood sexual abuse: A synthesis and analysis of theoretical models. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 16(2), 77–97; Davenport, C., Browne, K., & Palmer, R. (1994). Opinions of the traumatizing effects of child sexual abuse: Evidence for consensus. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18(9), 725–738; Finkelhor, D. (1990). Early and long-term effects of child sexual abuse: An update. Professional Psychology, 21(5), 129–140.

14. See K.M. v. Alabama Department Youth Services, 360 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1258–1259 (M.D. Ala. 2005).

15. N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225, 232 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing
Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 265 (1984)).

16. Restated and Amended Consolidated Complaint, Byrd v. Alabama Department of Youth Services (N.D. Ala. Aug.14, 2003)
(No 01433-LSC). All information about this case is taken from court records.

17. Ibid., at 22.

18. Ibid.

19. Walton, V. (2007, May 5). Chalkville: $12.5 million paid to end sex scandal at DYS. Birmingham News, para. 2 (hereafter Walton, “Chalkville”).

20. Campbell v. Wood, CV-01-CO-1433-S (N.D. Ala. 2005), consolidated with Seitz v. Alabama Department of Youth Services, CV-01-CO-2156-S (N.D. Ala. 2005).

21. Ibid.

22. Ibid.

23. Ala. Code § 14-11-31 (2004).

24. Walton, “Chalkville.”

25. Beck, A. J., Harrison, P. M., & Adams, D. B. (2007). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Correctional authorities, 2006).

26. Beck, A. J., Adams, D. B., & Guerino, P. (2008). Sexual violence reported by juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006).

27. Beck, A. J., & Hughes, T. A. (2005). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

28. Ziedenberg, J., & Schiraldi, V. (1998). The risks juveniles face: Housing juveniles in adult institutions is self-destructive and self-defeating. Corrections Today, 60(5)22–26.

29. Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization in State and Federal prisons reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Sexual victimization in local jails reported by inmates, 2007. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

30. Data presented at The Prison Rape Elimination Act Workshop: National Survey of Youth in Custody, Washington, D.C. (2007, August 28).

31. McFarland, S. T., & Ellis, C. A. (2008). Report on rape in Federal and State prisons in the U.S. based on public hearings and review of documentary evidence by the Review Panel on Prison Rape: Findings and best practices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Review Panel on Prison Rape.

32. Ibid.

33. King, M., & Szymanski, L. (2006). National overviews: State juvenile justice profiles. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice; Griffin, P., Torbet, P., & Szymanski, L. (1998). Trying juveniles as adults in criminal court: An analysis of State transfer provisions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

34. Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels.

35. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

36. Black, D. A., Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2001). Risk factors for child sexual abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6(2–3), 203–229; Putnam, F. W. (2003). Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3), 269–278 (hereafter Putnam, “Ten-year research”) (stating that history of prior child sexual abuse has also been correlated with higher rates of rape after age 18).

37. Testimony of Dixon, L. (2006, June 1). Elimination of Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 60). Boston: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

38. State Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. Whaley, 531 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988). All information about this case is taken from court records.

39. Kendall, J. R. (2007). Juvenile status offenses: Treatment and early intervention. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Division for Public Education.

40. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D., & Loeber, R. (2004). Causes and correlates: Findings and implications. Juvenile Justice, 9(1), 3–19 (citing Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244(4901), 160–166); Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31(2), 173–202); Widom, C. S. (2003) Understanding child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency, the research. In J. Wiig & C. S. Widom (Eds.), Understanding child maltreatment & juvenile delinquency: From research to effective program, practice, and systemic solutions. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America Press.

41. ABA policy and report on crossover and dual jurisdiction youth. (2008, February). Washington, D.C.: ABA Commission on Youth at Risk. Available at http://www.abanet.org/youthatrisk/crossoveryouthpolicy.html; Ryan, J. P., Herz, D., Hernandez, P. M., & Marshall, J. M. (2007). Maltreatment and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(8), 1035–1050.

42. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,
42 U.S.C. §§ 5601, et seq. (hereafter JJDPA); 42 U.S.C. § 5633(a)(11) (stating that exceptions to the rule include a child’s violation of a valid court order).

43. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., & Kang, W. (2008). Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement databook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

44. Ibid.

45. Boyd, Jr., R. F. (2003, June 19). Letter to Ronnie Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi, Re CRIPA Investigation of Oakley and Columbia Training Schools in Raymond and Columbia, Mississippi.

46. Beck, Juvenile correctional authorities, 2005–2006.

47. Porter, G. (2000). Detention in delinquency cases, 1988–1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Sherman, F. T. (2005). Pathways to juvenile detention reform: Detention reform and girls. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

48. Testimony of Marksamer, J. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Marksamer).

49. Niesse, M. (2006, May 11). State to pay $625,000 in youth prison suit. Honolulu Star-Bulletin; Complaint, R.G. v. Koller (D. Haw. Sept. 1, 2005)(No. 05-00566 JMS/LEK).

50. Marksamer, J. (2008). And by the way, do you know he thinks he’s a girl? The failures of law, policy, and legal representation for transgender youth in juvenile delinquency courts. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5(1), 72–92; NPREC Testimony of Marksamer.

51. Testimony of Pasion, C. (2005, June 1). Elimination of Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles (p. 4). Boston: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

52. Ibid., at 10.

53. See Putnam, “Ten-year research” (finding that youth with physical disabilities have an increased risk of sexual abuse in the larger U.S. population).

54. Miller, C. M. (2005, October 20). Herald watchdog: Juvenile justice: State put disabled boy in sex offender’s care. Miami Herald.

55. Donton v. State, 1 So.3d 1092, 1101 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009).

56. See Mental Health America. (2005). Position statement 51: Children with emotional disorders in the juvenile justice system. Alexandria, VA: Author (recognizing that percentage may be as high as 60 to 75 percent). See also Teplin, L., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. M. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133–1143 (finding that 70 percent of females and 60 percent of males in detention in Chicago had a psychiatric diagnosis other than conduct disorder).

57. Ibid.; Leone, P. E., Christle, C. A., Nelson, C. M., Skiba, R., Frey, A., & Jolivette, K. (2003). School failure, race and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. College Park, MD: National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.

58. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983) (finding that facility’s failure to separate aggressive youth from potential victims could demonstrate callous or reckless indifference, making them liable for the victim’s injury).

59. Hoge, R. (2002). Standardized instruments for assessing risk and need in youthful offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 380–396.

60. Hartjen, C. A. (2008). Youth, crime & justice: A global inquiry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Park, J. (2008). Balancing rehabilitation and punishment: A legislative solution for unconstitutional judicial waiver policies. George Washington Law Review, 76, 786–816.

61. Campaign for Youth Justice. (2007). Jailing juveniles: The dangers of incarcerating youth in adult jails in America. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter CYJ, Jailing juveniles).

62. Testimony of Labelle, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Pubic Hearing.

63. Swanson, D. J. (2007, February 18). Sex abuse reported at youth jail: Complaints about staffers ignored, covered up, investigation reveals. The Dallas Morning News; Blakeslee, N. (2007, February 23). Hidden in plain sight: How did alleged abuse at a youth facility in West Texas evade detection for so long? The Texas Observer.

64. Acosta, R. A. (2005, June 8). Letter to Brad Henry, Governor, Oklahoma, Re Investigation of the L.E. Rader Center, Sand Springs, Oklahoma (hereafter Acosta, Letter to Brad Henry).

65. Paine, M. L., & Hansen, D. J. (2002). Factors influencing children to self-disclose sexual abuse. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(2), 271–295.

66. Rosado, L. (2000, September). Talking to Teens in the Justice System: Strategies for Interviewing Adolescent Defendants, Witnesses, and Victims. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center; Krebs, C. (2007). Video: Interviewing the Child Client. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.

67. See, e.g., Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels; Schlozman, B. J. (2005, August 4). Letter to Linda Lingle, Governor of Hawaii, Re Investigation of the Hawaii Youth Correctional Facility, Kailua, Hawaii, p. 20.; Boyd, Jr., R. (2003, June 19). Letter to Ronnie Musgrove, Governor of Mississippi, CRIPA Investigation of Oakley and Columbia Training Schools in Raymond and Columbia, Mississippi. See also Miller, C. M. (2005, November 11). Lost lockup tapes called coverup, Miami Herald (reporting on the loss of tapes from the exact date and location of a rape).

68. J.P. v. Taft, 439 F.Supp.2d 793, 826 (S.D. Ohio 2006).

69. Rosado, L. (2000, September). Talking to teens in the justice system: Strategies for interviewing adolescent defendants, witnesses, and victims. Washington, D.C.: ABA Juvenile Justice Center, Juvenile Law Center, Youth Law Center; Krebs, C. (2007). Video: Interviewing the child client. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, Section of Litigation.

70. Putnam, “Ten-year research”; Kilpatrick, D. G., Saunders, B. E., & Smith, D. W. (2003). Research in brief: Youth victimization: Prevalence and implications. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice (hereafter Kilpatrick, Youth victimization).

71. See Menard, S. (2002). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent victimization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Schlozman, Letter to Mitch Daniels.

72. Putnam, “Ten-year research”; Kilpatrick, Youth victimization.

73. Putnam, “Ten-year research.”

74. Lewis, M. (2006). Conditions of confinement: Abusive treatment. In Custody and control: Conditions of confinement in New York’s juvenile prisons for girls. New York: Human Rights Watch & American Civil Liberties Union (hereafter Lewis, “Condition of confinement”).

75. N.G. v. Connecticut, 382 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 2004).

76. Ibid., at 233 (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115 (1982)).

77. Ibid. (quoting Flores v. Meese, 681 F.Supp. 644, 667 (1988)).

78. Ibid., at 237.

79. Veysey, B. M. (2003). Adolescent girls with mental health disorders involved with the juvenile justice system. Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (hereafter Veysey, Adolescent girls).

80. Lewis, “Conditions of confinement.”

81. Veysey, Adolescent girls, at 3.

82. Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & LeGrand, S. (2000). The relationship between adolescent sex offender behaviors and victim characteristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(4), 363–374; Way, I., & Urbaniak, D. (2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for criminal sexual conduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1197–1212.

83. Woolard, “Researching juveniles”; Schmidt, M. G., Reppucci N. D., & Woolard, J. L. (2003). Effectiveness of participation as a defendant: The attorney-juvenile client relationship. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(2), 175–198.

84. Ronis, S. T., & Borduin, C. M. (2007). Individual, Family, peer and academic characteristics of male juvenile sexual offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35(2),153–163; Worling, J. R., & Curwen, T. (2000). Adolescent sexual offender recidivism: success of specialized treatment and implications for risk prediction. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7), 965–982.

85. CYJ, Jailing juveniles.

86. See Acosta, Letter to Brad Henry (discussing circumstances that facilitated consensual sexual between youth in the L.E. Rader Center).

87. JJDPA, at §5633(a)(12–13).

88. Wolfson, J. (2005). Childhood on trial: The failure of trying and sentencing youth in adult criminal court. Washington, D.C.: The Coalition on Juvenile Justice (stating juveniles are transferred to adult court through statutes that set juvenile court jurisdiction below the age of 18, that allow prosecutors unreviewable discretion to transfer youth to adult court, that permit judges to transfer youth after judicial hearings, and that create blended sentencing schemes that allow juveniles to be sentenced to juvenile and adult facilities); Hahn, R., McGowan, A., Liberman, A., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., Johnson, R., et al. (2007). Effects on violence of laws and policies facilitating the transfer of juveniles from the juvenile justice system to the adult justice system: A report on recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 56(RR-9), 1–11 (hereafter Hahn, “Effects on violence”); See Alaska Stat. § 47.12.100(a,b) (2004) (juvenile court may waive jurisdiction for any child after hearing if it finds probable cause to believe minor is delinquent and child is not amenable to rehabilitation by age 20); Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, §§921, 1010 (2007) (child of any age who is found not amenable to rehabilitation of the juvenile court may be referred to superior court for prosecution); Idaho Code § 20-509 (2007) (juvenile court may waive jurisdiction over child of any age who is charged with certain enumerated violent offenses).

89. Ryan, L., & Ziedenberg, J. (eds.). (2007). The consequences aren’t minor: The impact of trying youth as adults and strategies for reform. Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice.

90. Equal Justice Initiative. (2007). Cruel and unusual punishment: Sentencing 13- and 14-year-old children to die in prison. Montgomery, AL: Author.

91. William, S. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2008). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (hereafter William, Midyear 2006).

92. See Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Gregoriou, M. (2000). Juveniles in adult prisons and jails: A national assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

93. William, Midyear 2006; Beck, A. J., & Harrison, P. M. (2006). Sexual violence reported by correctional authorities, 2005. Washington, D.C.: U.S. States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

94. Ibid.

95. Bishop, D. M. (2000). Juvenile offenders in the adult criminal justice system. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice (Vol. 27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press (hereafter Bishop, “Juvenile offenders”).

96. Ibid.; CYJ, Jailing juveniles.

97. Bishop, “Juvenile offenders.”

98. Parker, A., & Berger, D. (2005). The rest of their lives: Life without parole for child offenders in the United States. New York: Human Rights Watch; Mariner, J. (2001). Predators and Victims. In No escape: Male rape in U.S. prisons. New York: Human Rights Watch.

99. Testimony of LaBelle, D. (2005, August 19). At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars. San Francisco: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

100. Ibid.

101. Reddington, F. P., & Sapp, A. D. (1997). Juveniles in adult prisons: Problems and prospects. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 139–152; Bishop, “Juvenile offenders.”

102. See Redding, R. (2008). Juvenile transfer laws: An effective deterrent to delinquency? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (describing a compilation of studies on the effectiveness of juvenile transfer laws).

103. Hahn, “Effects on violence.”

104. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2008). Statistical briefing book. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

105. Austin, J., Johnson, K. D., & Weitzer, R. (2005). Juvenile justice bulletin: Alternatives to the secure detention and confinement of juvenile offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

106. Saker, A. (2005, October 14). Teens’ abuser gets locked up for life. The Oregonian.

107. Roberts, M. (2005, March 6). State failed to heed abuse warnings. The Carter Center Web site. Available at http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc2064.html

108. Ibid., at para 25.

109. Ibid.

110. Ibid., at para. 28.

111. Ibid., at para. 39.

112. Ibid., at para. 40.

113. Ibid., at paras. 46, 48.

114. Ibid., at paras. 63, 65, 12.

Chapter 8. Community Corrections: The Next Frontier

1. Written Testimony of Matheson, S. (2007, December 5).
Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

2. Ibid., at 3.

3. Hendricks, K. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

4. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2008). Probation and parole in the United States—2007 statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site. Available at http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/abstract/ppus07st.htm

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. National Institute of Corrections. (n.d.). Essay: Specialized caseloads. Community Corrections Quarterly. Available at http://www.nicic.org/pubs/pre/period13.pdf

8. Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 352). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law. (2001–2006). Training: Addressing staff sexual misconduct with offenders. American University Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/training.cfm

9. See generally National Institute of Corrections. (2005, July). PREA town hall meeting. Presentation to the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference, New York (hereafter NIC, “PREA town hall”); Testimony of Kotkin, J. (2007, December 5–6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 381–384). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

10. Written Testimony of Abner, C. (2007, December 5–6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 6). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

11. NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response and Monitoring of Sexual Abuse in Community Corrections, Glossary.

12. McCampbell, S., Buell, M., Layman, E., & Smith, B. V. (2003). Addressing sexual misconduct in community corrections. Perspectives, 27(2), 26–37 (hereafter McCampbell, “Addressing sexual misconduct”); State run adult community corrections programs. (2006). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections & American University, Washington College of Law (hereafter State run adult); Krauth, B., & Linke, L. (1999). State organizational structures for delivering adult probation services. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

13. State run adult (citing states whose departments of corrections run community corrections—Alaska, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Vermont—and states in which community corrections is decentralized—Iowa, Massachusetts, and Tennessee).

14. State run adult (citing states in which community corrections is a different agency—Arkansas, South Carolina, and New Jersey—and states in which community corrections is operated locally in only some counties—Minnesota and Alabama).

15. Testimony of Abner, C. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 286). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Abner).

16. Smyth, J. C. (2009, April 28). Prison crowding taking toll in Ohio. Associated Press; Furillo, A. (2009, April 25). California prison officials propose releasing 8,000 inmates to cut costs. The Sacramento Bee; Bauer, S. (2009, April 22). Report: Cutting prison population would save $2B. Associated Press.

17. Lucken, K. (1997). Privatizing discretion: “Rehabilitating” treatment in community corrections. Crime & Delinquency, 43(3), 243–259.

18. NIC, “PREA town hall”; Comments by Malloy, D. (2005, July). PREA town hall meeting. Presentation at the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference, New York.

19. Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 358). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Harrison, P. (2008, October 3). Email correspondence (concerning data collection from community corrections agencies).

20. See generally Testimony of Ragsdale, D. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 8). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Ragsdale); Testimony of Brown, N. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? (p. 31). Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Brown).

21. Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2003) (hereafter Smith).

22. Ibid.

23. See Campos v. Nueces County, 162 S.W.3d 778 (Tex. App. 2005).

24. Smith, B. (2005, October 4). Legal issues in addressing prison rape in community corrections. Presentation to the New England Council on Crime and Delinquency: Prison Rape Elimination Act Training, Killington, Vermont.

25. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (finding that “a defendant in a § 1983 suit acts under color of state law when he abuses the position given to him by the State”).

26. Smith.

27. Ibid., at 1213.

28. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2008). Fifty-state survey of criminal laws prohibiting the sexual abuse of individuals in custody. American University, Washington College of Law Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/responses.cfm

29. Ibid.

30. Corrections employee faces sexual misconduct charges. (2006, October 24). TheIndyChannel.com

31. Policies and procedures: Anti fraternization. (n.d.). NIC/WCL Project on Addressing Prison Rape Web site. Available at http://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/policies.cfm#anti

32. Vargas, T. (2007, August 15). Officer charged with sexual misconduct. The Washington Post; Goodman, C. (2007, August 17). 2nd officer charged in sex scandal: Both women accused of misconduct with same man on house arrest. The Washington Post (hereafter Goodman, “2nd officer”).

33. Goodman, “2nd officer.”

34. Written Testimony of Broderick, B. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick).

35. Gustafson, P. (2007, May 22). Corrections officer admits a sexual offense. Minneapolis Star Tribune.

36. NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick, at 2.

37. Testimony of Beauclair, T. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (pp. 306–307). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

38. Ibid., at 305–306.

39. McCampbell, “Addressing sexual misconduct.”

40. Ibid.

41. NPREC Written Testimony of Broderick, at 2.

42. Rivera, E. (2004, February 25). Ex-deputy guilty of having sex with inmates. The Washington Post; McDonald, K. (2006, August 7). Conduct may cost officer his job. The Journal Star; Wang, B. (2006, January 13). Court papers report ex-sergeant repeatedly assaulted inmates. Associated Press.

43. Simonian, N. M., & Smith, B. V. (2007, Winter). Anti-fraternization policies in community corrections: A tool to address staff sexual misconduct in community corrections agencies. Perspectives, 43–48.

44. Testimony of Abner, at 292.

45. Public Safety Performance Project. (2007). What works in community corrections: An interview with Joan Petersillia. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts.

46. Ibid.

47. Renzi, J. (2009, April 2). Telephone interview.

48. National Institute of Corrections. (2007). PREA statewide probation and parole direction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

49. Written Testimony of Kotkin, J. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 2). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

50. Ibid.

51. Division of Community Corrections, North Carolina Department of Corrections. (2008). Officer and staff requirements, policy II.F. Raleigh, N.C.: Author.

52. Renzi, J. (2008, November 12). Telephone interview; Hahn, C. (2008, October 30). Telephone interview.

53. Written Testimony of Moss, A. (2007, December 5). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 4). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

54. Office on Violence Against Women. (2004). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations: Adults/adolescents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

55. Ibid.

56. Comments by Walton, R. (2005, July). PREA town hall meeting. Presentation at the American Probation and Parole Association National Training Conference, New York.

57. Cotton, D. J., & Groth, A. N. (1982). Inmate rape: Prevention and intervention. Journal of Prison and Jail Health, 2(1): 47–57.

58. National Institute of Corrections/Washington College of Law. (2001–2008). Training: Investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct with offenders. American University Web site. Available at https://www.wcl.american.edu/nic/training.
cfm (Although no official data were collected over nearly 10 years during training by NIC, only one agency has had any authority to begin a criminal investigation: Maine Department of Corrections. All other investigations were conducted by agency staff only until a criminal component became apparent. At that point, the agency investigators continued with administrative investigations and allowed either local or State police to complete the criminal investigation).

59. See generally National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. (2006, August 3). Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work? Detroit: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; See also NIC/WCL Project on Addressing Prison Rape. (2006, October 27). Improving prosecutions of allegations of sexual abuse in correctional settings: A meeting with Federal prosecutors (attendance list on file with author).

60. See Written Testimony of Powers, E. (2007, December 5–6). Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight (p. 1). New Orleans: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

Chapter 9. On the Margins: Immigrants in Detention

1. Stop Prisoner Rape. (2004). No refuge here: A first look at sexual abuse in immigration detention. Los Angeles: Author (hereafter SPR, No refuge here).

2. Testimony of Little, C. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 4). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Little).

3. Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children.
(2000). Behind locked doors: Abuse of refugee women at the Krome Detention Center. New York: Author (hereafter WCRWC,
Behind locked doors).

4. Ibid.

5. Sachs, S. (2000, October 5). Sexual abuse reported at an immigration center. The New York Times; WCRWC, Behind locked doors.

6. SPR, No refuge here (citing Solomon, A. (2002, March 20–26). The gatekeeper: Watch on the INS. Nightmare in Miami. The Village Voice (hereafter Solomon, “The gatekeeper”).

7. Solomon, “The gatekeeper.”

8. Testimony of Wideman, A. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/
Staffing/Labor Relations
(p. 108). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Wideman); SPR, No refuge here; Testimony of Lonegan, B. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations. (p. 117). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Lonegan); Dow, M. (2004). American gulag: Inside U.S. immigration prisons. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; Welch, M. (2002). Detained: immigrations laws and the expanding INS jail complex. Philadelphia: Temple University Press (hereafter Welch, Detained).

9. Roberts, M. (2009, March 15). AP IMPACT: Immigrants face detention, few rights. Associated Press.

10. Statement of Hayes Jr., J. T. (2009, March 3). Medical care and treatment of immigration detainees and deaths in DRO custody. (p. 4). Washington, D.C.: House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

11. Testimony of Hutchinson, A. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 35). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

12. Ibid.

13. Chien, E., & Micek, P. (2006, March 7). For children in immigration limbo, detention may be as good as it gets. New America Media; Testimony of Nugent, C. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 231). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing; Homeland Security Act of 2002, H.R. 5710, § 462.

14. Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Department of Unaccompanied Alien Children’s Services: Efforts to serve children. Washington, D.C.: Author.

15. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 109.

16. Testimony of Cheer, S.-M. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 90–91). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Cheer).

17. Kinzie, J. D. (2006). Immigrants and refugees: The psychiatric perspective. Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(4), 577–591; NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 110; Physicians for Human Rights & the Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture. (2003). From persecution to prison: The health consequences of detention for asylum seekers. Boston: Author (hereafter PHR, From persecution).

18. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. Washington, D.C.: Author; Resnick, H., Acierno, R., Holmes, M., Kilpatrick, D., & Jager, N. (1999). Prevention of post-rape psychopathology: Preliminary findings of a controlled acute rape treatment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 13(44), 359–370.

19. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 110.

20. PHR, From persecution, at 1.

21. Women’s Refugee Commission. (2009). Halfway home: Unaccompanied children in immigration custody. Washington, D.C.: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

22. Testimony of Medina, S. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 222–223). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

23. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 78.

24. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108. 

25. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 54.

26. Ibid., at 54–55.

27. Just Detention International. (2009). Sexual abuse in U.S. immigration detention. Los Angeles: Author.

28. Brané, M. (2009, March 19). Personal communication.

29. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108–109.

30. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 93; Hyder, A. A., & Malik, F. A. (2007). Violence against children: A challenge for public health in Pakistan. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 25(2): 168–178; Johnson, D. M., Pike, J. L., & Chard, K. M. (2001). Factors predicting PTSD, depression, and dissociative severity in female treatment-seeking childhood sexual abuse survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1): 179–189; Erulkar, A. S. (2004). The experience of sexual coercion among young people in Kenya. International Family Planning Perspectives, 30(4):182–189; Oral Statement by the OMCT Violence Against Women Programme. (2005, March 14–April 22). United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, 61st Session, Item 12. OMCT Web site. Available at http://www.omct.org/index.php?id=
&lang=eng&articleSet=Documents&articleId=5351

31. Testimony of Plummer, T. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 71–72). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

32. PHR, From persecution, at 121.

33. Ibid.

34. Welch, Detained.

35. PHR, From persecution.

36. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO detention standard: Sexual abuse and assault prevention and intervention (hereafter DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse”); U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO detention standard: Admission and release; Testimony of Tosado, R. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (p. 146). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing (hereafter NPREC Testimony of Tosado).

37. DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse”; NPREC Testimony of Tosado, at 147; Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2006). Treatment of immigration detainees housed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities. Washington, D.C.: Author (hereafter OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees).

38. OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees.

39. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 111–112.

40. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 95.

41. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 101.

42. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO detention standard: Classification system.

43. Kerwin, D. (2001, Winter). Looking for asylum, suffering in detention. American Bar Association Human Rights Magazine. Available at http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter01/kerwin.html

44. DHS, “Standard: Sexual abuse.”

45. OIG, Treatment of immigration detainees.

46. Testimony of Holguin, I. (2006, December 13). The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations (pp. 162–163). Los Angeles: National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Public Hearing.

47. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2008). ICE/DRO detention standard: Telephone access.

48. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Alien detention standards: Telephone access problems were pervasive at detention facilities; other deficiencies did not show a pattern of noncompliance. Washington, D.C.: Author, p. 12.

49. NPREC Testimony of Cheer, at 94.

50. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 108.

51. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 52.

52. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 124.

53. Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services & Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. (2007). Locking up family values: The detention of immigrant families. New York: Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, p. 47 (hereafter LIRS, Locking up family values).

54. NPREC Testimony of Wideman, at 123.

55. PHR, From persecution.

56. The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-293.

57. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(a,g) (stating that aliens determined to have a communicable disease of public health significance are bared from entry into the United States but may request a waiver).

58. NPREC Testimony of Lonegan, at 119.

59. Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2009). Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s tracking and transfers of detainees. Washington, D.C.: Author.

60. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2008). Adjudicator’s field manual. Washington, D.C.: Author.

61. Sullivan, E., Mottino, F., Khashu, A., & O’Neil, M. (2000). Testing community supervision for the INS: An evaluation of the Appearance Assistance Program. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

62. Brané, M. (2008, August 14). Women’s Commission letter to the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.

63. Statement of Jackson, S. L. (2008, March 5). House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law Oversight Hearing on the Department of Homeland Security, p. 70 (citing LIRS, Locking up family values).

64. LIRS, Locking up family values, at 47.

65. Brané, M. (2009, March 19). Personal communication.

66. NPREC Testimony of Little, at 59.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Adult Prisons and Jails, including Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of inmates

If public correctional agencies contract for the confinement of their inmates, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the public agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

PP-3: Inmate supervision

Security staff provides the inmate supervision necessary to protect inmates from sexual abuse. The upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled the abuse, the adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement security staff supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, the agency takes corrective action (DC-3).

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing inmates of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an individual’s genital status is unknown.

PP-5: Accommodating inmates with special needs

The agency ensures that inmates who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non-inmate interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to inmates who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, all victims of inmate-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration or staff-on-inmate sexually abusive penetration are provided access to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward inmate reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide inmates with confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or inmates, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency confines inmates under the age of 18 or other inmates who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

TR-1: Employee training

The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all inmates. Additionally, the agency trains all employees on an inmate’s right to be free from sexual abuse, the right of inmates and employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, and the common reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that employees understand the training they have received.

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services they provide and level of contact they have with inmates, but all volunteers and contractors who have contact with inmates must be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand the training they have received.

TR-3: Inmate education

During the intake process, staff informs inmates of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief period of time following the intake process, the agency provides comprehensive education to inmates regarding their right to be free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse response policies and procedures. Current inmates are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all inmates to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides inmate education in formats accessible to all inmates, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of inmate participation in these education sessions.

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1), the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting sexual abuse investigations have received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency maintains written documentation that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received this specialized training.

Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)

SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness

All inmates are screened during intake, during the initial classification process, and at all subsequent classification reviews to assess their risk of being sexually abused by other inmates or sexually abusive toward other inmates. Employees must conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although additional factors may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and the agency’s own data analysis, screening instruments must contain the criteria described below. All screening instruments must be made available to the public upon request.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen male inmates for risk of victimization: mental or physical disability, young age, slight build, first incarceration in prison or jail, nonviolent history, prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender nonconformance (e.g., transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen male inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen female inmates for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization and the inmate’s own perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen female inmates for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse.

SC-2: Use of screening information

Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments with the goal of keeping separate those inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from those at high risk of being sexually abusive. The facility makes individualized determinations about how to ensure the safety of each inmate. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender-nonconforming inmates are not placed in particular facilities, units, or wings solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity. Inmates at high risk for sexual victimization may be placed in segregated housing only as a last resort and then only until an alternative means of separation from likely abusers can be arranged. To the extent possible, risk of sexual victimization should not limit access to programs, education, and work opportunities.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

RE-1: Inmate reporting

The facility provides multiple internal ways for inmates to report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for inmates to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and forward them to the facility head (RP-2), except when an inmate requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, an inmate has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the inmate, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse and the report. An inmate seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Inmate access to outside confidential support services

In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the facility provides inmates with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving inmates the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enabling reasonable communication between inmates and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs inmates, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged.

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the inmate named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes publicly information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of an inmate.

Official Response Following an Inmate Report (OR)

OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in an institutional setting; retaliation against inmates or staff who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, medical and mental health practitioners are required to report sexual abuse and must inform inmates of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the facility head must report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the facility receives an allegation that an inmate was sexually abused while confined at another facility, the head of the facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that an inmate was sexually abused within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the first security staff member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder is a non-security staff member, he or she is required to instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify security staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all inmates and staff who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other inmates or staff. The agency employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for inmate victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or inmate abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for inmates or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or treatment of inmates or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any inmate disciplinary reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may suggest possible retaliation by inmates or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate inmate or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the inmate or staff member.

Investigations (IN)

IN-1: Duty to investigate

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and/or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the facility.

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected perpetrator.

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution.

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as inmate or staff.

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal are referred for prosecution.

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for inmates

Inmates are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that the inmate engaged in inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the abuse committed, the inmate’s disciplinary history, and the sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other inmates with similar histories. The disciplinary process must consider whether an inmate’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his or her behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, should be imposed. Possible sanctions also include interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation for the abuse, such as requiring the offending inmate to participate in therapy, counseling, or other programs.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

MM-1: Medical and mental health screenings—history of sexual abuse

Qualified medical or mental health practitioners ask inmates about prior sexual victimization and abusiveness during medical and mental health reception and intake screenings. If an inmate discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness, whether it occurred in an institutional setting or in the community, during a medical or mental health reception or intake screening, the practitioner provides the appropriate referral for treatment, based on his or her professional judgment. Any information related to sexual victimization or abusiveness that occurred in an institutional setting must be strictly limited to medical and mental health practitioners and other staff, as required by agency policy and Federal, State, or local law, to inform treatment plans and security and management decisions, including housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments. Medical and mental health practitioners must obtain informed consent from inmates before reporting information about prior sexual victimization that did not occur in an institutional setting, unless the inmate is under the age of 18.

MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report of recent abuse is made, security staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners.

MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to inmate victims must match the community level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the facility head.

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which it contracts for the confinement of its inmates.

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less than 10 years.

Audits (AU)

AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and inmates, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise made readily available to the public.

Supplemental Standards for Facilities with Immigration Detainees

ID-1: Supplement to RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers

Any facility that houses immigration detainees maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with one or more local or, if not available, national organizations that provide legal advocacy and confidential emotional support services for immigrant victims of crime (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

ID-2: Supplement to TR-1, TR-4, and TR-5: Employee training and specialized training of investigators and medical and mental health care

Any facility that holds immigration detainees provides special additional training to employees, including medical and mental health practitioners and investigators. This additional training includes the following topics: cultural sensitivity toward diverse understandings of acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior, appropriate terms and concepts to use when discussing sex and sexual abuse with a culturally diverse population, sensitivity and awareness regarding past trauma that may have been experienced by immigration detainees, and knowledge of all existing resources for immigration detainees both inside and outside the facility that provide treatment and counseling for trauma and legal advocacy for victims.

ID-3: Supplement to TR-3: Inmate education

Sexual abuse education (TR-3) for immigration detainees is provided at a time and in a manner that is separate from information provided about their immigration cases, in detainees’ own languages and in terms that are culturally appropriate, and is conducted by a qualified individual with experience communicating about these issues with a diverse population.

ID-4: Detainee handbook

Every detainee is provided with an ICE Detainee Handbook upon admission to the facility, and a replacement is provided whenever a detainee’s handbook is lost or damaged. The Detainee Handbook contains notice of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy toward sexual abuse and contains all the agency’s policies related to sexual abuse, including information about how to report an incident of sexual abuse and the detainees’ rights and responsibilities related to sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will inform immigration detainees how to contact organizations in the community that provide sexual abuse counseling and legal advocacy for detainee victims of sexual abuse. The Detainee Handbook will also inform detainees how to contact the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and diplomatic or consular personnel.

ID-5: Supplement to SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization
and abusiveness

The facility makes every reasonable effort to obtain institutional and criminal records of immigration detainees in its custody prior to screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness. Screening of immigration detainees is conducted by employees who are culturally competent.

ID-6: Supplement to SC-2: Use of screening information

Any facility that houses both inmates and immigration detainees houses all immigration detainees separately from other inmates in the facility and provides heightened protection for immigration detainees who are identified as particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse by other detainees through the screening process (SC-1). To the extent possible, immigration detainees have full access to programs, education, and work opportunities.

ID-7: Supplement to RE-1: Inmate reporting

The agency provides immigration detainees with access to telephones with free, preprogrammed numbers to ICE’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the DHS OIG. In addition, the agency must provide immigration detainees with a list of phone numbers for diplomatic or consular personnel from their countries of citizenship and access to telephones to contact such personnel.

ID-8: Supplement to RE-3: Inmate access to outside
confidential support services

All immigration detainees have access to outside victim advocates who have experience working with immigration detainees or immigrant victims of crime for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving immigration detainees the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national organizations that provide these services and enabling reasonable communication between immigration detainees and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates is private, confidential, and privileged to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs immigration detainees, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged.

ID-9: Protection of detainee victims and witnesses

ICE never removes from the country or transfers to another facility immigration detainees who report sexual abuse before the investigation of that abuse is completed, except at the detainee victim’s request. ICE considers releasing detainees who are victims of or witnesses to abuse and monitoring them in the community to protect them from retaliation or further abuse during the course of the investigation.

ID-10: Supplement to MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers

All immigration detainees are counseled about the immigration consequences of a positive HIV test at the time they are offered HIV testing.

ID-11: Supplement to DC-2: Data collection

The facility collects additional data whenever an immigration detainee is the victim or perpetrator of an incident of sexual abuse in custody. The additional incident-based data collected indicate whether the victim and/or perpetrator was an immigration detainee, his or her status at the initiation of the investigation, and his or her status at the conclusion of the investigation.

Supplemental Standards for Family Facilities

The following standards must be followed in ICE family facilities.

IDFF-1: Screening of immigration detainees in family facilities (This standard replaces rather than supplements SC-1 and SC-2)

Family facilities develop screening criteria to identify those families and family members who may be at risk of being sexually victimized that will not lead to the separation of families. Housing, program, educational, and work assignments are made in a manner that protects families and in all cases prioritizes keeping families together.

IDFF-2: Reporting of sexual abuse in family facilities

The facility provides parents with the ability to report sexual abuse in a manner that is confidential from their children. The facility also provides children with the ability to report abuse by a parent confidentially to staff.

IDFF-3: Investigations in family facilities

Parents are questioned confidentially by investigators about any incident of sexual abuse, away from their children. A parent or parents are present when a child is questioned by investigators about any incident of sexual abuse, unless (1) the child has alleged abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from an interview based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by a qualified mental health practitioner.

IDFF-4: Access to medical and mental health care in family facilities

All family members are offered mental health counseling (as required in MM-2 and MM-3) when one family member is a victim of sexual abuse in the facility. Following an incident of sexual abuse, parents and adult family members are examined confidentially by medical and mental health practitioners and away from children. Following an incident of sexual abuse, a parent or parents are allowed to be present during all medical and mental health examinations of a minor child, unless (1) that child has alleged sexual abuse by the parent or (2) staff suspects abuse by the parent. The decision to exclude a parent from an examination based on staff suspicion of abuse by that parent is always made by a qualified mental health practitioner. In the event that a child is sexually abused, a qualified mental health practitioner interviews the child to determine whether either parent was present or aware of the abuse and whether the parent or parents were threatened in connection with the abuse.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Lockups

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its lockups comply with the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

PP-2: Contracting with other entities for the confinement of detainees

If law enforcement agencies contract for the confinement of their detainees, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse in their lockups, as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the law enforcement agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance.

PP-3: Detainee supervision

Law enforcement staff provides the detainee supervision necessary to protect detainees from sexual abuse. The upper management officials responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the lockup where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether physical barriers may have enabled the abuse, the adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement law enforcement staff supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, the agency takes corrective action (DC-3).

PP-4: Heightened protection for vulnerable detainees

Any intake screening or assessment includes consideration of a detainee’s potential vulnerability to sexual abuse. When vulnerabilities are identified, law enforcement staff provides heightened protection to vulnerable detainees, which may require continuous direct sight and sound supervision or single-cell housing. Absent intake screenings or assessments, any time a law enforcement staff member observes any physical or behavioral characteristics of a detainee that suggest he or she may be vulnerable to sexual abuse, the staff member provides sufficient protection to that detainee to prevent sexual abuse.

PP-5: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the agency prohibits cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the agency restricts law enforcement staff from viewing detainees of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Any examination to determine the genital status of a detainee must be conducted in a private setting by a medical practitioner and only when the genital status is unknown to the agency.

PP-6: Accommodating detainees with special needs

The agency ensures that detainees who are LEP, deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non-detainee interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to detainees who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-7: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

PP-8: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

When investigating allegations of sexual abuse in a lockup, the agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, all victims of detainee-on-detainee sexually abusive penetration or staff-on-detainee sexually abusive penetration are provided with access and transportation to a community medical provider served by qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The agency makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency has elected to permit another law enforcement agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of allegations of sexual abuse in its lockups, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse in lockups with the outside law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency confines detainees under the age of 18 or other detainees who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within confinement facilities. When the agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing
policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new agreement. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

RP-3: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

TR-1: Employee and volunteer training

The agency trains all lockup employees and any volunteers who have contact with detainees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all lockup employees and volunteers who have contact with detainees to communicate effectively and professionally with all detainees. Current lockup employees and volunteers are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all lockup employees and volunteers to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains written documentation showing lockup employee and volunteer signatures verifying that they understand the training they have received.

TR-2: Detainee, attorney, contractor, and inmate worker notification of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy

Employees notify all detainees of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse during intake. The agency ensures that attorneys, contractors, and inmate workers are informed of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse upon entering the lockup.

TR-3: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees and volunteers (TR-1), the agency ensures that law enforcement staff who investigate sexual abuse in lockups have received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency maintains written documentation that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

RE-1: Detainee reporting

The agency provides multiple ways for detainees to report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other detainees or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, a detainee has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the detainee, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days has passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse and the report. A detainee seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Third-party reporting

The agency receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the detainee named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The agency publicly distributes or posts information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a detainee.

Official Response Following a Detainee Report (OR)

OR-1: Staff and agency head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in an institutional setting; retaliation against detainees or staff who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment and investigation decisions. If the victim is under the age of 18 or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, the agency head must report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the agency receives an allegation that a detainee was sexually abused while confined at another facility or lockup, the head of the agency where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the facility or lockup where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the facility or lockup where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a detainee was sexually abused within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the first law enforcement staff member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder is a non-law enforcement staff member, he or she is required to instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify law enforcement staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and agency leadership. The agency’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all detainees and staff who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other detainees or staff. The agency employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for detainee victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or detainee abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for staff members who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or treatment of staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated with investigations. When retaliation is determined to be taking place, the agency takes immediate steps to protect the detainee or staff member.

Investigations (IN)

IN-1: Duty to investigate

The agency investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the lockup.

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-3). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the agency has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-2). Investigations include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes established by the highest- ranking agency official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse or misconduct involving the suspected perpetrator.

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution.

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as detainee or staff.

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal are referred for prosecution.

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to appropriate law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Referrals for prosecution for detainee-on-detainee sexual abuse

When there is probable cause to believe that a detainee sexually abused another detainee, the agency refers the matter to the appropriate prosecuting authority.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

MM-1: Access to emergency medical and mental health services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical services following an incident of sexual abuse, regardless of whether they name an abuser. Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim. The agency is responsible for ensuring their safe and timely transportation to community medical providers and for referring victims to appropriate community mental health services.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The agency treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a group of upper management officials, with input from line supervisors and investigators. The review team evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics at the lockup. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the agency head.

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from every agency with which it contracts for the confinement of its detainees.

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial or other group dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each lockup as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of an agency, but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes all aggregated sexual abuse data, from lockups under its direct control and those entities with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less than 10 years.

Audits (AU)

AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all of its lockups, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency allows the auditor to enter and tour lockups, review documents, and interview staff and detainees, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise made readily available to the public.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Juvenile Facilities

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its facilities comply with the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA coordinator to develop, implement, and oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

PP-2: Contracting with facilities for the confinement of residents

If public juvenile justice agencies contract for the confinement of their residents, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse in their facilities, as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its general monitoring of the entity’s performance.

PP-3: Resident supervision

Direct care staff provides the resident supervision necessary to protect residents from sexual abuse. The facility administrators and supervisors responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred to assess whether there are any physical barriers that may have enabled the abuse, the adequacy of staffing levels during different shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement direct care staff supervision (DC-1). When problems or needs are identified, facility administrators and supervisors take corrective action (DC-3).

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing residents of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an individual’s genital status is unknown.

PP-5: Accommodating residents with special needs

The agency ensures that residents who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through non-resident interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to residents who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse; must run criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion; and must examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions for domestic violence, stalking, child abuse and sex offenses. The agency also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

PP-7: Assessment and use of monitoring technology

The agency uses video monitoring systems and other cost-effective and appropriate technology to supplement its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response efforts. The agency assesses, at least annually, the feasibility of and need for new or additional monitoring technology and develops a plan for securing such technology.

Response Planning (RP)

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the agency’s evidence collection protocol, all victims of resident-on-resident sexually abusive penetration or staff-on-resident sexually abusive penetration are provided access to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners who are trained in the unique psychological and emotional conditions of younger victims of sexual abuse. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The facility makes available a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward resident reports of sexual abuse to facility heads (RE-1). The agency also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide residents with emotional support services related to sexual abuse and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from incarceration to the community (RE-3, MM-3). The agency maintains copies of agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or residents, the agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. The agency also maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of children within confinement facilities. When the agency already has an existing agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations and child abuse investigations conducted by a designated State or local services agency, it does not need to enter into new agreements. The agency maintains copies of its agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency maintains a copy of the agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

TR-1: Employee training

The agency trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency trains all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all residents. Additionally, the agency trains all employees on a resident’s right to be free from sexual abuse, the right of residents and employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, and the common reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that employees understand the training they have received.

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency ensures that all volunteers and contractors who have contact with residents have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services they provide and level of contact they have with residents, but all volunteers and contractors who have contact with residents must be notified of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual abuse. The agency maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand the training they have received.

TR-3: Resident education

During the intake process, staff informs residents of the agency’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse in an age-appropriate fashion. Within a reasonably brief period of time following the intake process, the agency provides comprehensive, age-appropriate education to residents regarding their right to be free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse in confinement, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency sexual abuse response policies and procedures. Current residents are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency provides periodic refresher information to all residents to ensure that they know the agency’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency provides resident education in formats accessible to all residents, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as inmates who have limited reading skills. The agency maintains written documentation of resident participation in these education sessions.

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1),
the agency ensures that agency investigators conducting sexual abuse investigations have received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in confinement settings. Specialized training must include techniques for interviewing young sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in confinement settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency maintains written documentation that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency ensures that all full- and part-time medical and mental health care practitioners working in its facilities have been trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and that all medical practitioners are trained in how to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to young victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency maintains documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received this specialized training.

Assessment and Placement of Residents (AP)

AP-1: Obtaining information about residents

During intake and periodically throughout a resident’s confinement, employees obtain and use information about each resident’s personal history and behavior to keep all residents safe and free from sexual abuse. At a minimum, employees attempt to ascertain information about prior sexual victimization or abusiveness; sexual orientation and gender identity; current charges and offense history; age; level of emotional and cognitive development; physical size/stature; mental illness or mental disabilities; intellectual/developmental disabilities; physical disabilities; and any other specific information about individual residents that may indicate heightened needs for supervision, additional safety precautions, or separation from certain other residents. This information may be ascertained through conversations with residents at intake and medical and mental health screenings; during classification assessments; and by reviewing court records, case files, facility behavioral records, and other relevant documentation from the residents’ files. Medical and mental health practitioners are the only staff permitted to talk with residents to gather information about their sexual orientation or gender identity, prior sexual victimization, history of engaging in sexual abuse, mental health status, and mental or physical disabilities. If the facility does not have medical or mental health practitioners available, residents are given an opportunity to discuss any safety concerns or sensitive issues privately with another employee.

AP-2: Placement of residents in housing, bed, program, education, and work assignments

Employees use all information obtained about the resident at intake and subsequently to make placement decisions for each resident on an individualized basis with the goal of keeping all residents safe and free from sexual abuse. When determining housing, bed, program, education and work assignments for residents, employees must take into account a resident’s age; the nature of his or her offense; any mental or physical disability or mental illness; any history of sexual victimization or engaging in sexual abuse; his or her level of emotional and cognitive development; his or her identification as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender; and any other information obtained about the resident (AP-1). Residents may be isolated from others only as a last resort when less restrictive measures are inadequate to keep them and other residents safe, and then only until an alternative means of keeping all residents safe can be arranged.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

RE-1: Resident reporting

The facility provides multiple internal ways for residents to report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other residents or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The facility also provides at least one way for residents to report the abuse to an outside public entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and forward them to the facility head (RP-3). Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency policy, a resident has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when
the agency makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the resident, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse and the report. A resident seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency staff member of his or her need for protection.

RE-3: Resident access to outside support services and legal representation

In addition to providing on-site mental health care services, the facility provides residents with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving residents the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enabling reasonable communication between residents and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs residents, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged. The facility also provides residents with unimpeded access to their attorney or other legal representation and their families.

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse and refers all third-party reports of abuse to the designated State or local services agency with the authority to conduct investigations into allegations of sexual abuse involving child victims (IN-1 and RP-4). At the conclusion of the investigation, the facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the resident named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The facility distributes information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a resident to residents’ parents or legal guardians, attorneys, and the public.

Official Response Following a Resident Report (OR)

OR-1: Staff and facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency policy and relevant State or local mandatory child abuse reporting laws any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in an institutional setting; retaliation against residents or staff who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials and designated State or local services agencies, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions. Medical and mental health practitioners are required to report sexual abuse to designated supervisors and officials as well as the designated State or local services agency and must inform residents of their duty to report at the initiation of services. Upon receiving any allegation of sexual abuse, the facility head must immediately report the allegation to the agency head, the juvenile court that handled the victim’s case or the victim’s judge of record, and the victim’s parents or legal guardians, unless the facility has official documentation showing the parents or legal guardians should not be notified. If the victim is involved in the child welfare system, the facility head reports to the victim’s caseworker instead of the victim’s parents or legal guardians.

OR-2: Reporting to other confinement facilities

When the facility receives an allegation that a resident was sexually abused while confined at another facility, the head of the facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a resident was sexually abused within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the first direct care staff member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating. If the first staff responder is a non–direct care staff member, he or she is required to instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence and then notify direct care staff.

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, victim advocates, and facility leadership. The facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

OR-5: Agency protection against retaliation

The agency protects all residents and staff who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other residents or staff. The agency employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for resident victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or resident abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for residents or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency monitors the conduct and/or treatment of residents or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any resident disciplinary reports, housing, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to see if there are changes that may suggest possible retaliation by residents or staff. The agency discusses any changes with the appropriate resident or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the resident or staff member.

Investigations (IN)

IN-1: Duty to investigate

The facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the allegation. If additional parties were notified of the allegation (OR-1), the facility notifies those parties in writing of investigation outcomes. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the facility and regardless of whether the source of the allegation recants his or her allegation.

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency investigations

Agency investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations involving young victims (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-4). Investigations include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the time frames established by the highest- ranking facility official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected perpetrator; and potentially corroborating physical or other evidence.

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution.

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as resident or staff.

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appears to be criminal are referred for prosecution.

IN-3: Evidence Standard for Administrative Investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Discipline (DI)

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency sexual abuse policies are to be reported to law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

DI-2: Interventions for residents who engage in sexual abuse

Residents receive appropriate interventions if they engage in resident-on-resident sexual abuse. Decisions regarding which types of interventions to use in particular cases, including treatment, counseling, educational programs, or disciplinary sanctions, are made with the goal of promoting improved behavior by the resident and ensuring the safety of other residents and staff. When imposing disciplinary sanctions in lieu of or in addition to other interventions, the facility informs residents of their rights and responsibilities during the disciplinary process, including how to appeal sanctions, and only imposes sanctions commensurate with the type of violation committed and the resident’s disciplinary history. Intervention decisions must take into account the social, sexual, emotional, and cognitive development of the resident and the resident’s mental health status.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

MM-1: Medical and mental health intake screenings

During medical and mental health reception and intake screenings, qualified medical or mental health practitioners talk with residents to ascertain information regarding the resident’s sexual orientation, gender identity, prior sexual victimization or history of engaging in sexual abuse (whether it occurred in an institutional setting or in the community), mental health status, and mental or physical disabilities. Such conversations are conducted in the manner that the medical or mental health practitioner deems appropriate for each resident in light of the resident’s age and developmental status according to the practitioner’s professional judgment and use inclusive language that avoids implicit assumptions about a young person’s sexual orientation. The information obtained during these screenings is strictly limited to medical and mental health practitioners, with information provided to appropriate staff on a need to know basis to the extent needed to inform all housing, bed, program, education, and work assignments for the resident (AP-2). If a resident discloses prior sexual victimization or abusiveness during a medical or mental health reception or intake screening, the practitioner reports the abuse according to agency policy and relevant State or local mandatory child abuse reporting laws (OR-1) and provides the appropriate treatment or referral for treatment, based on his or her professional judgment.

MM-2: Access to emergency medical and mental health services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If no qualified medical or mental health practitioners are on duty at the time a report of recent abuse is made, direct care staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify the appropriate medical and mental health practitioners.

MM-3: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from custody. The level of medical and mental health care provided to resident victims must match the community level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics at the facility. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the facility head.

DC-2: Data collection

The agency collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. See Appendix C for a list of recommended data elements. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from every facility with which it contracts for the confinement of its residents.

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics or other group dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate legislative body, and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes all aggregated sexual abuse data, from facilities under its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less than 10 years.

Audits (AU)

AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all of its facilities, including contract facilities, are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and residents, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise made readily available to the public.

NPREC Standards for the Prevention, Detection, Response, and Monitoring
of Sexual Abuse in Community Corrections

I. PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING

Prevention Planning (PP)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-1: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse

The agency has a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and enforces that policy by ensuring all of its facilities and community supervision functions comply with the PREA standards. The agency employs or designates a PREA coordinator to oversee agency efforts to comply with the PREA standards.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-2: Contracting to house or supervise defendants/offenders under community corrections authority

If public community corrections agencies contract for housing or supervision of their defendants/offenders, they do so only with private agencies or other entities, including nonprofit or other government agencies, committed to eliminating sexual abuse, as evidenced by their adoption of and compliance with the PREA standards. Any new contracts or contract renewals include the entity’s obligation to adopt and comply with the PREA standards and specify that the public agency will monitor the entity’s compliance with these standards as part of its monitoring of the entity’s performance. Only in emergency circumstances, in which all reasonable attempts to find a private agency or other entity in compliance with the PREA standards have failed, should a contract be entered into with an entity that fails to comply with these standards. The public agency must document these efforts.

Community Corrections Facilities

PP-3: Defendant/offender supervision

Facility staff provides the defendant/offender supervision necessary to protect defendants/offenders from sexual abuse. The facility administrators and supervisors responsible for reviewing critical incidents must examine areas in the facility where sexual abuse has occurred or may be likely to occur to assess whether physical barriers may allow the abuse to go undetected, the adequacy of staffing levels in those areas during different shifts, and the need for monitoring technology to supplement facility staff supervision. When problems or needs are identified, facility administrators and supervisors take corrective action (DC-3).

Community Corrections Facilities

PP-4: Limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

Except in the case of emergency, the facility prohibits cross-gender strip and visual body cavity searches. Except in the case of emergency or other extraordinary or unforeseen circumstances, the facility restricts nonmedical staff from viewing defendants/offenders of the opposite gender who are nude or performing bodily functions and similarly restricts cross-gender pat-down searches. Medical practitioners conduct examinations of transgender individuals to determine their genital status only in private settings and only when an individual’s genital status is unknown.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-5: Accommodating defendants/offenders with special needs

The agency or facility ensures that defendants/offenders who are limited English proficient (LEP), deaf, or disabled are able to report sexual abuse to staff directly, through interpretive technology, or through nondefendant/offender interpreters. Accommodations are made to convey all written information about sexual abuse policies, including how to report sexual abuse, verbally to defendants/offenders who have limited reading skills or who are visually impaired.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

PP-6: Hiring and promotion decisions

The agency or facility does not hire or promote anyone who has engaged in sexual abuse in an institutional setting or who has engaged in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, the threat of force, or coercion. Consistent with Federal, State, and local law, the agency or facility makes its best effort to contact all prior institutional employers for information on substantiated allegations of sexual abuse and must run criminal background checks for all applicants and employees being considered for promotion and examine and carefully weigh any history of criminal activity at work or in the community, including convictions or adjudications for domestic violence, stalking, and sex offenses. The agency or facility also asks all applicants and employees directly about previous misconduct during interviews and reviews.

Response Planning (RP)

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-1: Evidence protocol and forensic medical exams

The agency or facility follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for obtaining usable physical evidence for administrative proceedings and criminal prosecutions. The protocol must be adapted from or otherwise based on the 2004 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women publication “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents,” subsequent updated editions, or similarly comprehensive and authoritative protocols developed after 2004. As part of the agency’s or facility’s evidence collection protocol, the agency or facility refers all victims of defendant/offender-on-defendant/offender sexually abusive penetration or staff-on-defendant/offender sexually abusive penetration to forensic medical exams performed by qualified forensic medical examiners. Forensic medical exams are provided free of charge to the victim. The agency or facility makes available or provides referrals to a victim advocate to accompany the victim through the forensic medical exam process.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-2: Agreements with outside public entities and community service providers

The agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into written memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or other agreements with an outside public entity or office that is able to receive and immediately forward defendant/offender reports of sexual abuse to agency or facility heads (RE-1). The agency also maintains or attempts to enter into MOUs or other agreements with community service providers that are able to: (1) provide defendants/offenders with confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse and (2) help victims of sexual abuse during their transition from a community corrections facility into the community. The agency or facility maintains copies of written agreements or documentation showing attempts to enter into agreements.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-3: Agreements with outside law enforcement agencies

If an agency or facility does not have the legal authority to conduct criminal investigations or has elected to permit an outside agency to conduct criminal or administrative investigations of staff or defendants/offenders, the agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement specific to investigations of sexual abuse with the law enforcement agency responsible for conducting investigations. If the agency or facility confines defendants/offenders under the age of 18 or applicable age of majority within that jurisdiction, or other defendants/offenders who fall under State and local vulnerable persons statutes, the agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into an MOU with the designated State or local services agency with the jurisdiction and authority to conduct investigations related to the sexual abuse of vulnerable persons within community corrections facilities. When the agency or facility already has an existing agreement or long-standing policy covering responsibilities for all criminal investigations, including sexual abuse investigations, it does not need to enter into a new agreement. The agency or facility maintains a copy of the written agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

Community Corrections Facilities

RP-4: Agreements with the prosecuting authority

The agency or facility maintains or attempts to enter into a written MOU or other agreement with the authority responsible for prosecuting violations of criminal law. The agency or facility maintains a copy of the written agreement or documentation showing attempts to enter into an agreement.

II. PREVENTION

Training and Education (TR)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-1: Employee training

The agency or facility trains all employees to be able to fulfill their responsibilities under agency or facility sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and under relevant Federal, State, and local law. The agency or facility trains all employees to communicate effectively and professionally with all defendants/offenders. Additionally, the agency or facility trains all employees on a defendant/offender’s right to be free from sexual abuse, the right of defendants/offenders and employees to be free from retaliation for reporting sexual abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse, and the common reactions of sexual abuse victims. Current employees are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency or facility provides periodic refresher information to all employees to ensure that they know the agency’s or facility’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. The agency or facility maintains written documentation showing employee signatures verifying that employees understand the training they have received.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-2: Volunteer and contractor training

The agency or facility ensures that all volunteers and contractors who have contact through the agency or facility with defendants/offenders have been trained on their responsibilities under the agency’s sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies and procedures; the PREA standards; and relevant Federal, State, and local law. The level and type of training provided to volunteers and contractors is based on the services they provide and level of contact they have with defendants/offenders, but all volunteers and contractors who have contact with defendants/offenders must be notified of the agency’s or facility’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse. Volunteers must also be trained in how to report sexual abuse. The agency or facility maintains written documentation showing volunteer and contractor signatures verifying that they understand the training they have received.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-3: Defendant/offender education

During the intake process into a facility or upon initial stages of supervision, staff informs defendants/offenders of the agency’s or facility’s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and how to report incidents or suspicions of sexual abuse. Within a reasonably brief period of time, the agency or facility provides comprehensive education to defendants/offenders regarding their right to be free from sexual abuse and to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse, the dynamics of sexual abuse, the common reactions of sexual abuse victims, and agency or facility sexual abuse response policies and procedures. Current defendants/offenders are educated as soon as possible following the agency’s or facility’s adoption of the PREA standards, and the agency or facility provides periodic refresher information to all defendants/offenders to ensure that they know the agency’s or facility’s most current sexual abuse policies and procedures. Periodic refresher training may or may not be necessary in community corrections facilities given the shorter time period defendants/offenders may reside in these facilities. The agency or facility provides defendant/offender education in formats accessible to all defendants/offenders, including those who are LEP, deaf, visually impaired, or otherwise disabled as well as defendants/offenders who have limited reading skills. All information provided to defendants/offenders is communicated in a manner that is appropriate for the defendant/offender’s age and level of cognitive and emotional development. The agency or facility maintains written documentation of defendant/offender participation in these education sessions.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-4: Specialized training: Investigations

In addition to the general training provided to all employees (TR-1),
the agency or facility ensures that investigators employed by the agency or facility and conducting sexual abuse investigations have received comprehensive and up-to-date training in conducting such investigations in community corrections settings. Specialized training must include population-appropriate techniques for interviewing sexual abuse victims, proper use of Miranda- and Garrity-type warnings, sexual abuse evidence collection in community corrections settings, and the criteria and evidence required to substantiate a case for administrative action or prosecution referral. The agency or facility maintains written documentation that investigators have completed the required specialized training in conducting sexual abuse investigations.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

TR-5: Specialized training: Medical and mental health care

The agency or facility ensures that all medical and mental health care practitioners employed or contracted with by the community corrections or pretrial, probation, or parole agency have been trained in how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and how to preserve physical evidence of sexual abuse. All medical and mental health care practitioners must be trained in how to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse and how and to whom to report allegations or suspicions of sexual abuse. The agency or facility maintains documentation that medical and mental health practitioners have received this specialized training.

Screening for Risk of Sexual Victimization and Abusiveness (SC)

Community Corrections Facilities

SC-1: Screening for risk of victimization and abusiveness

All defendants/offenders are screened during intake to assess their risk of being sexually abused by other defendants/offenders or sexually abusive toward other defendants/offenders. Employees must review information received with the defendant/offender as well as discussions with the defendant/offender. Employees must conduct this screening using a written screening instrument tailored to the gender of the population being screened. Although additional factors may be considered, particularly to account for emerging research and the agency’s or facility’s own data analysis, screening instruments must contain the criteria described below. For defendants/offenders under the age of 18 or applicable age of majority within that jurisdiction, screening must be conducted by medical or mental health practitioners. If the facility does not have medical or mental health practitioners available, these young defendants/offenders are given an opportunity to participate in screenings in private. All screening instruments must be made available to the public upon request.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen male defendants/offenders for risk of victimization: mental or physical disability, young age, slight build, nonviolent history, prior convictions for sex offenses against an adult or child, sexual orientation of gay or bisexual, gender nonconformance (e.g., transgender or intersex identity), prior sexual victimization, and the defendant/offender’s own perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen male defendants/offenders for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse and prior convictions for violent offenses.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen female defendants/offenders for risk of sexual victimization: prior sexual victimization and the defendant/offender’s own perception of vulnerability.

• At a minimum, employees use the following criteria to screen female defendants/offenders for risk of being sexually abusive: prior acts of sexual abuse.

Community Corrections Facilities

SC-2: Use of screening information

Employees use information from the risk screening (SC-1) to inform housing, bed, work, education, and program assignments. In many community corrections facilities, it is difficult, if not impossible, to keep defendants/offenders totally separate or segregated from each other. However, the facility can determine, based on the screening information, whether a particular defendant/offender should receive greater supervision, should have more frequent contact with staff, or is more appropriately housed in some alternative type of placement. The facility makes individualized determinations about how to ensure the safety of each defendant/offender. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other gender-nonconforming defendants/offenders are not placed in particular housing assignments solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, genital status, or gender identity.

III. DETECTION AND RESPONSE

Reporting (RE)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

RE-1: Defendant/offender reporting

The agency or facility provides multiple internal ways for defendants/offenders to report easily, privately, and securely sexual abuse, retaliation by other defendants/offenders or staff for reporting sexual abuse, and staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse. The agency or facility also provides at least one way for defendants/offenders to report the abuse to an outside pubic entity or office not affiliated with the agency that has agreed to receive reports and forward them to the agency or facility head (RP-2), except when a defendant/offender requests confidentiality. Staff accepts reports made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties and immediately puts into writing any verbal reports.

Community Corrections Facilities

RE-2: Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Under agency or facility policy, a defendant/offender has exhausted his or her administrative remedies with regard to a claim of sexual abuse either (1) when the agency or facility makes a final decision on the merits of the report of abuse (regardless of whether the report was made by the defendant/offender, made by a third party, or forwarded from an outside official or office) or (2) when 90 days have passed since the report was made, whichever occurs sooner. A report of sexual abuse triggers the 90-day exhaustion period regardless of the length of time that has passed between the abuse and the report. A defendant/offender seeking immediate protection from imminent sexual abuse will be deemed to have exhausted his or her administrative remedies 48 hours after notifying any agency or facility staff member of his or her need for protection.

Community Corrections Facilities

RE-3: Defendant/offender access to outside confidential support services

The facility provides defendants/offenders with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The facility provides such access by giving defendants/offenders the current mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotline numbers, of local, State, and/or national victim advocacy or rape crisis organizations and enabling reasonable communication between defendants/offenders and these organizations. The facility ensures that communications with such advocates are private, confidential, and privileged, to the extent allowable by Federal, State, and local law. The facility informs defendants/offenders, prior to giving them access, of the extent to which such communications will be private, confidential, and/or privileged.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

RE-4: Third-party reporting

The agency or facility receives and investigates all third-party reports of sexual abuse (IN-1). At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency or facility notifies in writing the third-party individual who reported the abuse and the defendant/offender named in the third-party report of the outcome of the investigation. The agency or facility distributes publicly information on how to report sexual abuse on behalf of a defendant/offender.

Official Response Following a Defendant/Offender Report (OR)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-1: Staff and agency or facility head reporting duties

All staff members are required to report immediately and according to agency or facility policy any knowledge, suspicion, or information they receive regarding an incident of sexual abuse that occurred in a facility setting or while under supervision; retaliation against defendants/offenders or staff who reported abuse; and any staff neglect or violation of responsibilities that may have contributed to an incident of sexual abuse or retaliation. Apart from reporting to designated supervisors or officials, staff must not reveal any information related to a sexual abuse report to anyone other than those who need to know, as specified in agency or facility policy, to make treatment, investigation, and other security and management decisions. Unless otherwise precluded by Federal, State, or local law, staff medical and mental health practitioners are required to report sexual abuse and must inform defendants/offenders of their duty to report at the initiation of services. If the victim is under the age of 18 or applicable age of majority within that jurisdiction, or considered a vulnerable adult under a State or local vulnerable persons statute, staff must report the allegation to the designated State or local services agency under applicable mandatory reporting laws.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-2: Reporting to other agencies or facilities

When the agency or facility receives an allegation that a defendant/offender was sexually abused while in a community corrections facility or while under supervision, the head of the agency or facility where the report was made notifies in writing the head of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred. The head of the agency or facility where the alleged abuse occurred ensures the allegation is investigated.

Community Corrections Facilities

OR-3: Staff first responder duties

Upon learning that a defendant/offender has alleged sexual abuse within a time period that still allows for the collection of physical evidence, the first facility staff member to respond to the report is required to (1) separate the alleged victim and abuser; (2) seal and preserve any crime scene(s); and (3) instruct the victim not to take any actions that could destroy physical evidence, including washing, brushing his or her teeth, changing his or her clothes, urinating, defecating, smoking, drinking, or eating.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-4: Coordinated response

All actions taken in response to an allegation of sexual abuse are coordinated among staff first responders, medical and mental health practitioners, investigators, and agency or facility leadership. The agency’s or facility’s coordinated response ensures that victims receive all necessary immediate and ongoing medical, mental health, and support services and that investigators are able to obtain usable evidence to substantiate allegations and hold perpetrators accountable.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

OR-5: Agency or facility protection against retaliation

The agency or facility protects all defendants/offenders and staff who report sexual abuse or cooperate with sexual abuse investigations from retaliation by other defendants/offenders or staff. The agency or facility employs multiple protection measures, including housing changes or transfers for defendant/offender victims or abusers, removal of alleged staff or defendant/offender abusers from contact with victims, and emotional support services for defendants/offenders or staff who fear retaliation for reporting sexual abuse or cooperating with investigations. The agency or facility monitors the conduct and/or treatment of defendants/offenders or staff who have reported sexual abuse or cooperated with investigations, including any defendant/offender disciplinary reports, housing changes, or program changes, for at least 90 days following their report or cooperation to assess changes that may suggest possible retaliation by defendants/offenders or staff. The agency or facility discusses any changes with the appropriate defendant/offender or staff member as part of its efforts to determine if retaliation is taking place and, when confirmed, immediately takes steps to protect the defendant/offender or staff member.

Investigations (IN)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-1: Duty to investigate

The agency or facility investigates all allegations of sexual abuse, including third-party and anonymous reports, and notifies victims and/or other complainants in writing of investigation outcomes and any disciplinary or criminal sanctions, regardless of the source of the allegation. All investigations are carried through to completion, regardless of whether the alleged abuser or victim remains at the facility or under supervision.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-2: Criminal and administrative agency or facility investigations

Agency or facility investigations into allegations of sexual abuse are prompt, thorough, objective, and conducted by investigators who have received special training in sexual abuse investigations (TR-4). When outside agencies investigate sexual abuse, the agency or facility has a duty to keep abreast of the investigation and cooperate with outside investigators (RP-3). Investigations include the following elements:

• Investigations are initiated and completed within the timeframes established by the highest- ranking official, and the highest-ranking official approves the final investigative report.

• Investigators gather direct and circumstantial evidence, including physical and DNA evidence when available; interview alleged victims, suspected perpetrators, and witnesses; and review prior complaints and reports of sexual abuse involving the suspected perpetrator.

• When the quality of evidence appears to support criminal prosecution, prosecutors are contacted to determine whether compelled interviews may be an obstacle for subsequent criminal prosecution.

• Investigative findings are based on an analysis of the evidence gathered and a determination of its probative value.

• The credibility of a victim, suspect, or witness is assessed on an individual basis and is not determined by the person’s status as defendant/offender or staff.

• Investigations include an effort to determine whether staff negligence or collusion enabled the abuse to occur.

• Administrative investigations are documented in written reports that include a description of the physical and testimonial evidence and the reasoning behind credibility assessments.

• Criminal investigations are documented in a written report that contains a thorough description of physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence and provides a proposed list of exhibits.

• Substantiated allegations of conduct that appear to be criminal are referred for prosecution.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

IN-3: Evidence standard for administrative investigations

Allegations of sexual abuse are substantiated if supported by a preponderance of the evidence or a lesser standard if allowed under agency or facility policy or State law.

Discipline (DI)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DI-1: Disciplinary sanctions for staff

Staff is subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination when staff has violated agency or facility sexual abuse policies. The presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff members who have engaged in sexually abusive contact or penetration is termination. This presumption does not limit agency or facility discretion to impose termination for other sexual abuse policy violations. All terminations for violations of agency or facility sexual abuse policies are to be reported to law enforcement agencies and any relevant licensing bodies.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DI-2: Disciplinary sanctions for defendants/offenders

Defendants/offenders are subject to disciplinary sanctions pursuant to a formal disciplinary process following an administrative ruling that the defendant/offender engaged in defendant/offender-on-defendant/offender sexual abuse or following a criminal finding of guilt for defendant/offender-on-defendant/offender sexual abuse. Sanctions are commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the abuse committed, the defendant/offender’s disciplinary history, and the sanctions meted out for comparable offenses by other defendants/offenders with similar histories. The disciplinary process must consider whether a defendant/offender’s mental disabilities or mental illness contributed to his or her behavior when determining what type of sanction, if any, should be imposed. Possible sanctions can include discipline within the community corrections facility, new criminal charges, or referral to authorities who may change conditions of a defendant/offender’s release status in the community. Sanctions may also include interventions designed to address and correct underlying reasons or motivation for the abuse, such as requiring the offending defendant/offender to participate in therapy, counseling, or other programs. Sanctions and/or interventions for young defendants/offenders must also take into account the social, sexual, emotional, and cognitive development of the defendant/offender.

Medical and Mental Health Care (MM)

Community Corrections Facilities

MM-1: Access to emergency medical and mental health services

Victims of sexual abuse have timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services, the nature and scope of which are determined by medical and mental health practitioners according to their professional judgment. Treatment services must be provided free of charge to the victim and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser. If the community corrections facility does not have medical or mental health practitioners or they are not on duty at the time a report of recent abuse is made, staff first responders take preliminary steps to protect the victim (OR-3) and immediately notify appropriate staff or community medical and mental health practitioners.

Community Corrections Facilities

MM-2: Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers

The facility provides ongoing medical and/or mental health evaluation and treatment to all known victims of sexual abuse. The evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse victims must include appropriate follow-up services, treatment plans, and, when necessary, referrals for continued care following their release from a community corrections facility. The level of medical and mental health care provided to defendant/offender victims must match the community level of care generally accepted by the medical and mental health professional communities. The facility conducts a mental health evaluation of all known abusers and provides treatment, as deemed necessary by qualified mental health practitioners.

IV. MONITORING

Data Collection and Review (DC)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-1: Sexual abuse incident reviews

The agency or facility treats all instances of sexual abuse as critical incidents to be examined by a team of upper management officials, with input from line supervisors, investigators, and medical/mental health practitioners. The review team evaluates each incident of sexual abuse to identify any policy, training, or other issues related to the incident that indicate a need to change policy or practice to better prevent, detect, and/or respond to incidents of sexual abuse. The review team also considers whether incidents were motivated by racial or other group dynamics. When incidents are determined to be motivated by racial or other group dynamics, upper management officials immediately notify the agency or facility head and begin taking steps to rectify those underlying problems. The sexual abuse incident review takes place at the conclusion of every sexual abuse investigation, unless the allegation was determined to be unfounded. The review team prepares a report of its findings and recommendations for improvement and submits it to the agency or facility head.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-2: Data collection

The agency or facility collects accurate, uniform data for every reported incident of sexual abuse using a standardized instrument and set of definitions. The agency aggregates the incident-based sexual abuse data at least annually. The incident-based data collected includes, at a minimum, the data necessary to answer all questions from the most recent version of the BJS Survey on Sexual Violence. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including reports, investigation files, and sexual abuse incident reviews. The agency also obtains incident-based and aggregated data from every community corrections facility with which it contracts.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-3: Data review for corrective action

The agency reviews, analyzes, and uses all sexual abuse data, including incident-based and aggregated data, to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse prevention, detection, and response policies, practices, and training. Using these data, the agency identifies problem areas, including any racial dynamics underpinning patterns of sexual abuse, takes corrective action on an ongoing basis, and, at least annually, prepares a report of its findings and corrective actions for each facility as well as the agency as a whole. The annual report also includes a comparison of the current year’s data and corrective actions with those from prior years and provides an assessment of the agency’s progress in addressing sexual abuse. The agency’s report is approved by the agency head, submitted to the appropriate governing body, and made readily available to the public through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. The agency may redact specific material from the reports when publication would present a clear and specific threat to the safety and security of a facility, but it must indicate the nature of the material redacted.

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

DC-4: Data storage, publication, and destruction

The agency ensures that the collected sexual abuse data are properly stored, securely retained, and protected. The agency makes all aggregated sexual abuse data, including from facilities under its direct control and those with which it contracts, readily available to the public at least annually through its Web site or, if it does not have one, through other means. Before making aggregated sexual abuse data publicly available, the agency removes all personal identifiers from the data. The agency maintains sexual abuse data for at least 10 years after the date of its initial collection unless Federal, State, or local law allows for the disposal of official information in less than 10 years.

Audits (AU)

Community Corrections Facilities Pretrial, Probation, and Parole

AU-1: Audits of standards

The public agency ensures that all community corrections facilities, including contract facilities and pretrial, probation, and parole agencies are audited to measure compliance with the PREA standards. Audits must be conducted at least every three years by independent and qualified auditors. The public or contracted agency allows the auditor to enter and tour facilities, review documents, and interview staff and defendants/offenders, as deemed appropriate by the auditor, to conduct comprehensive audits. The public agency ensures that the report of the auditor’s findings and the public or contracted agency’s plan for corrective action (DC-3) are published on the appropriate agency’s Web site if it has one or are otherwise made readily available to the public.

Recommendations to the Attorney General

I. The Commission recommends that the Attorney General, in his capacity as agency head, establish a Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Advisory Committee pursuant to the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).

The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to assist the Attorney General with the promulgation of the PREA standards and thereafter assess their implementation and propose amendments as needed to increase their efficacy.

To provide such assistance, the Advisory Committee will:

• Gather the views and concerns of PREA stakeholders, including State and Federal departments of corrections, professional organizations, prisoner advocates, former and current prisoners, and other organizations and individuals with expertise and experience regarding prison rape and policies and practices to eliminate it.

• Review statistical studies, academic and other analyses, prisoner litigation addressing prison rape, and prison rape criminal prosecutions.

• Consult with the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Corrections, and the National Institute of Justice.

• Review and analyze the results of the audits undertaken to comply with the PREA standards.

The Advisory Committee should be created as soon as the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission provides the Attorney General with its proposed standards and report and its legislative mandate expires.

II. The Commission recommends that the Attorney General
create a full-time Special Assistant for PREA within the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The Special Assistant will have primary responsibility within the U.S. Department of Justice to ensure the effective implementation of PREA standards and the elimination of prison rape.

The Special Assistant will:

• Monitor and help coordinate the PREA-related work of other offices and divisions within the Department and coordinate with other executive branch agencies as appropriate.

• Ensure the preparation of an annual review of progress implementing PREA, including steps taken by correctional agencies and statistical trends in prison rape.

• Work with the Executive Office for United States Attorneys to help coordinate PREA-related activities and the sharing of information among districts with Federal prison facilities or immigration detention centers within their jurisdictional boundaries.

• Serve as liaison with the PREA Advisory Committee and function as the Designated Federal Official for FACA.

Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Justice

I. The Commission recommends that the Department of Justice sponsor the development of a corollary to the 2004 “National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents.” Given the prevalence of sexual abuse in correctional facilities and the need to improve evidence collection, the national protocol should be customized to the conditions of confinement.

II. The Commission recommends that the Department of Justice remove the barrier to Victims of Crime Act funding for treatment and rehabilitative services to incarcerated victims of sexual abuse.

III. The Commission recommends that the Department of Justice continue to ensure that knowledge of issues and practices surrounding the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement be disseminated and increased through the following initiatives:

A. The National Institute of Corrections should design and develop a national training program to prequalify auditors who will monitor facility compliance with the PREA standards. Qualification for service is required before auditors can be certified by the Department of Justice.

B. The National Institute of Corrections should continue to conduct training and educational programs and to offer technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. Provision of services must be equitably distributed among county jails, lockups, and juvenile and community corrections facilities in addition to Federal and State prisons.

C. The National Institute of Corrections should provide technical assistance to facilities interested in planning technological advancements in support of their capacity for supervision.

D. The Bureau of Justice Statistics should continue to conduct an annual comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.

E. The Bureau of Justice Assistance should continue to provide grants to diverse correctional settings for the development of innovative practices and programs addressing sexual abuse.

F. The National Institute of Justice should continue to fund research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

Recommendations to Congress

I. The Commission recommends that Congress amend the administrative exhaustion provision and physical injury requirement in the Prison Litigation Reform Act to remove unreasonable barriers to courts for victims of sexual abuse.

II. The Commission recommends that Congress amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization of 2005 to include incarcerated victims of sexual abuse as a class served under VAWA notwithstanding the nature of their criminal convictions.

III. The Commission recommends that Congress ensure that funds are made available for the following initiatives to further the understanding of issues and practices surrounding the elimination of sexual abuse in confinement:

A. Funds should be made available to the National Institute of Corrections to design and develop a national training program for auditors who monitor facility compliance with the PREA standards. The institute will ensure that PREA auditors are prequalified for service before certification by the Department of Justice.

B. Funds should be made available to the National Institute of Corrections to allow it to continue to conduct training and educational programs and to offer technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, and local authorities responsible for the prevention, investigation, and punishment of prison rape. Provision of services must be equitably distributed among county jails; lockups; and juvenile, community corrections, and tribal facilities in addition to Federal and State prisons.

C. Funds should be made available to the National Institute of Corrections to provide technical assistance to facilities interested in planning for technological advancements in support of their capacity for supervision.

D. Funds should be made available to the Bureau of Justice Statistics to continue conducting an annual comprehensive statistical review and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape.

E. Funds should be made available to the Bureau of Justice Assistance to provide grants to diverse correctional settings for the development of innovative practices and programs.

F. Funds should be made available to the National Institute of Justice to sponsor research on sexual abuse in correctional facilities.

G. Funds should be made available to appropriate entities to research the extent to which inmate consensual or nonconsensual sexual activity increases the rate of transmitting HIV/AIDS (and other sexually transmitted infections) to communities and how to prevent it.

During the standards development process, the Commission convened expert committees comprised of diverse stakeholders with broad correctional expertise to provide information and guidance. The Commission thanks the members of the expert committees for their participation and contribution.

Organizational affiliations are provided for identification purposes only; committee members were not necessarily acting as representatives of their organizations. This list reflects each committee member’s organizational affiliation at the time of participation and may not represent the person’s current position. The Commission’s standards do not reflect the official views of any of the organizations referenced here.

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation and Parole Association

Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections

James Austin, President, JFA Institute

Roy F. Austin, Jr., Partner, McDermott Will & Emery

Chris Baker, Lieutenant, Corrections Supervisor/Jail
Administrator, Van Buren County Sheriff’s Office, Michigan

David Balagia, Major, Travis County Sheriff’s Office, Texas

Joe Baumann, Corrections Officer, California Rehabilitation Center Chapter President, California Correctional Peace
Officers Association

Jeffrey Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections

Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department
of Correction

Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Andrea Black, Coordinator, Detention Watch Network

Charma Blount, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Tim Brennan, Principal, Northpointe Institute for Public Management, Inc.

Lorie Brisbin, Program Coordinator, Prisons Division,
Idaho Department of Correction

Barbara Broderick, Director, Maricopa County Adult Probation Department, Arizona

Roger Canaff, Deputy Chief, Sex Offender Management Unit, Office of the Attorney General, New York

Susan Paige Chasson, President, International Association
of Forensic Nurses

Gwendolyn Chunn, Immediate Past President, American Correctional Association

Suanne Cunningham, National Director, Corrections/Criminal Justice Program, Heery International

Karen Dalton, Director, Correctional Services Division,
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Kim Day, SAFE Technical Assistance Coordinator, International Association of Forensic Nurses

Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Special Prosecution Unit, Texas Youth Commission

Kathleen Dennehy, Superintendent, Security Operations, Bristol County Sheriff’s Office, Massachusetts

Gary Dennis, Senior Associate, The Moss Group, Inc.

Ruth Divelbiss, Captain, Ford County Sheriff’s Office, Kansas

Mark Donatelli, Partner, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg, and Bienvenu LLP

Sarah Draper, Director of Investigations, Office of Investigation and Compliance, Internal Investigation Unit, Georgia Department of Corrections

Dr. Richard Dudley, Private Practice of Clinical and
Forensic Psychiatry

Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human
Services, PLLC

Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership
for Juvenile Services

Maureen Dunn, Director, Unaccompanied Children’s Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration
for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Teena Farmon, Retired Warden, Central California
Women’s Facility

Lisa Freeman, Staff Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Project,
Legal Aid Society, New York City

Vanessa Garza, Associate Director for Trafficking Policy, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Michael Gennaco, Chief Attorney, Office of Independent Review, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Karen Giannakoulias, Forensic Interviewer/Victim Advocate, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, D.C.

Steve Gibson, Administrator, Youth Services Division, Montana Department of Corrections

Simon Gonsoulin, Former Director, Louisiana Office
of Youth Development

Kathleen Graves, Director, Community Corrections Services, Kansas Department of Corrections

Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, Maryland

Dr. Robert Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and Quality Management Consultant

David Guntharp, Director, Arkansas Department of Community Correction

Karyn Hadfield, Training Specialist, Day One: The Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center

Dee Halley, PREA Program Manager, National Institute
of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department
of Justice

Greg Hamilton, Sheriff, Travis County, Texas

Patrick M. Hanlon, Partner, Goodwin Proctor LLP

Patricia Hardyman, Senior Associate, Association of State Correctional Administrators

Rachel Harmon, Associate Professor of Law, University
of Virginia School of Law

Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, City and County of
San Francisco, California

Andrew Jordan, Consultant, Migima, LLC; Retired Chief
of Police, Bend Police Department, Oregon

Thomas Kane, Assistant Director, Information, Policy and Public Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Cliff Keenan, Assistant Director, District of Columbia
Pretrial Services Agency

Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation and Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections

Deborah LaBelle, Attorney

Madie LaMarre, Consultant

Neal Langan, Senior Research Analyst, Office of Research and Evaluation, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Dori Lewis, Senior Supervising Attorney, Prisoners’ Rights Project, Legal Aid Society, New York City

Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc.

Jennifer Long, Director, National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women

Christy Lopez, Partner, Independent Assessment and Monitoring, LLP

Margaret Love, Attorney; Consulting Director, American Bar Association Commission on Effective Criminal Sanctions

Bobbi Luna, Captain, Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, Oregon

Martha Lyman, Director of Research, Hampden County Correctional Center, Massachusetts

Bob Maccarone, Director, New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives

Cindy Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator,
Rocky Mountain Corrections

Michael Marette, Assistant Director of Corrections, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

Jenifer Markowitz, Forensic Nurse Consultant, DOVE Program, Summa Health System

Steve Martin, Attorney/Corrections Consultant

Susan McCampbell, President, Center for Innovative Public Policies, Inc., McCampbell & Associates, Inc.

Ron McCuan, Captain, U.S. Public Health Service; Public Health Analyst, National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Linda McFarlane, Mental Health Program Director,
Just Detention International

Jeff McInnis, PREA Coordinator, District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

John Milian, Detention and Deportation Officer,
Criminal Alien Program, Office of Detention and Removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security

Phyllis Modley, Correctional Program Specialist, Community Corrections Division, National Institute of Corrections, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Jean Moltz, Correctional Health Care Consultant

James Montross, Director of Mental Health Monitoring,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Marcia Morgan, Consultant, Migima, LLC

John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department
of Criminal Justice

Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc.

Gail D. Mumford, Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, Annie E. Casey Foundation

Melissa Nolan, Executive Assistant, Policy and Public
Affairs Division, Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Department of Justice

Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services Team, Holland & Knight LLP

Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State University, Fresno

David Parrish, Colonel, Commander, Department of Detention Services, Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, Florida

T.J. Parsell, Human Rights Activist, Author of Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man’s Prison

Dr. Farah M. Parvez, Director, Office of Correctional Public Health, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Susan Poole, Criminal Justice Consultant; Retired Warden, California Institution for Women

Roberto Hugh Potter, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Judy Preston, Deputy Chief, Civil Rights Division,
U.S. Department of Justice

J. Michael Quinlan, Senior Vice President, Corrections Corporation of America

Jeffrey Renzi, Associate Director, Planning and Research, Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Denise Robinson, President and CEO, Alvis House;
Past-President, International Community Corrections Association

Melissa Rothstein, East Coast Program Director,
Just Detention International

David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, Center for Research and Professional Development, National Juvenile Detention Association

Elissa Rumsey, Compliance Monitoring Coordinator,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Corrections
and Rehabilitation Department

Teresa Scalzo, Senior Policy Advisor, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense

Vincent Schiraldi, Director, District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Law

Karen Schneider, Legal Consultant

Dana Shoenberg, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Children’s Law and Policy

Linda Smith, Research Consultant

Donald Specter, Director, Prison Law Office

Mai-Linh Spencer, Deputy State Public Defender, Office
of the State Public Defender, California

Richard Stalder, Former Secretary, Louisiana Department
of Public Safety and Corrections

Lovisa Stannow, Executive Director, Just Detention International

Lara Stemple, Former Director, Just Detention International; Director, Graduate Studies, University of California,
Los Angeles, School of Law

Tom Stickrath, Director, Ohio Department of Youth Services

Victor Stone, Special Counsel, Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Robert Sudlow, Chief Probation Officer, Ulster County Probation Department, New York

Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology, and the Law, Stetson University College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd.

Robin Toone, Attorney, Foley Hoag LLP

Cynthia Totten, Program Director, Just Detention International

Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections

Kelly Ward, Former Warden, David Wade Correctional Center, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections

Richard White, Deputy Commissioner of Operations,
City of New York Department of Correction

Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist

Reginald Wilkinson, Executive Director, Ohio Business Alliance for Higher Education and the Economy; Former Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project, American Civil Liberties Union

Jason Ziedenberg, Consultant; Former Director, Justice
Policy Institute

During the public comment period, the Commission conducted a Standards Implementation Needs Assessment (SINA). The Commission created the SINA process to provide feedback on the draft standards through a series of “case studies” at particular facilities. More than 40 facilities from around the country applied to participate in the SINA process. The Commission selected 11 sites that reflected ranges in capacity, populations, and geographic settings and that included jails and prisons; facilities for men, women, and juveniles; and community corrections facilities. Each site visit took place over one and a half days and included a facility tour and five structured interviews: one with the Warden or Superintendent, and the others with small groups of staff to discuss general issues, training, medical/mental health, and investigations. These group interviews involved a variety of staff with experience relevant to the particular topic. When possible, we also spoke with inmates detained in the facilities.

Pilot Site

Montgomery County Correctional Facility
Montgomery County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation
Boyds, MD
April 22–23, 2008

Jails

Suffolk County House of Correction
Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
Boston, MA
May 22–23, 2008

Washington County Jail
Washington County Sheriff’s Office
Hillsboro, OR
June 5–6, 2008

Juvenile Facilities

Cuyahoga Hills Juvenile Correctional Facility
Ohio Department of Youth Services
Highland Hills, OH
July 9–10, 2008

Lynn W. Ross Juvenile Center
Tarrant County Juvenile Probation Department
Tarrant County Juvenile Services
Fort Worth, TX
June 24–25, 2008

Prisons for Men

James Allred Unit
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Iowa Park, TX
June 22–23, 2008

Northern Correctional Facility
West Virginia Division of Corrections
Moundsville, WV
July 7–8, 2008

Prisons for Women

New Mexico Women’s Correctional Facility
New Mexico Corrections Department
Grants, NM
June 26–27, 2008

Valley State Prison for Women
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Chowchilla, CA
June 3–4, 2008

Community Corrections Facilities

Southwestern Ohio Serenity (SOS) Hall
Hamilton, OH
August 1, 2008

Talbert House
Cincinnati, OH
July 30–31, 2008

This list reflects organizational affiliation at the time of participation and may not represent the person’s current position.

Public Meeting, March 31, 2005

University of Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, Indiana

Steven Babbitt, Survivor

Robert Beckman, Prosecuting Attorney, LaPorte County, Indiana

David Donahue, Commissioner, Indiana Department
of Correction

Jeff Schwartz, President, LETRA, Inc.

Nancy Zanning, Administrator, Michigan Department
of Corrections

The Cost of Victimization: Why Our Nation Must Confront Prison Rape, June 14, 2005

Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC

Linda Bruntmyer, Mother of victim

Tom Cahill, Survivor

Garrett Cunningham, Survivor

Keith DeBlasio, Survivor

Robert Dumond, President and Licensed Clinical Mental Health Counselor, Consultants for Improved Human
Services, PLLC

Glenn Fine, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice

Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Roberto Hugh Potter, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Stanley Richards, Deputy Executive Director, Fortune Society

Marilyn Shirley, Survivor

Lara Stemple, Director, Stop Prisoner Rape

Melissa Turner, Clinical Social Worker, Veterans Affairs Medical Center

At Risk: Sexual Abuse and Vulnerable Groups Behind Bars, August 19, 2005

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
San Francisco, California

Cecilia Chung, Survivor

Christopher Daley, Director, Transgender Law Center

Michael Hennessey, Sheriff, San Francisco County, California

Hope Hernandez, Survivor

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Dr. Terry Kupers, Professor, Graduate School of Psychology, The Wright Institute

Deborah LaBelle, Attorney

Bart Lanni, Deputy Sheriff, San Francisco County, California

Representative Barbara Lee, U.S. Representative, California

Robin Levi, Human Rights Director, Justice Now

Scott Long, Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program, Human Rights Watch

Jody Marksamer, Director, Youth Project, National Center for Lesbian Rights

Chance Martin, Survivor

Barbara Owen, Professor of Criminology, California State University, Fresno, California

T.J. Parsell, Survivor

Sen. Gloria Romero, Senator, California; Chair, Senate Select Committee on the California Correctional System

Dean Spade, Founder, Sylvia Rivera Law Project

Kendell Spruce, Survivor

Elimination of Prison Rape: The Corrections Perspective, March 23, 2006

Federal Detention Center, Miami, Florida

Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Corrections

Kathleen Dennehy, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Correction

Douglas Dretke, Director, Correctional Institutions Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Margo Frasier, Professor, Sam Houston State University; Former Sheriff, Travis County, Texas

Robert Garvey, Sheriff, Hampshire County, Massachusetts; Chairman, American Correctional Association Commission on Accreditation for Corrections

Glenn Goord, Chairman, Standards Committee, American Correctional Association

Martin F. Horn, Commissioner, City of New York Department of Correction

Harley Lappin, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Cynthia Malm, Consultant, Retired Jail Administrator,
Rocky Mountain Corrections

Buddy Maupin, Director, Corrections Division, AFSCME Council 31

Joseph Oxley, President-Elect, American Jail Association

Timothy Ryan, Director, Miami-Dade County Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Richard Stalder, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections; President, Association of State Correctional Administrators

Morris L. Thigpen, Director, National Institute of Corrections

Reginald Wilkinson, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction; Chairperson, Advisory Board, National Institute of Corrections

Elimination of Prison Rape: Focus on Juveniles,
June 1, 2006

John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, Boston, Massachusetts

Grace Chung Becker, Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice

Howard Beyer, President, Council of Juvenile Corrections Administrators

Dr. Robert Bidwell, Physician, Hawaii Office of Youth Services

Honorable Jay Blitzman, Judge, Lowell Juvenile Court, Lowell, Massachusetts

Carl Brizzi, Prosecuting Attorney, Marion County, Indiana

Gwendolyn Chunn, President, American Correctional Association

Leonard Dixon, President, National Juvenile Detention Association

Earl Dunlap, Chief Executive Officer, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, Center for Research and Professional Development

Robert Flores, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice

Diane Gadow, Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections

Steven Gibson, Director, Montana Department of Corrections, Youth Services Division

Pamanicka Hardin, Youth Organizer, Prison Moratorium Project

Barry Krisberg, President, National Council on Crime
and Delinquency

Albert Murray, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice

Cyryna Pasion, Survivor

David Roush, Director, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, Center for Research and Professional Development

Carl Sanniti, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of Juvenile Services

Mark Solar, Executive Director, Center for Children’s Law
and Policy

Reporting, Investigating, and Prosecuting
Prison Rape: What Is Needed to Make the Process Work?, August 3, 2006

Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse, Eastern District
of Michigan, Detroit, Michigan

Aaron Aldrich, Chief Inspector of Internal Affairs,
Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Lynn Bissonette, Superintendent, Massachusetts
Correctional Institution at Framingham

Necole Brown, Survivor

Patricia Caruso, Director, Michigan Department
of Corrections

Gina DeBottis, Executive Director, Texas Special
Prosecution Unit

John Dignam, Chief, Office of Internal Affairs, Federal Bureau of Prisons

Leanne Holland, Program Coordinator, Sparrow Forensic Nurse Examiner Program

Barbara Litten, District Attorney, Forest County, Pennsylvania

Gregory Miller, U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Florida

John Moriarty, Inspector General, Texas Department
of Corrections

Dana Ragsdale, Survivor

John Rees, Commissioner, Kentucky Department
of Corrections

Al Saucier, Lieutenant, Massachusetts Department
of Corrections

Cynthia Schnedar, Counsel to the Inspector General,
U.S. Department of Justice

William Sprenkle, Deputy Secretary of Administration, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Anjali Swienton, Director of Outreach, National Clearinghouse for Science Technology and the Law, Stetson University
College of Law; President and CEO, SciLaw Forensics Ltd.

Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director, Rhode Island Department
of Corrections

Timothy Wittman, Trooper, Alternate Criminal Investigation Assessment Officer Troop C, Pennsylvania State Police

Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, Wayne County, Michigan

The Elimination of Prison Rape: Immigration Facilities and Personnel/Staffing/Labor Relations,
December 13–14, 2006

U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, California

Brian Aldes, Business Agent, Corrections and Law Enforcement Units, Teamsters Local 320, Minnesota

Joe Baumann, Director, California Rehabilitation Center Unit; California Correctional Peace Officers Association

Michael Beranbaum, Director of Representation, Department of Corrections Bargaining Unit, Teamsters Local 117, Washington

Shiu-Ming Cheer, Program Coordinator, Civil Rights Unit of the South Asian Network; Former Managing Attorney, Los Angeles Detention Project, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Christina DeConcini, Director of Policy, National Immigration Forum; Former Director of Public Education and Advocacy, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc.

Sharon Dolovich, Professor, University of California Los Angeles School of Law

Joseph A. Gunn, Former Commander, Los Angeles Police Department; Former Executive Director, California Corrections Independent Review Panel

Katherine Hall-Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Stop Prisoner Rape

John Harrison, Special Agent, California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Iliana Holgiun, Executive Director, Diocesan Migrant
and Refugee Services, Inc.

Asa Hutchinson, Former Undersecretary, Border and Transportation Security for the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security

Cheryl Little, Executive Director, Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, Inc.

Bryan Lonegan, Staff Attorney, Immigration Law Unit,
Legal Aid Society

Brian Lowry, President, Council of Prison Locals, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation
of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

Sergio Medina, Field Coordinator, Southern California Office of Refugee Resettlement Unaccompanied Minors Program

Wayne Meyers, Staff Representative, American Federation
of State County and Municipal Employees

Tixoc Muniz, President, Arizona Correctional Peace Officer’s Association

Christopher Nugent, Senior Counsel, Community Services Team, Holland and Knight LLP

Isaac Ortiz, President, American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1010

Tom Plummer, Skadden Fellow, Staff Attorney, Legal Services for Children, San Francisco

Donald Rodriguez, Area Commander, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Mayra Soto, Survivor

Rebekah Tosado, Director, Review and Compliance; Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Anne Wideman, Clinical Psychologist

Lockups, Native American Detention Facilities, and Conditions in Texas Penal and Youth Institutions, March 26–27, 2007

University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas

Charon Asetoyer, Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center

James Austin, President, The JFA Institute

Ralph Bales, Safe Prison Program Manager, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

K.W. Berry, Major, Harris County Sheriff’s Office, Texas

James Brown, Associate Director, Commission on the Accreditation of Law Enforcement Agencies

Sampson Cowboy, Division Director, Navajo Division of Public Safety

Mark Decoteau, Deputy Chief of Training, Indian Police Academy, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Jamie Fields, Deputy Chief Risk Management, Detroit
Police Department

Genger Galloway, Mother of survivor

George Gotschalk, Chief of Standards and Training, Department of Criminal Justice Services, Secretariat of Public Safety, Virginia; First Vice-President of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards
and Training

Kevin Gover, Professor, Arizona State University

Lisa Graybill, Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas

Isela Gutierrez, Coordinator, Texas Coalition Advocating Justice for Juveniles

Katherine Hall-Martinez, Co-Executive Director, Stop Prisoner Rape

Erica Hejnar, Survivor

Claudia Hill, Chief Detention Standards and Compliance Division, Office of the Federal Detention Trustee,
U.S. Department of Justice

Jay Kimbrough, Special Master, Investigating the Texas
Youth Commission

Elizabeth Layman, Consultant, The Center for Innovative Public Policies

Heather Lowry, Senior Inspector, U.S. Marshal Service,
U.S. Department of Justice

Lisa Luna, Training Specialist, Texas Association Against Sexual Assault

Jerry Madden, Chairman, Texas House Committee
on Corrections

Jon Perez, Indian Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Nathanial Quarterman, Director, Correctional Institutions Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Andrea Ritchie, INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence

Guillermo Rivera, Associate Director of Corrections, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior

Ronald Ruecker, Interim Police Chief, Sherwood Police Department, International Association of Chiefs of Police

David Stacks, Deputy Director, Correctional Institutions Division, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Margaret Winter, Associate Director, National Prison Project, American Civil Liberties Union

Special Topics in Preventing and Responding to Prison Rape: Medical and Mental Health Care, Community Corrections Settings, and Oversight, December 5–6, 2007

U.S. Federal District Courthouse, Eastern District
of Louisiana, New Orleans, Louisiana

Carrie Abner, Research Associate, American Probation
and Parole Association

Thomas Beauclair, Deputy Director, National Institute
of Corrections

Jack Beck, Director, Prison Visiting Project, Correctional Association of New York

Theodis Beck, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Correction; President, Association of State Correctional Administrators

Art Beeler, Warden, Federal Correctional Complex,
North Carolina

Antonio Booker, Director, Adult Residential Services,
Johnson County Department of Corrections

Barbara Broderick, Director, Adult Probation, Maricopa County Adult Probation, Arizona

James Carter, Council Member, New Orleans City Council; Chair, Criminal Justice Committee

Matthew Cate, Inspector General, Office of the Inspector General, California Rehabilitation Oversight Board

James F. DeGroot, Director of Mental Health, Georgia Department of Corrections

Michele Deitch, Professor (Adjunct), University of Texas
at Austin, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs

Douglas Dretke, Executive Director, Correctional Management Institute of Texas, Sam Houston University

Marty Dufrene, Major; Corrections Department Head, Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, Louisiana

Charles C. Foti, Jr., Louisiana Attorney General

Robert L. Green, Warden, Montgomery County Correctional Facility, Montgomery County Department of Correction
and Rehabilitation

Dr. Robert B. Greifinger, Correctional Health Care and Quality Management Consultant

Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriff, Louisiana

Will Harrell, Ombudsman, Office of the Independent Ombudsman, Texas Youth Commission

Norris Henderson, Soros Justice Fellow and Co-Director,
Safe Streets/Strong Communities

Carrie Hill, Corrections Law and Criminal Justice Consultant

Jacqueline Kotkin, Field Services Executive, Probation
and Parole, Vermont Department of Corrections

Dr. Lannette Linthicum, Medical Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Sandra Matheson, Director of the State Office of Victim/Witness Assistance, New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office

Anadora Moss, President, The Moss Group, Inc.

Jennifer Pierce-Weeks, President-Elect, International Association of Forensic Nurses

Eugenie Powers, Director, Probation and Parole,
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Correction

Dr. Michael Puisis, Consultant, Former Medical Director
at the New Mexico Department of Corrections and the
Cook County Jail

Ben Raimer, Vice President and CEO, Community Health Services, University of Texas

Denise Robinson, President, Alvis House; Past President, International Community Corrections Association

Dr. Lynn F. Sander, Representative, National Commission
on Correctional Healthcare; Former Medical Director,
Denver Sheriff’s Department Medical Program; Immediate Past-President, Society of Correctional Physicians

Margo Schlanger, Professor of Law and Director, Civil
Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Washington University
in St. Louis School of Law

Wendy Still, Associate Director, Female Offender Programs and Services, California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation

Gina Womack, Co-Director, Families and Friends
of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children

All 50 State correctional departments and a national sample of jails, community corrections agencies, and juvenile justice facilities were invited to provide information about policies, practices, and programs implemented before and since the passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. Many agencies responded positively to multiple categories. Examples were selected to ensure geographic and facility diversity. The Commission has not evaluated these PREA initiatives. Interested readers may contact the agencies and facilities to learn more.

Zero-tolerance policy

AK DOC, 907-269-7405

Zero-tolerance policy

CT DOC, 860-692-7497

Commissioner visits all units and reviews sexual abuse data in management meeting

KS DOC, 785-296-4501

PREA coordinators at every facility ensure zero-tolerance strategies; Secretary delivers zero-tolerance message on video

OH Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 614-728-1152

10 Point Plan is intended to reduce sexual abuse in OH Department of Rehabilitation and Correction facilities

AZ Maricopa County, 602-506-7244

PREA policies and protocols developed for adult probation department

CO Pitkin County Jail, Aspen,
970-429-2057

Zero-tolerance policy

WA King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1268

Department zero-tolerance memo from leadership to staff and inmates delivered two times annually

IL Safer Foundation, 312-431-8940

Zero-tolerance policy

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088
FL Department of Juvenile Justice, 850-921-6292 ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365
MA Department of Youth Services, 617-727-7575 WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

Zero-tolerance policy for juvenile justice facilities

Prevention Planning

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Require DOC employees to be on site daily at private facilities to ensure PREA compliance

CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Partnered with University of California, Irvine, to improve safety of transgender individuals

LA DOC, 225-342-1178

PREA coordinator in each prison facility and one for community corrections

MD Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, 410-339-5824

Department-level interdisciplinary PREA committee

NC DOC, 919-716-3720
TX Department of Criminal Justice,
936-437-8918

Contracts to house inmates in private facilities include language regarding PREA

OH Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 614-728-1152

Psychological inventory test must be taken by all potential corrections officers to assess behaviors and reactions to more than 66 scenarios. Probationary periods for employees extended to ensure employment suitability.

TN DOC, 615-741-1000

Developing a special needs program for male aggressors

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

Contract with county jails housing State inmates contains PREA requirements

WY DOC, 307-777-7208

Monitor contract facilities compliance with WY DOC PREA policies and protocols

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266

PREA notice on pre-employment background check waiver

NY Ulster County Community Corrections Program, 845-340-3330

Purchase agreement with nonprofit for eight beds for females, nonprofit staff trained in PREA and duty to report

Supervision

AR DOC, 870-267-6300
NC DOC, 919-716-3720

Senior staff conduct assessments to identify blind spots at each facility

CO DOC, 719-226-4696

Cameras and considering pilot program with radio frequency identification (RFID)

KY DOC, 502-564-7290

Piloting RFID technology

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

500 cameras in 1,000-bed maximum security prison; only investigative staff monitor cameras

NY Department of Correctional Services,
518-457-4951

Expanded two camera projects in female facilities

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

Consider gender-specific strategies in all PREA work

WA DOC, 360-725-8650

Acquired 130 bona fide occupational qualification positions for three women’s prisons to ensure privacy and limits to cross-gender viewing and searches

AZ Pinal County Sheriff’s Office, 520-866-5180

Male and female staff on duty together to minimize cross-gender viewing and searches

CA San Francisco Sheriff’s Department,
415-554-7225

Prohibit cross-gender supervision in housing units

NV Washoe County, 775-328-6355

Time Keeper System electronically monitors a “check” of PREA mail box

SD Pennington County Sheriff’s Office,
605-355-3648

Recording cameras and belt microphones in vans monitor youth when transported; prohibit double cells for juveniles

VA Arlington County Sheriff’s Office,
703-228-4460

All female staff during the second shift for female inmate supervision

VA Southside Regional Jail, Emporia,
434-634-2254

Staff required to contact inmates two times per hour

MO DOC CC, 573-522-1207

Purchasing cameras for two community release centers (St. Louis and Kansas City)

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,
850-921-6292

Policy prohibiting volunteers to be alone with youth

WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,
608-240-5060

Additional cameras installed in youth facilities

Employee Training

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Curriculum revised periodically; use “pop-quiz” cards to refresh staff

HI Department of Public Safety, 808-567-1287

Conducted National Institute of Corrections (NIC) training on staff sexual misconduct

ID DOC, 208-658-2102

Investigator training includes victimization and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

IL DOC, 217-558-2200

Developed training for upper-level administrators, shift commanders, and supervisors

IA DOC, 515-725-5714

Training on basic victimization dynamics

KS DOC, 785-296-4501

Corrections-specific investigator training (videotaping interviews and consultant assessment)

MN DOC, 651-361-7224

Coordinated training of investigators, medical and mental health care practitioners

NE DOC, 402-479-5713

Revise statutory-based training curriculum annually

NH DOC, 603- 271-5600

Academy trains on the connection between sexual abuse and trauma

NM DOC, 505-827-8600

Developed facility-level investigator curriculum, Investigating Sexual Assault in Correctional Settings, certified by the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy

NY Department of Correctional Services,
518-457-4951

Assistant Commissioner conducts training sessions at supervisor schools

TN DOC, 615-741-1000

Trained victim support team at every facility

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

Sexual assault response team (SART) members required to be certified

VT DOC, 802-241-3956

Skill-based training to prepare staff for verbal responses to sexualized behavior

AL Jails, 334-872-6228

DOC PREA coordinators provide training to jails

KY Louisville Metropolitan DOC, 502-379-3552

Pre-service training with NIC materials

PA Allegheny County Jail, 412-350-2000

Attended NIC investigator training and developed action plan

SD Jails, 605-367-5020

DOC PREA coordinator trained sheriffs’ associations and staff at 19 State jails

WA King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1269

NIC investigator training and technical assistance

CO DOC CC, 719-226-4696
MA DOC CC, 978-405-6610
RI DOC CC, 401-462-0373

Training for community corrections and parole officers

MD Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services, Division of Parole and Probation, 410-585-3557

Developed surveys for community corrections agencies/staff to help alleviate underreporting and address other post-release issues stemming from prison rape

AL Department of Youth Services,
334-215-3802

NIC trained all staff in 2006; pre-service and annual training required

AK Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Juvenile Justice, 907-761-7230

PREA youth training at NIC

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

Assisted by Just Detention International to train officers and noncustodial staff

CO Division of Youth Corrections,
719-546-5108

Multilevel training for all employees

DE Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Their Families, Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services, 302-633-2554

Senior staff trained; train-the-trainer program in development

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,
850-921-6292

Training for staff available in many formats (online, in-service, during shift changes, etc.)

HI Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, 808-539-4613

Training for detention staff, internal investigators, and probation officers; train-the-trainers program available

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

Training for all staff

MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575

Training for 2,000 staff in 2007; pre-service and annual training

MI Department of Human Services, Bureau of Juvenile Justice, 517-335-6230

DVD for juvenile staff; training for public and private youth facilities in 2007; also 2-day statewide conference

NY Division of Juvenile Justice and Opportunities for Youth, 518-473-7793

Training for all facilities in 2007; facilities updated through NIC DVD Keeping Our Kids Safe

ND Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 701-667-1400

Annual training for staff and community care managers

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

Web site with training and policy information (www.oregon.gov.oya/pso). Staff trained on PREA and mandatory child abuse reporting law. Pre-service training includes boundary training, ethics, PREA, housing assignments, reporting, prevention, and access to mental and medical services for sexual assault victims.

SD Department of Juvenile Justice,
605-394-6645

Pre-service and annual training for staff

TX Juvenile Probation Commission,
512-424-6687

2008 national conference on investigating sexual abuse in custodial settings

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Developed curriculum with Just Detention International; staff trained within first 2 weeks of employment with annual 3-hour update

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

Annual staff training

Training for Others

NJ DOC, 609-292-4617

Mental and medical health contractors required to complete PREA training; victim advocates receive training on sexual abuse

CO Division of Youth Corrections,
719-546-5108
SD Department of Juvenile Justice,
605-394-6645

PREA training required for volunteers

MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575
WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,
608-240-5060

PREA training required for contractors

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365
ND Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 701-667-1400
OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261
TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294
WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

PREA training required for contractors and volunteers

Inmate/Resident Education

Federal Bureau of Prisons, Carswell, TX,
202-307-3198

English and Spanish posters that describe how to report sexual abuse and the criminal sanctions for such acts placed in housing units. Posters include pictures of the institution’s psychologists.

CO DOC, 719-226-4696

Director of prisons featured in inmate sexual safety training video

IL DOC, 217-558-2200

Medical staff conduct PREA orientation with inmates

ME DOC, 207-893-7011

Female inmates provided programs to address sexual safety

PA DOC, 717-975-4930

Specialized training for criminally insane and sexually dangerous inmates

TX Department of Criminal Justice,
936-437-8918

Inmate peer training program (Safe Prisons Program) available in English and Spanish

VA DOC, 804-674-3000

Inmates receive PREA training using NIC curriculum at reception; a PREA post-test administered to ensure inmate comprehension

WI DOC, 608-240-5000

Inmate gender-specific training program

FL Miami-Dade County, 786-263-6500

Inmate PREA education materials available in three languages

MD Montgomery County, 240-773-9747

English and Spanish PREA video and posters

WA King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1268

Inmate PREA orientation video

MA DOC CC, 978-405-6610

PREA training for community corrections offenders

AL Department of Youth Services,
334-215-3802

PREA PowerPoint presentation at orientation; PREA pamphlets available in dorms

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

English and Spanish PREA pamphlets and posters

CO Division of Youth Services, 719-546-5108 SD Department of Juvenile Justice,
605-394-6645

PREA pamphlets

FL Department of Juvenile Justice,
850-921-6292

PREA pamphlets and video

KY Department of Juvenile Justice,
502-573-2738
MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575

PREA posters

LA Office of Juvenile Justice, 225-287-7900

Developing curriculum for youth orientation

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

PREA handbook, video, and puppet show

MT DOC, Juvenile Division, 406-444-1547

Resident orientation includes PREA presentation

NM Juvenile Justice Services, 505-827-7629

Developmentally appropriate handbook includes PREA information

ND Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 701-667-1400

PREA pamphlet on how to report with youth sign-off; resident handbooks in cottages

OH Department of Youth Services,
740-477-2500, ext. 7128

PREA orientation includes gender-specific sessions and individual meetings

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

PREA pamphlet (6–8 grade level) and posters

WV Division of Juvenile Services, 304-558-9800

PREA pamphlet and individualized session with counselor

WI DOC, Division of Juvenile Corrections,
608-240-5060

English and Spanish PREA posters

Classification

AR DOC, 870-267-6300

Revised classification system to identify sexually vulnerable and predatory inmates

CO DOC, 719-226-4696

Sexual abuse risk assessment tool

IN DOC, 317-232-1926

Developed gender-specific sexual abuse vulnerability assessment tool

IA DOC, 515-725-5714

Sexual violence propensity tool informs housing assignment (without limiting programming options)

MA DOC, 978-405-6610

Pilot program requires superintendent’s signature for housing plan

MI DOC, 517-780-6545

Sexual abuse screening tool (validated by external researcher)

MN DOC, 651-361-7224

Sexual abuse screening tool informs housing assignments

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

Sexual abuse screening tool in development

NE DOC, 402-479-5713

Mental health screening conducted at intake

RI DOC, 401-462-0373

Assignment of sexual abuse victims and perpetrators to specialized unit in community corrections through high-risk discharge planning strategy

SD DOC, 605-367-5020

Gender-specific sexual abuse screening tool (validated for males; developing tool for females)

WY DOC, 307-777-7208

Screening tool to evaluate sexual aggression levels (validated)

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266

Inquire about history of sexual abuse at intake

CO Division of Youth Corrections,
719-546-5108
ND Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Services, 701-667-1400
TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Screening tool for past sexual victimization and aggressive behaviors

Reporting

AL DOC, 334-872-6228

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Anonymous third-party reports of sexual abuse accepted and investigated

CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Memorandum of understanding (MOU) with local rape crisis centers to receive reports of sexual abuse

GA DOC, 478-783-6015

Staff must report sexual abuse to highest-ranking officer; protection against retaliation for reporting sexual abuse in policy

IN DOC, 317-232-1926

Limited email access available for reporting sexual abuse (kiosks)

ME DOC, 207-893-7011

Bystander law (Failure to Report Sexual Assault of Person in Custody) holds DOC staff criminally liable for failure to report sexual abuse

MI DOC, 517-780-6458

Ombudsman receives reports of sexual abuse

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

Third step in grievance procedure permits unsatisfied inmate to access courts

MO DOC, 573-522-1207

Inmates’ family members receive pamphlet on how to report sexual abuse; reports forwarded for investigation

MT DOC, 406-444-3930

Inmate hotline answered by community sexual abuse group

NV DOC, 775-887-3142

Community tip line to sheriff’s office

NY Department of Correctional Services,
518-457-4951

All employees receive duty-to-report training, including mental and medical health

OR DOC, 503-945-0931

Governor’s Office receives reports

PA DOC, 717-975-4930

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse (institution-specific PIN to ensure anonymity)

SC DOC, 803-896-8540

Anonymous inmate hotline to Inspector General’s Office

FL Miami-Dade County, 786-263-6500

How to report materials (three languages) for families of inmates

ID Bonneville County Jail, Idaho Falls,
208-529-1315

Hotline to police detectives

MD Montgomery County, 240-773-9747

Fliers on how to report sexual abuse given to visitors

NYC DOC, 212-361-8977

Inmate hotline to outside confidential support services

OH Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, 419-428-3800

Sexual abuse reports forwarded to prisons

OR Multnomah County, 503-988-3266

Sexual abuse reports forwarded to facility at which incident occurred

VA Riverside Regional Jail, Hopewell,
804-524-6600

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

LA DOC CC, 225-342-1190
MO DOC CC, 573-522-1207
NC DOC CC, 919-716-3720

Duty to report sexual abuse in policy

OK DOC CC, 405-425-2505

Policy requires parole agents to report sexual abuse

VT DOC CC, 802-241-3956

Inmate hotline to report sexual abuse

ME DOC, Juvenile Services, 207-287-4365

Toll-free hotline for anyone to report sexual abuse

TX Juvenile Probation Commission,
512-424-6687

Hotline to report sexual abuse (24-hour direct reporting)

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Ombudsman receives reports of sexual abuse

Investigations

AR DOC, 870-267-6300
OR DOC, 503-945-0931

SART at every facility

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

All staff trained in first responder duties; inmate housing assignment reviewed immediately after an allegation of sexual abuse

CT DOC, 860-692-7497

MOU with University of Connecticut Medical Center regarding “A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, Adults/Adolescents” (2004)

ID DOC, 208-658-2102
IN DOC, 317-232-1926

MOU with law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse

MA DOC, 978-405-6610

MOU with two county prosecutors

MI DOC, 517-780-6545

Staff pocket guide describes first responder duties

MN DOC, 651-361-7224

Health services sexual response evidence protocol checklist

MS DOC, 601-359-5607

MOU with private medical health provider for forensic medical exams

MT DOC, 406-444-3930

MOU with attorney general

NH DOC, 603- 271-5600

Contract with New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence

NV DOC, 775-887-3142

Supervisors trained on first responder duties

NM DOC, 505-827-8600

All allegations of sexual abuse investigated

NC DOC, 919-716-3720

PREA investigator at every facility

OH Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 614-728-1152

Sexual abuse investigator duties in policy; multidisciplinary response (Sexual Assault Committee Policy)

PA DOC, 717-975-4930

Contract with Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape

RI DOC, 401-462-0373

Electronic monitoring used during investigative process

SD DOC, 605-367-5020

Purchased polygraph with PREA grant money

UT DOC, 801-545-5899

SART representative observes investigative interview and may accompany victim to court

WI DOC, 608-240-5000

20 trained PREA investigators

OR Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office,
541-388-6667

MOU with St. Charles Hospital for forensic medical exams

NYC DOC, 212-361-8977

MOU with outside victim services organization; chaplain does periodic follow-up with victims of sexual abuse

OH Corrections Center of Northwest Ohio, 419-428-3800
WA King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention, Seattle, 206-296-1269

MOU with law enforcement to investigate sexual abuse

VA Northern Neck Regional Jail, Warsaw,
804-333-6365

All allegations of sexual abuse investigated

RI DOC CC, 401-462-0373

Community corrections staff report allegations directly to the DOC’s specialized investigative unit

HI Family Court of the First Judicial Circuit, 808-539-4613

Coordinated response to resident sexual abuse in development

OR Youth Authority, 503-373-7238

Staff trained on forensic medical exam procedures for evidence protocol

Treatment

CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 916-322-0019

Post-abuse counseling provided by outside rape crisis counselors (pilot program)

FL DOC, 850-410-4016

Unimpeded access to emergency medical and mental health care for victims of sexual abuse

GA DOC, Mental Health/Mental Retardation Program, 404-651-6483

Available sexual abuse treatment includes gender-specific response to PTSD

NV DOC, 775-887-3142

Mental health services without fee for victims of sexual abuse

OK DOC, 405-425-2505

Inmate required to meet with psychologist after reporting sexual abuse; psychologist determines treatment plan

CO Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office,
720-874-3404

Inmate services for victims of sexual abuse

PA Indiana County Jail, 724-471-7500

Local domestic violence shelter provides counseling to inmates

VA Northern Neck Regional Jail, Warsaw,
804-333-6365

Outside agency provides counseling to inmates

OH Alvis House for Former Offenders,
614-252-8402

Clinical staff conduct mental health assessments; residents “matched” with particular counselors

OR Youth Authority, 503-378-8261

Established sexual abuse medical exam procedures and train all staff on process

Discipline

OH Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 614-728-1152

Policy contains staff and inmate sanctions developed by a committee

SC DOC, 803-896-8540

Standardized process for staff and inmate sanctions in policy

WA DOC, 360-725-8650

Employees trained in how to make disciplinary decisions regarding inmate sexual misconduct

MA Hampden County Sheriff’s Department, 413-547-8000, ext. 2284

Unsubstantiated allegations do not result in discipline

Monitoring

AL DOC, 334-872-6228

Management reviews quarterly reports of sexual abuse to identify trends

AZ DOC, 602-771-5583

Sexual abuse incident review by division director and other executives

CT DOC, 860-692-7497

Sexual abuse data used to identify blind spots and promote a safe environment

DE DOC, 302-739-5601

Designing database to trace inmates from intake to parole; PREA management assessment at women’s prison

KY DOC, 502-564-7290

Purchased computers for jail facilities to improve data collection; hired jail inspector under PREA grant to enhance PREA implementation

NJ DOC, 609-292-4617

Sexual abuse advisory committee reviews all incidents

ND Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 701-328-6100

Sexual abuse data collected and reviewed monthly; review by sexual abuse advisory committee

TN DOC, 615-741-1000

Sexual abuse data reviewed monthly

TX Department of Criminal Justice,
936-437-8918

Audits include PREA checks

VT DOC, 802-241-3956

PREA management assessment at all facilities

VA DOC, 804-674-3000

Director’s Task Force on Safety established after an incident of sexual misconduct; consultants reviewed the incident, interviewed inmates and staff, and made recommendations

WV DOC, 304-558-2036

Monthly reporting of sexual abuse data to central office

WI DOC, 608-240-5000

PREA review panel examines sexual abuse data

NV Washoe County, 775-328-6355

Incident database includes method of reporting sexual abuse

PA Allegheny County Jail, 412-350-2000

PREA management assessment

GA DOC CC, 478-783-6015

Community corrections monthly data report (to DOC) contains sexual abuse data

CA Youth Authority, 916-262-1088

Audit based on PREA policies and in anticipation of NPREC standards

KY Department of Juvenile Justice,
502-573-2738

Audit process evaluates the availability of PREA information within facilities

MA Department of Youth Services,
617-727-7575

Sexual abuse incident review for corrective action

OH Department of Youth Services,
740-477-2500, ext. 7128

Central office staff review sexual abuse incidents in real time; computerized reporting system; conduct PREA vulnerability assessments at each facility (includes survey of youth and staff through the victim services staff)

TX Youth Commission, 512-424-6294

Sexual abuse data available online