U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 Sexual Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities, 2005 July 2006, NCJ 214646 -------------------------------------------------------- This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format(.cvs) and the full report including tables and graphics in .pdf format are available from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/svrca05.htm This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#svrca -------------------------------------------------------- By Allen J. Beck, Ph.D. and Paige M. Harrison BJS Statisticians ---------------------------------------- Highlights 6,241 allegations of sexual violence in prison and jail reported in 2005, up from 5,386 in 2004 * 38% of allegations involved staff sexual misconduct; 35%, inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts; 17%, staff sexual harassment; and 10%, inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contact. * There were 2.83 allegations of sexual violence per 1,000 inmates in 2005, up from 2.46 in 2004. Correctional authorities substantiated 885 incidents of sexual violence in 2005, 15% of completed investigations * There were an estimated 0.40 substantiated incidents of sexual violence per 1,000 inmates in 2005, down from the 0.55 recorded in 2004. * Based on completed investigations only, 37% of allegations of staff sexual misconduct in local jails and 15% in State prisons were substantiated. Half of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence involved physical force or threat of force; two-thirds of staff misconduct was romantic * In prisons 67% of victims involved in staff sexual misconduct were male, while 62% of perpetrators were female. In jails 78% of victims of staff sexual misconduct were female; 87% of the perpetrators, male. * Staff were arrested or prosecuted in 45% of substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct; discharged, fired or resigned in 82%. ---------------------------------------- On September 4, 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-79). The legislation requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to develop new national data collections on the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence within correctional facilities. This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4 (c)(1) of the act for submission of an annual report on the activities of BJS with respect to prison rape. In 2004, as one step in a multiphase implementation strategy, BJS completed the first-ever national survey of administrative records on sexual violence in adult and juvenile correctional facilities. In 2005 the survey was expanded to collect detailed information on substantiated incidents. New survey items included the circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, the type of pressure or physical force, victim injuries, sanctions imposed, and victim assistance. The 2005 survey results should not be used to rank systems or facilities. Future data collections, based on surveys of current and former inmates, are being developed to permit reliable comparisons of facilities. Second administrative records collection conducted for 2005 Between January 1 and June 22, 2006, BJS completed the second national survey of the incidence and prevalence of sexual violence in correctional facilities. The Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau was the data collection agent for the survey. Initiated in 2004, the survey was conducted to provide information on occurrences of sexual violence based on allegations brought to the attention of correctional authorities. Although the results are limited to incidents reported to officials, the survey provides an understanding of what officials know, how many allegations were reported, and the outcomes of followup investigations. In 2005 the survey was expanded to obtain data on each substantiated incident in which the event was investigated and determined to have occurred. Using a separate incident form, the survey obtained incident-based data on all substantiated allegations, providing a basis for an in-depth analysis of sexual violence. New information included details on the circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of pressure or physical force used, victim injuries, sanctions imposed, and victim assistance. Administrative records alone cannot provide reliable estimates of sexual violence. Due to fear of reprisal from perpetrators, a code of silence among inmates, personal embarrassment, and lack of trust in staff, victims are often reluctant to report incidents to correctional authorities. BJS is developing and testing methods for more fully measuring the incidence of sexual violence in correctional facilities. These methods will rely on self-administered surveys to provide anonymity to victims when reporting their experiences. At the same time, computer-assisted technologies will ensure uniform conditions under which inmates complete the survey, and sampling techniques and supplemental data collections will reduce potential biases. (See box below for an update of these activities.) ------------------------------------------------- Collection of victim self reports to begin in 2006 BJS is working toward full implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act BJS has entered into cooperative agreements with —- Research Triangle International(RTI)(Raleigh, NC)to develop and test the adult prison and jail collection methodologies; Westat, Inc. (Rockville, MD) to develop and test methodologies for measuring sexual violence in State and local juvenile facilities; National Opinion Research Center(NORC)(Chicago, IL) to develop and test methods of collecting data from former inmates. Though underlying survey method-ology and logistical procedures differ with each of the data collection efforts, the measurement strategies will be consistent. The surveys will consist of an Audio Computer-Assisted Self-Interview (ACASI) in which respondents interact with a computer-administered questionnaire using a touch-screen and follow audio instructions delivered via headphones. The use of ACASI is expected to overcome many limitations of previous research. (See Data Collections for the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, December 30, 2005.) As of June 30, 2006, the following work had been completed or was underway: Prison and jail inmates * The ACASI questionnaire and survey protocols for adult inmates have been developed and tested. Between January and May 2006, BJS and RTI completed a pretest with more than 1,400 inmates in 4 State prisons, 4 local jail facilities, and 1 Federal prison. Results of the pretest will be published in October 2006 and assessed at a national meeting of stakeholders in November. * In July 2006 BJS will submit an overview of all survey procedures, sampling methods, and questionnaires to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to begin national implementation in late 2006. * Procedures for selecting prison and jail facilities and for sampling inmates within selected facilities have been developed. In the first year of implementation, BJS expects to select 450 public and private prisons and jails and to interview more than 60,000 inmates. * Upon OMB approval, RTI field staff will begin obtaining approval from State-level Institutional Review Boards(IRB) and begin interviews in January 2007. Youth in residential placement facilities * Survey procedures and questionnaires have been developed and reviewed by State and local admini-strators and other stakeholders. Cognitive testing of questionnaires with eligible youth began in June 2006. * A formal pretest of collection meth-ods in 10 juvenile facilities with up to 600 youth is planned for September 2006. * National implementation is expected in 2007. Initial survey efforts will focus on more than 14,000 adjudicated youth in a sample of 150 State-operated facilities and 30 large, local or private facilities. Former State prisoners * An ACASI questionnaire, an administrative records form, and survey protocols have been developed to survey former inmates under active parole or post-custody supervision. * A formal pretest of collection methods in 10-20 parole offices with up to 1,000 former inmates is planned for September 2006. * National implementation is scheduled in 2007 with more than 11,500 completed interviews expected in 285 parole field offices. ------------------------------------------------------ The 2005 administrative survey provides the basis for the annual statistical review, as required under the act. These data will be used by the Review Panel on Prison Rape within the Department of Justice for purposes of conducting hearings concerning the operation of correctional facilities. The number of allegations and substantiated incidents for each system and sampled facility in the survey is provided. 2005 survey covered 1,866 adult correctional facilities The 2005 survey included all Federal and State prison systems and facilities operated by the U.S. military and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, a representative sample was drawn of local jail jurisdictions, privately operated adult prisons and jails, and jails in Indian country. Altogether, the administrative survey covered 1,867 of the 5,220 adult facilities. These facilities housed more than 1.7 million inmates, or 78% of all inmates held in adult facilities in 2005.***A survey of State-operated juvenile systems and privately or locally operated juvenile facilities was also conducted. Survey results for juvenile systems and facilities will be published in a separate report.*** The survey was based on seven separate samples corresponding to the different types of facilities covered under the act. (See Methodology, page 11.) Each sample was designed in accordance with the requirement that BJS draw a random sample, or other scientifically appropriate sample, of not less than 10% of facilities. Entire systems were selected, when possible, to maximize reporting coverage. Local and private facilities were sampled to ensure at least one in each State and with selection probabilities proportionate to the number of inmates held. In 2004 BJS developed uniform definitions of sexual violence. (See box to the left.) Incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence were classified as nonconsensual sexual acts and abusive sexual contacts. Incidents of staff-on-inmate sexual violence were separated into staff sexual misconduct and staff sexual harassment. For purposes of this report, all such incidents are considered sexual violence. ---------------------------------------------- How sexual violence was measured The definition of "rape" as required under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 was operationalized by disaggregating sexual violence into two categories of inmate-on-inmate sexual acts and two categories of staff sexual misconduct. The categories were —- Nonconsensual sexual acts Contact of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse; and * Contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus including penetration, however slight; or * Contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; or * Penetration of the anal or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object. Abusive sexual contacts Contact of any person without his or her consent, or of a person who is unable to consent or refuse; and * Intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person. * Excluding incidents in which the intent of the sexual contact is to harm or debilitate rather than sexually exploit. Staff sexual misconduct Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. Romantic relationships between staff and inmates are included. Consensual or nonconsensual sexual acts include: * Intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; or * Completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts; or * Occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification. Staff sexual harassment Repeated verbal statements or comments of a sexual nature to an inmate by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative, including: * Demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or * Profane or obscene language or gestures. ---------------------------------------------- State prison reporting capabilities improve during 2005 The most serious forms of sexual violence (inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts and staff sexual misconduct) were the most widely reported using survey definitions and reporting rules. During 2005 State and Federal prison authorities enhanced their abilities to report data on sexual violence. Correctional authorities in more than 36 State and Federal prison systems were able to report incidents of inmate-on- inmate nonconsensual acts as defined in the 2005 survey (up from 34 in 2004). Authorities in 38 States were able to report incidents of abusive sexual contacts separately, while 10 combined these incidents with the more serious nonconsensual acts. Only 2 systems did not record abusive sexual contacts, down from 9 in 2004. The greatest improvements in reporting were for staff sexual misconduct and harassment. In 2005 most prison administrators (44) were able to report data on staff sexual misconduct using survey definitions, up from 35 in 2004. Six systems were unable to separate sexual harassment from misconduct in 2005, down from nine in 2004. Only 1 system was unable to report any data on sexual harassment in 2005, down from 13 in 2004. The ability to report incidents of sexual violence by authorities in sampled jail jurisdictions dropped during 2005. Also, jail authorities were less likely than prison authorities to meet survey definitions. A third of jail jurisdictions were unable to separate abusive sexual contacts from the more serious nonconsensual sexual acts; a fifth were unable to report staff sexual harassment separately from staff sexual misconduct. The lower percents meeting survey requirements may be the result of the sampling procedures. More than two-thirds of the jail jurisdictions (242)received the definitions and reporting criteria for the first time in 2005, while all of the prison systems received the survey in 2004. BJS expects to work with administrators to improve reporting, especially in large jail jurisdictions with systems too large for manual searches of paper files. As first noted in the 2004 report, the absence of uniform reporting necessitates caution when interpreting the survey results. The data should not be used to rank systems or facilities. Higher or lower counts, especially among jail jurisdictions, may reflect variations in definitions, reporting capacities, and procedures for recording allegations and not differences in the underlying incidence of sexual violence. All selected correctional systems and facilities responded to the survey. Sexual violence allegations increased Reports of sexual violence varied across systems and sampled facilities, with every State prison system except New Mexico reporting at least one allegation of sexual violence. Among the 347 sampled local jails, 131(38%)reported an allegation. About 42% of the 36 sampled privately operated prisons and jails reported at least one allegation. Combined, the 2005 survey recorded 5,247 allegations of sexual violence. Taking into account weights for sampled facilities, the estimated total number of allegations for the Nation was 6,241. Expressed in terms of rates, there were 2.83 allegations of sexual violence per 1,000 inmates held in 2005, up from 2.43 per 1,000 inmates held in prisons, jails, and other adult correctional facilities in 2004. Prison systems reported 74% of all allegations; local jails, 22%; private prisons and jails, 3%; and other adult facilities, 1%. Nationwide, the number of allegations rose by nearly 16%. Consistent with improvements in reporting capabilities, State and Federal prison systems reported a 33% increase in the number of allegations; local jails reported a 19% decrease. About 38% of the reported allegations of sexual violence involved staff sexual misconduct, 35% involved inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts; 17% staff sexual harassment; and 10% inmate-on-inmate abusive sexual contacts. Approximately 15% of allegations of nonconsensual sexual acts in 2005 were substantiated Allegations reported in 2005 were classified as: * substantiated, if they were determined to have occurred * unsubstantiated, if the evidence was insufficient to make a final determination that they occurred * unfounded, if they were determined not to have occurred * investigation ongoing, if a final determination had not been made at time of data collection. Overall, inmate-on-inmate allegations of nonconsensual sexual violence were less likely to be substantiated than allegations of staff sexual misconduct. Based on allegations in State and Federal prisons for which investigations had been completed, 14% of nonconsensual sexual acts were substantiated, compared to 15% of allegations of staff sexual misconduct. In jails 16% of completed investigations of nonconsensual sexual acts were substantiated, compared to 37% of the allegations of staff sexual misconduct. The most common outcome of investigations of sexual violence was a determination of lack of evidence. More than 66% of allegations of staff sexual misconduct in prison and 49% of allegations of inmate-on-inmate nonconsensual sexual acts were unsubstantiated. More than a third of completed investigations of nonconsensual sexual acts in State and Federal prisons (37%) and local jails (38%) were determined to be unfounded. During 2005 correctional authorities substantiated 885 incidents of sexual violence The survey of administrative records recorded 620 substantiated incidents of sexual violence. Taking into account sampling of local jails, private prisons or jails, and jails in Indian country, the estimated total for the Nation was 885. Relative to the number of inmates, there were 0.40 substantiated incidents of sexual violence per 1,000 inmates reported in 2005, down from the 0.55 per 1,000 inmates in adult facilities in 2004. Correctional authorities provided detail on 82% of substantiated incidents For the first time in the 2005 survey prison systems and sampled facilities were asked to provide detailed information on each substantiated incident of sexual violence. Using a separate incident form, the survey obtained incident-based data, providing a basis for an in-depth analysis of sexual violence. Data included details on the circumstances surrounding each incident, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, type of pressure or physical force, sanctions imposed and victim assistance. Incident-level data were reported on 510 of the 620 substantiated incidents (82%). More than two-thirds of the unreported incidents were in the Federal system (missing data on 35 incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence), New Hampshire(missing 23 incident reports), and Vermont(missing 16 reports on staff sexual harassment). An additional 25 substantiated incidents were missing from local jail reports. Because most systems and facilities reported fully, there was little evidence of any selection bias among the 510 incident reports. Data provided on substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence revealed that-- * In 4% of the incidents more than one inmate was victimized. * In 7% of the incidents there was more than one perpetrator. * Males comprised 88% of the victims and 91% of the perpetrators in prison and jails. * 74% of victims in jail and 42% in prison were age 24 or younger; while 42% of perpetrators in jail and 66% in prison were age 30 or older. * Whites comprised 73% of the victims, 43% of the perpetrators; while blacks comprised 12% of victims, 39% of perpetrators. * 15% of perpetrators were Hispanic, compared to 9% of victims. More than half of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence was interracial: 10% involved a white perpetrator and a nonwhite victim; 31% black perpetrators and a non-black victim; 11% a Hispanic perpetrator on a non-Hispanic victim (not shown). Physical force or threat of force was used in 51% of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence Correctional authorities reported that force or threat of force was involved in about half of all incidents of inmate- on-inmate sexual violence. In less than a third of the incidents no force was used or threatened. In other incidents of inmate sexual violence, victims were talked into it(18%), bribed/blackmailed (11%), or offered protection from other inmates (6%). Force was more common among incidents of nonconsensual sexual activity than among incidents of abusive sexual contacts. In nearly a third of nonconsensual sexual acts, the victim was physically held down or restrained. In a sixth, the victim was physically harmed or injured. In more than two-thirds of the inmate-on-inmate incidents, the sexual violence occurred in the victim's cell (59%) or in a dormitory (12%). In only 21% of the substantiated incidents did the sexual violence occur in a common area, such as a shower or a day room. In less than 9% of the incidents, the inmate-on-inmate sexual violence occurred in a program service area, such as in a storage room, hallway, laundry, cafeteria, kitchen or workshop. Incidents of inmate sexual violence were the most common(44%) in the evening between 6 p.m. and midnight and the least common (18%) overnight between midnight and 6 a.m. The most serious forms of inmate sexual violence(nonconsensual sexual acts) were most likely to have occurred in the evening (50%); while the least serious acts (abusive sexual contacts) were most likely to have occurred in the morning between 6 a.m. and noon (41%). In nearly 90% of the substantiated incidents of inmate sexual violence, the victim or another inmate reported the incident. In less than 11% of the incidents had a correctional officer made the initial report. In only 4% of the most serious incidents (nonconsensual sexual acts) had medical or health care staff reported the incident. Victims received physical injuries in 15% of substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence In most substantiated incidents of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence victims were not physically injured(85%). Anal or rectal tearing was reported in 6% of the incidents; less serious injuries, including bruises, black eyes, sprains, cuts, and scratches were reported in 11% of the incidents. In fewer than 1% of the incidents, victims received broken bones or were knocked unconscious. Knife or stab wounds and other internal injuries were not reported for any of the incidents. Victims received medical attention, counseling or mental health treatment in more than two-thirds of the incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts. Among the most serious incidents, 63% of the victims were given a medical examination; 27% were administered a rape kit; 17% were tested for HIV/AIDS; 17% were tested for other sexually transmitted diseases; and 33% were provided counseling or mental health treatment. Half of victims of nonconsensual sexual acts were placed in protective custody or administrative segregation The most common response following a reported incident of sexual violence was to place the victim in administrative segregation or protective custody (44%) or to transfer the victim to another facility (11%). Given differing housing options, prison authorities were more likely than jail authorities to move the victims rather than confine them to their cell/room. Victims of abusive sexual contacts were the least likely to be moved, with over half (53%) having no change in housing. About a third of the victims of nonconsensual sexual acts were confined to their cell (11%) or had no change in their housing (23%). Most inmate perpetrators received legal sanctions or solitary confinement * A legal sanction, including arrest, referral for prosecution, or new sentence, was imposed on perpetrators in 31% of the substantiated incidents in prisons; 83% of the incidents in jails. * Perpetrators were referred for prosecution in more than half of the substantiated incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts; in a third of the incidents of abusive sexual contacts. * Perpetrators were moved to solitary confinement in 72% of the incidents of nonconsensual sexual acts and in 70% of the incidents of abusive sexual contacts. * Perpetrators also received other sanctions, including confinement to own cell/room(28%), loss of privileges(21%), placement in a higher custody level(20%), or transfer to another facility (19%). Two-thirds of incidents of staff sexual misconduct with inmates were reported to be romantic The survey collected data on 344 substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment during 2005. In two- thirds of these incidents, correctional authorities determined that staff had a romantic relationship with the inmate. Although legally all sexual relationships between staff and inmates are considered nonconsensual, fewer than 15% of the substantiated incidents involved physical force, abuse of power or pressure by staff. Coercion, including force, pressure, unwanted touching, indecent exposure, and harassment, was more common among incidents in jails (43%) than in prisons (26%). Other data reported on substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment revealed that-- * In more than half the incidents, either the victim(32%)or another inmate (26%) reported the misconduct. * In a third of the incidents, correctional officers(18%)or administrative staff (16%) reported the incident. In 10% of the incidents, the misconduct was reported anonymously. * Most incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment occurred outside of the inmate's living area, in a program area (53%), outside of the facility (12%), or in a common area (10%). * In prisons, incidents of staff sexual misconduct occurred most often between noon and 6 p.m.(50%); in jails, incidents occurred more evenly throughout the day. * In 5% of the incidents more than one staff member was involved in the sexual misconduct. * In 10% of the incidents more than one inmate was involved. Female staff implicated in staff sexual misconduct in prisons; males in local jails Characteristics of victims and perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct and harassment differed among prisons and jail facilities: * In State and Federal prisons 67% of the victims of staff misconduct were male, while 62% of the perpetrators were female. * In local jails 78% of the victims were females; 87% of the perpetrators, male. * 47% of the prison staff involved in sexual misconduct and harassment were age 40 or older; compared to 27% of the jail staff. * In prisons 69% of the perpetrators were white, 25% black, and 3% Hispanic. * In jails 74% of the perpetrators were white, 21%, black, and 4% Hispanic. -------------------------------------------------- Among victims of staff sexual misconduct, white inmates were overrepresented compared with the general inmate population. Non-Hispanic whites comprised 57% of the inmates involved in staff misconduct, compared to 36% of all prison and jail inmates at midyear 2005. (See Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005, NCJ 213133.) Non-Hispanic blacks comprised 27% of inmates involved in staff misconduct; 40% of all inmates nationwide. Hispanic inmates were 10% of the victims of staff misconduct compared to 20% of the inmate population. Over two-thirds of perpetrators of staff sexual misconduct or harassment were correctional officers Most substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct and harassment involved correctional officers —- 57% of the incidents in prisons; 89% of those in jails. In prisons, nearly 16% of perpetrators of staff misconduct were maintenance and other facility support staff, including groundskeepers, janitors, cooks, and drivers. An additional 10% of perpetrators in prisons were medical or health care staff, including counselors, doctors, dentists, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and medical assistants. In both prisons and jails, about 13% of the staff perpetrators of sexual misconduct or harassment were contract employees or vendors. Inmates involved in staff sexual misconduct often transferred or placed in segregation In 27% of the substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct the inmates involved were transferred to another facility; in 20% of the incidents they were placed in administrative segregation or protective custody. In incidents involving a romantic relationship between inmate and staff, more than half of the inmates were either transferred (30%) or placed in administrative segregation (22%) (not shown). In incidents involving staff coercion, about a third of the victims were either transferred (20%) or placed in segregation (15%). In most substantiated incidents of staff sexual misconduct (74%), victims received no medical followup, counseling, or mental health treatment. Excluding incidents involving romantic relationships, victims in 15% of the nonconsensual acts were given a medical examination and 19% were provided counseling or mental health treatment. ----------------------------------------------- Nearly 90% of perpetrators of staff misconduct arrested, referred for prosecution, or discharged Correctional authorities indicated that in 82% of the substantiated incidents staff had been discharged or resigned; 45% arrested or referred for prosecution, and 17% were disciplined, transferred, or demoted. Among the multiple types of sanctions imposed on staff, discharge or resignation was the most common--30% of the incidents in prison and 55% of those in jails. Many staff chose to resign (43%) rather than be terminated. In incidents involving a romantic relationship between an inmate and staff, 90% of staff were discharged or resigned (not shown). In incidents involving coercion, 64% of staff lost their jobs and 53% were arrested or referred for prosecution. Methodology The 2005 Survey of Sexual Violence was based on seven separate samples, corresponding to the different facilities covered under the act. The following samples were drawn: 1. The survey included all 50 State adult prison systems and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Prison administrators were directed to report only on incidents of sexual violence that occurred within publicly operated adult facilities. 2. A sample of 32 privately operated prison facilities was drawn to represent a 10% sample of the 319 private prisons identified in the 2000 Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities and updated for new construction and closures since 2000. Facilities were sorted by region and average daily population and then sampled with probabilities proportionate to size. One sampled facility had closed. 3. Publicly operated jail facilities were selected based on data reported in the 2004 Deaths in Custody collection. Jurisdictions were sorted into 6 strata, based on their average daily populations, and then sampled systematically, to provide a representative national sample. A total of 72 jurisdictions were sampled with certainty (corresponding to the largest jurisdiction in each State plus 26 jurisdictions selected due to their large size). An additional 278 jurisdictions were selected from 4 strata, with probabilities of selection proportionate to size. Jail administrators were directed to report on all publicly operated facilities within their jurisdiction. Of the 350 selected facilities, 3 had closed. 4. A sample of 5 privately operated jails was also selected based on the data reported in the 2004 Deaths in Custody collection. The 38 private facilities were sorted by region and their average daily population during 2004. Facilities were selected systematically using a random start and a fixed sampling interval. 5. Three additional samples of other correctional facilities were drawn to represent: a) jails in Indian country (7 facilities holding adults were selected from a total of 68 based on probabilities proportionate to size); b) military-operated facilities (all of the 59 facilities operated by the Armed Services in the continental U.S.); c) 14 facilities operated by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Data for each correctional system and sampled facility are displayed in the Appendix tables. In each table a measure of population size has been provided as a basis of comparison; however, the survey results should not be used to rank systems or facilities. Variations in the number of allegations and substantiated incidents may reflect differences in definitions and reporting criteria, as well as variations in procedures for recording allegations and in the thoroughness of subsequent investigations. ---------------------------------------- The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jeffrey L. Sedgwick is director. Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison wrote this report. Laura Maruschak, Seri Palla, and Maura Spiegelman verified the report. Tina Dorsey, Carolyn Williams, and Marianne W. Zawitz produced and edited the report. Jayne Robinson prepared the report for publication. Timothy A. Hughes and Paige M. Harrison, under the supervision of Allen J. Beck, designed the survey, developed the questionnaires, and monitored data collection and data processing. Pamela H. Butler, Greta B. Clark, and Nicole D. Simpson carried out data collection and processing, under the supervision of Charlene M. Sebold, Governments Division, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. Patricia D. Torreyson, Pearl E. Chase, and D. Alicia Gumbs assisted in data collection. Suzanne M. Dorinski drew the facility samples and provided sampling weights. July 2006, NCJ 214646 -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- This report in portable document format and in ASCII and its related statistical data and tables—including five appendix tables—are available at the BJS World Wide Web Internet site: ----------------------------------------- End of file 07/25/06 ih