Prison Rape Research Findings

In response to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, NIJ first awarded a qualitative study to examine inmate perceptions of sexual violence in prisons. The Culture of Prison Sexual Violence study (Fleisher and Krienert, 2006) is the largest ethnographic study of inmates ever conducted. The study examined how inmates perceive sexual relations in prison, including forced sexual misconduct. It covered men's and women's maximum security facilities in 15 States and included more than 600 hours of interviews. Inmates were not questioned about their own personal experiences or whether they were victims or perpetrators. Rather, they were asked questions about their knowledge of sexual violence in their facility and during their own incarcerations.

• Prison Culture and the Perception of Rape
• State Responses to PREA
• Risk Assessment

Prison Culture and the Perception of Rape

Overall, inmate reports indicate that they do not define or consider sexual relationships and rape in the same way that persons within free society view them, and, as a result, perceive rape to be a rare occurrence.

Concepts defining coerced and forced sexual behavior may be perceived differently in prison culture, but they are similar across all prisons in the United States. The researchers reported that 66 percent of male inmates and 71 percent of female inmates were aware of inmate-staff sexual relationships. Although no relationship between correctional staff and inmates is legal, these estimates included romantic, mutual relationships, not just rape.

Collectively, 9.1 percent of male and female inmates reported they were aware of an inmate who had been raped by a correctional staff member. Male and female inmates—about 34 percent and 28 percent respectively—reported they knew of an inmate who reported rape to staff members. A high percentage of both male and female inmates indicated that corrections officers try to protect inmates from being victimized.

This research yielded many recommendations for corrections practitioners that can be applied to both prisons and jails. These recommendations apply to staff training, inmate orientation, inmate observation, direct supervision, and policymaking. [1] Their implementation can contribute to changing both inmate and institutional culture (Fleisher and Krienert, 2006).

State Responses to PREA

Another recently completed study funded by NIJ (Zweig et al., 2006), examined the policies and practices of State corrections departments in response to PREA. From 2004 to 2005, 27 States reported specific written policies related to prison sexual violence, 19 of which comprehensively addressed prevention, investigation, response, and victim services. Several States also reported proactive efforts to involve the medical community in collecting rape kits for evidence, working with local district attorneys to promote prosecution of offenses, and invested in training staff to engage in investigations of allegations.

In addition to examining policies, the researchers in this study identified and conducted case studies on 11 States that might provide other practitioners with "the most informative lessons on addressing sexual violence in prison" (Zweig et al., 2006). These States were: Connecticut, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah. Synopses of these case studies can be found in the final report.

Risk Assessment

One way NIJ has responded to practitioners' needs is through research to develop risk assessment instruments to help identify potential victims or perpetrators of prison sexual violence. In one study, the researcher developed such a tool from analysis of official reports of incidents in Texas over a 4-year period. Although Texas has one of the highest incidence rates in the United States, it also has one of the lowest rates of substantiated cases. The extremely low base rate made construction of a validated risk-assessment instrument impossible, but the researcher identified potential victim characteristics and developed a checklist. He also identified best practices used by the Texas Safe Prison Program (Austin et al., 2006). [2]