Chapter 28

Staff Sexual Abuse in

Confinement Settings
 Chapter Objectives
• Understand the historical context of
addressing sexual abuse in confinement
settings.
• Understand the definitions related to sexual
abuse in confinement settings.
• Understand the evolution of data collection
efforts in determining the prevalence of sexual
abuse in confinement settings.
 Chapter Objectives (cont.)
• Explore the importance of culture and
leadership in creating safe environments.
• Understand the role of the National Standards
to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison
Rape in addressing sexual abuse in
confinement settings.
• Identify emerging issues and implications for
further research.
 Introduction
• The addressing of staff sexual abuse in
correctional facilities is a sensitive issue, which
has a broad range of influencing factors that
have lead to changes in policy and national
standards for the prevention, detection and
response of such instances.
• In August 2012, the Department of Justice
created national standards designed to assist
the field in addressing this issue.
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards
• The Prison Rape Elimination Act was signed into law in 2003.
This has, essentially, expanded into the recent promulgation of
the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to
Prison Rape
• The PREA legislation addresses the rights and responsibilities
of inmates in custodial confinement settings in the criminal
justice system, including federal, state, and local prisons, jails,
police lockups, juvenile justice facilities, private facilities, and
community residential settings.
– The law speaks to the sexual abuse of inmates/youth by staff and
additionally includes a major focus on sexual abuse occurring
between inmates/ youth.
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• PREA is considered, by some, to be one of the
most significant reform initiatives in recent
correctional history, though the topic of sexual
abuse in the profession was hardly new in
2003.
• Prisoner sexual violence was documented in
the United States as early as 1826, with
research publishing in the 1920s.
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• In the 1970s, there were credible reports of staff sexual
abuse against juvenile, female and male inmates, though
no large-scale action was taken to address the issue.
• The issue gained national prominence in 1992 when
allegations of widespread sexual abuse of women
emerged from the Georgia Women’s Institution in
Milledgeville, GA.
– Corrections staff were found to have sexually assaulted female
prisoners, in addition to viewing them inappropriately, and
degrading them verbally
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• In the same year, the Michigan Women’s
Commission identified staff sexual abuse in its
prisons, leading to a U.S. Department of Justice
investigation two years later. A class-action
lawsuit was also filed alleging abuses in the
District of Columbia.
• Court orders and remedies in these cases
provided a framework for future response to
such issues.
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• Responding to the situation, advocacy groups such as the
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Widney-
Brown and the United Nations High Commissioner
played significant roles in the passing of PREA.
• The litigation from the 1990s identified the last of state
laws prohibiting staff sexual abuse, with less than 10
states officially prohibiting such conduct. (as of 2013,
every state has such laws).
– The National Women’s Law Center found that even where laws
did exist, staff were often unaware of them, or not fully trained
on the substance
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• The National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
provided guidance in the development of
state laws.
– The models provided by the NIC ultimately
provided a strong foundation for the
implementation of PREA
– To this day, the NIC’s work continues as they
partner with other federal initiatives to broadly
implement PREA
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• By the mid-to-late 1990s, a diverse group of
supporters, from human rights groups, to both
conservative and liberal political groups, were
clamoring for passage of a legislation against
prison sexual abuse. The result was the passage of
PREA.
– PREA demanded a “zero tolerance” standard focused
on prevention as the top priority
– It established a number of important priorities for
correctional agencies nationwide
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• In addition to instances of sexual abuse in
correctional facilities, other, highly visible cases in
the military, academic community, churches and
civic organizations raised awareness of such abuses
of power in various settings.
• One of the key features of PREA was to have
systematic, multimodal empirical studies conducted
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Up until
that point, true, concrete data was hard to come by.
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• The final PREA statute came at a time when many
states were cutting costs, including corrections
budgets. As such, the implementation of the law
was designed to reflect this reality.
• The increased collaboration among advocacy
groups, nonprofits and corrections officials in the
implementation stage of PREA helped give an
increased focus on policy, practice, and a strong
response to victims’ claims of abuse.
 Historical Context and the Evolution of
National Standards (cont.)
• As part of PREA, a nine-person committee was
formed – The National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission (NPREC). The NPREC was charged
with creating standards, which they released in
draft form in 2009. The final standards were
released in 2012.
– These standards include 12 domain areas, including
requirements for policy and practice across several
key operational areas in regards to inmate sexual
safety
 Definition Sexual Abuse in Confinement
Settings
• The definition of behaviors that constitute the
various forms of sexual abuse in confinement
settings only truly began with the lawsuits of
the 1990s.
• In the absence of consistent terms and the
subsequent training of correctional staff,
recognizing and truly preventing such
behaviors can be difficult. It is also difficult to
develop effective policy.
 Definition Sexual Abuse in Confinement
Settings (cont.)
• PREA’s evolution required dialogue and the continuing
clarifying of definitions in legislation. The development of
common definitions was a powerful and critical step.
• The Department of Justice defined staff sexual abuse as the
following in the promulgated standards Sexual abuse of an
inmate, detainee, or resident by a staff member, contractor,
or volunteer includes any of the following acts, with or
without consent of the inmate, detainee, or resident:
– Contact between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the
anus, including penetration, however slight
– Contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, or anus
 Definition Sexual Abuse in Confinement
Settings (cont.)
• The Department of Justice defined staff sexual abuse as the
following in the promulgated standards Sexual abuse of an
inmate, detainee, or resident by a staff member, contractor,
or volunteer includes any of the following acts, with or
without consent of the inmate, detainee, or resident (cont.):
– Contact between the mouth and any body part where the staff
member, contractor, or volunteer has the intent to abuse, arouse,
or gratify sexual desire
– Penetration of the anal or genital opening, however slight, by a
hand, finger, object, or other instrument, that is unrelated to
official duties or where the staff member, contractor, or volunteer
has the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire
 Definition Sexual Abuse in Confinement
Settings (cont.)
• The Department of Justice defined staff sexual abuse as the
following in the promulgated standards Sexual abuse of an
inmate, detainee, or resident by a staff member, contractor,
or volunteer includes any of the following acts, with or
without consent of the inmate, detainee, or resident (cont.):
– Any attempt, threat, or request by a staff member, contractor, or
volunteer to engage in the activities described above
– Any display by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer of his or
her uncovered genitalia, buttocks, or breast in the presence of an
inmate, detainee, or resident
– Voyeurism by a staff member, contractor, or volunteer.
 Definition Sexual Abuse in Confinement
Settings (cont.)
• The standards also address the issue of sexual
harassment, which is defined as follows:
– Repeated and unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual
favors, or verbal comments, gestures, or actions of a
derogatory or offensive sexual nature by one inmate, detainee,
or resident directed toward another
• Repeated verbal comments or gestures of a sexual nature
to an inmate, detainee, or resident by a staff member,
contractor, or volunteer, including demeaning references
to gender, sexually suggestive or derogatory comments
about body or clothing, or obscene language or gestures
 Data Collection, Reporting, and
Determining the Prevalence of Sexual
Abuse in Correctional Facilities
• In the past, the occurrences of sexual abuse in
correctional settings was difficult to determine.
• Early work of the NIC resulted in staff perspectives being
gathered, which identified several barriers to proper
data collection, including non-specific data, the degree
of underreporting of abuses, the difficulty in
investigating such claims, the inability of staff to
recognize signs of abuse, a “code of silence” from the
inmate population and the lack of effective reporting
mechanisms.
 Data Collection, Reporting, and
Determining the Prevalence of Sexual
Abuse in Correctional Facilities (cont.)
• In addition, investigations were thought to be less than
objective.
• To combat this, Congress tasked the BJS with documenting
the actual prevalence of sexual abuse in corrections settings,
through a multi-year data collection process.
• Since 2003, the BJS determined the following, through
surveys of inmates:
– Roughly 88,500 adult inmates claimed to be sexually victimized in
the past year.
– Of male victims, 64 percent reported no force or pressure, while 70
percent of female inmates reported force
 Data Collection, Reporting, and
Determining the Prevalence of Sexual
Abuse in Correctional Facilities (cont.)
• Such data points can provide practitioners with
important information that can be used to explore
prevention strategies and target sensitivity to different
groups.
• The National Review Panel on Prison Rape was formed
as part of PREA, and is responsible for conducting annual
hearings to identify common victim and perpetrator
characteristics. This increased understanding provides
correctional administrators with more information to
address sexual abuse.
The Importance of Culture and Leadership
in Promoting Sexually Safe Environments
• Many administrators had been developing responses to
this issue long before PREA was passed.
• In addition to PREA, culture and leadership in correctional
facilities must be incorporated in order to battle sexual
abuse.
• The majority of a correctional facility population is there
involuntarily (the inmates), and depends almost entirely on
the, smaller, staff to respond to their daily needs. Staff also
serve as their protection – from other inmates from time to
time, as rivalries and negative racial and sexual stereotypes
are amplified in a closed, prison setting.
The Importance of Culture and Leadership
in Promoting Sexually Safe Environments
(cont.)
• There are also very often cultural differences
between staff and inmates, especially when
the correctional facility exists far from an
inmate’s home area. Different life experiences
by both the inmates and staff also lead to
cultural differences – causing difficulties when
interacting.
The Importance of Culture and Leadership
in Promoting Sexually Safe Environments
(cont.)
• In small communities such as prisons, the reporting of
infractions by colleagues on each other, sexual or otherwise,
can lead to alienation and isolation for the reporting party. An
inmate reporting a staff member or another inmate for an
infraction may face similar isolation or – in some extreme
cases – find themselves in physical danger.
– In addition, the dynamics of a correctional facility lead to increased
intergroup loyalty among subcultures within the facility – leading to
a possible code of silence when infractions occur
– Many staff members are also leery of possible false reports by
inmates, who may manipulate the system
The Importance of Culture and Leadership
in Promoting Sexually Safe Environments
(cont.)
• In order to achieve the desired outcome of eliminating staff
sexual abuse – the facility will need to promote a reporting and
responsive culture. This means a culture that instructs staff and
offenders on how to report abuse, and gives them the support
and trust they need to be willing to report abuse in the first
place.
• Creating a culture that supports the reporting of sexual abuse is
a dynamic process that must be valued by all levels of
leadership. If the culture of the institution does not support
objective reporting and response to nonsexual infractions, then
the atmosphere for reporting staff sexual abuse is greatly
hampered.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues
• Most staff understand the directive to not sexual abuse or
have sex with inmates, and would never intentionally violate
their professional duties. However, the boundaries between
staff and inmates can become blurred at times, and not all
sexual abuses by staff involve overt coercion or force.
– Forms of staff sexual abuse range from force, coercion, and sex for
favors to “willing” relationships where a staff member and an
inmate will claim to be in love.
– Some inmates will manipulate staff through the development of
affection for the purposes of accessing special privileges and
contraband.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• Cases of staff sexual abuse have involved all levels of
staff – with even those thought not likely to engage
in such activities crossing the line.
• The job of a corrections officer can be stressful, with
PTSD rates rivaling those of emergency medical
professionals, post-9/11 firefighters and police
officers, and wartime military personnel. Strategies
to reduce stress are essential, as higher stress levels
can lead to diminished professional judgment in
some workers.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• Unlike professionals such as psychologists and social
workers, correctional staff receive very little training on
how to deal with inmates becoming attached to them or
interested in them personally, or vice versa. Such training
is critical to handling the emotional challenges of the
position.
• Sexual misconduct involving female correctional workers
involves some greater challenges. Data on the subject
reported that 64 percent of inmates involved with female
staff did not feel forced – a notable difference to those
instances reported of male correctional workers.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• As such, seeing women staff as perpetrators is
often more difficult in a corrections
community – as well as with prosecutors and
the public.
– Emerging work in understanding the role of
gender in sexual abuse is an important part of
strengthening prevention strategies.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• There has been a more recent effort about the
importance of educating the inmate population about
their rights to exist in a sexually safe correctional
environment. PREA standards require that programs
provide information defining sexual abuse for inmates.
• Any history of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse
by either staff or inmates, and the influences from
these experiences are mixed in a corrections
environment. Past histories can affect future
vulnerability to custodial sexual abuse.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• Women Offenders
– Girls are more likely than boys to be victims of sexual
abuse, and the abuse of girls often follows them into
adulthood
– Studies show between 40 and 88 percent of incarcerated
women have been victims of domestic violence and
sexual abuse before incarceration, and these experiences
lead to behavior such as substance abuse, defensive
violence or other criminal behavior
– There is also a connection between victimization and
future offenses.
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• Mental Ill Offenders
– The population of mentally ill inmates in the criminal
justice system is growing
– A 2005 BJS report stated that more than half of inmates
had a mental health problem
– This has caused a crisis for corrections workers, who often
struggle to manage these complex populations with
limited training, treatment and staffing resources
– Proper training for administrators and staff is key to
preventing abuse of this population, and promoting a
culture of safety
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• Transgender Offenders
– Although a minority population, transgender inmates have
been features in some of the most publicized lawsuits
– This population requires careful handling as agencies
attempt to determine appropriate placement, and
management for their safety
– Transgender inmates face the same prejudices, confusion,
and ignorance that they face in the general population
– The field of corrections as a whole is working to address
the needs of this unique population in a way that
maintains their dignity and safety
 Examples of Current
and Existing Issues (cont.)
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex
Offenders
– Addressing issues of the transgender population also provides
an opportunity to address similar issues facing the lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) population as a
whole
– BJS data shows these populations are 10 times more likely to
report abuse by other inmates, and three times more likely to
report abuse by staff
– PREA standards require correctional staff to be trained in
communicating effectively and professionally with all inmates,
including those in the LGBTI category
 Conclusion
• Sexual abuse among staff and inmates is an issue at the
forefront of contemporary corrections.
• PREA standards are only part of the solution – staff and
administrators must be committed in order to reduce such
instances.
• Countless individuals have provided leadership in changing
state laws, developing policy, and improving the overall
culture against sexual abuses.
• Issues of sexual abuse must be discussed openly with both
staff and inmates in an effort to promote understanding
and support.