PRC, along with its partner Æquitas, has released a resource guide for prosecutors for their work on cases involving sexual abuse and sexual harassment in confinement.
PowerPoint slides handout for taking notes for the webinar titled, Investigating and Prosecuting the Intimidation of Victims of Sexual Abuse in Confinement, which took place on July 16, 2013.
PowerPoint slides for the webinar titled, Investigating and Prosecuting the Intimidation of Victims of Sexual Abuse in Confinement, which took place on July 16, 2013.
Product of American University, Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. Collection of Case Law summaries relating to anti-fraternization polices and their utility in preventing staff sexual abuse in custody.
On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, the United State Supreme Court issued its ruling in Millbrook v. United States, and held that the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) waives sovereign immunity for correctional officers who commit intentional torts against inmates while acting within the scope of their employment. This unanimous decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, will have a major impact on inmates’ ability to file lawsuits against federal correctional officers for acts of sexual abuse that occur in federal custodial facilities.
Product of American University, Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. Collection of Case Law summaries relating to cross-gender searches.
Product of American University, Washington College of Law Project on Addressing Prison Rape. Collection of case law summaries relating to sexual abuse in custody.
Sample victim assistance and counseling agreement between Fort Bend County Women's Center and Fort Bend County.
This report summarized the investigation into the misconduct of Pennsylvania State University about the child sexual abuse committed by Gerald A. Sandusky.
The need for the United States to ensure that inmates are free from torture, in particular prisoner rape, by “improv[ing] the external oversight of U.S. prisons, jails, and other types of detention facilities” is explained. Topics discussed in this submission include: sexual abuse in U.S. detention facilities is a human rights crisis; the U.S. implementation of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and the CAT (Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment); external oversight of U.S. detention facilities, OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture) and CAT Article 22; and next steps—UPR (Universal Periodic Review).
Description: Covering the calendar year 2007, this fifth annual report to Congress summarizes the activities of the Office of Justice Programs and the National Institute of Corrections to curtail prison rape. In addition to an introduction and background, this report reviews activities and accomplishments for the: Office of Justice Programs (OJP); National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—legislative mandate and research awards and activities; Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)—legislative mandate, expert panel meetings, administrative survey collections, victim self-report survey collections, coordination efforts, and PREA-related publications; Review Panel on Prison Rape—legislative mandate and information gathering; Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)—legislative mandate, grant accomplishments, and other assistance activities; and National Institute of Corrections (NIC)—legislative mandate, classroom training, Web chats, professional conferences, informational videos, technical assistance, other assistance activities, additional work, evaluation, and national clearinghouse. Appendixes include: NIC/WCL (Washington College of Law) Newsletter; PREA statewide probation and parole direction; and a summary of the health care subject matter experts meeting.
“In light of PREA [Prison Rape Elimination Act], as well as the development of a growing body of other laws aimed at eliminating sexual abuse of persons in custody, the NIC/WCL Project has prepared this publication addressing human resources concerns related to preventing staff sexual misconduct in custodial settings” (p. 1). Sections comprising this report are: introduction; prevention—hiring, on-the-job prevention policies, specific policies in the public employment context, and implementing preventative policies in a union environment; investigation; discipline and termination; and conclusion.
This publication provides an overview of “criminal laws explicitly prohibiting staff sexual interactions with adults and youth under correctional supervision...and examines trends in their enactment and amendment” (p. 1). Eight chapters are contained: an introduction to staff sexual misconduct—definitions; state criminal laws coverage of agencies and personnel; state criminal laws—prohibited contact; state criminal laws—defenses to staff sexual misconduct; state criminal laws—criminal penalties; optimal elements of law—criminalizing staff sexual misconduct with offenders; other sanctions and consequences; and conclusion.
The Internal Audit Division is responsible for examining and evaluating the adequacy of the agency's system of internal controls and the quality of agency performance in carrying out assigned responsibilities.
The scope of these audits involves reliability of information systems; compliance with stature, board policy, agency policy or operating policy/procedures; safeguarding of agency assets; economical and efficient use of agency resources; and accomplishment of established objectives and goals for agency operations or programs.
The Internal Audit Division also provides assistance to management through the review of draft agency policies, service on agency committees, advice to agency management, completion of special projects based on management requests, participation in System Development Life Cycle, and participation in agency re-engineering efforts.
This semiannual report summarizes the work of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008 During this reporting period, the OIG received 2,680 complaints involving the BOP. The most common allegations made against BOP employees included official misconduct and force, abuse, and rights violations. The vast majority of complaints dealt with non-criminal issues that the OIG referred to the BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs for review.
This testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, discussed the American Bar Association’s top five suggestions for PLRA reforms. First, the PLRA’s ban on awards of compensatory damages for “mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury” has obstructed judicial remediation of religious discrimination, coerced sex, and other constitutional violations typically unaccompanied by physical injury, undermining the regulatory regime that is supposed to prevent such abuses. Second, the PLRA’s provision barring federal lawsuits by inmate plaintiffs who have failed to comply with their prisons’ internal grievance procedures—no matter how onerous, futile, or dangerous such compliance might be for them—obstructs rather than incentivizes constitutional oversight of conditions of confinement. It strongly encourages prison and jail authorities to come up with ever higher procedural hurdles in order to foreclose subsequent litigation. Third, the application of the PLRA’s limitations to juveniles incarcerated in juvenile institutions has rendered those institutions largely immune from judicial oversight, because so many young people are not able to follow the complex requirements imposed by the statute, and compliance by their parents or guardians on their behalf has been deemed legally insufficient. Each of these three problems disrupts accountability and enforcement of constitutional compliance. And finally, a provision of the PLRA that many have read to ban enforceable injunctive settlements unless defendants confess liability for violations of federal law undermines both the availability and effectiveness of court oversight.
Covering the calendar year 2006, this fourth annual report to Congress summarizes the activities of the Office of Justice Programs and the National Institute of Corrections to curtail prison rape. In addition to an introduction and background, this report reviews activities and accomplishments for the: Office of Justice Programs (OJP); National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—legislative mandate, research awards and activities, and PREA research reports; Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)—legislative mandate, expert panel meetings, administrative survey collections, victim self-report survey collections, coordination efforts, and PREA-related publications; Review Panel on Prison Rape—legislative mandate and information gathering; Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)—legislative mandate, awarding of Protecting Inmates and Safeguarding Communities Program Grants, and other assistance (BJA Award Summaries); and National Institute of Corrections (NIC)—legislative mandate, classroom training, training development, professional conferences, videoconference, informational videos, technical assistance, other assistance activities, evaluation, and national clearinghouse. Appendixes include: BJA FY 2006 Protecting Inmates and Safeguarding Communities Project Summaries; NIC/WCL (Washing College of Law) Project on Addressing Prison Rape—Sample Action Plans; and PREA Training for Trainers—Training Plan Progress Summaries.
Research has shown that many of the youth incarcerated with the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) were physically abused by employees, and the rate of such occurrences has drastically increased in recent years. Turnover rates and inadequate training of employees at TYC are major contributors to the increasing abuse. Recruiting and retaining staff have been major challenges for TYC. The lack of a criminal investigation division within TYC is another contributor to the increasing rate of violence, both to youth and staff. Lowering the ratio of youth to staff, increasing the amount of training for employees, and providing independent investigations of alleged crimes could reduce the rate of abuse and violence occurring at TYC facilities.
As proposed, S.B. 103 requires the TYC to provide 300 hours of training to guards before they begin their duties at facilities, and to maintain a ratio at least one guard for every 12 youth committed to the facility. S.B. 103 requires TYC to establish an Office of the Inspector General for the purpose of investigating criminal acts among TYC youth, guards, and other TYC employees, and reporting the results of any investigation to the TYC Board. S.B. 103 prohibits TYC from assigning a child younger than 15 years old to the same dormitory as a youth at least 17 years of age. S.B. 103 requires the Texas Rangers to make monthly unannounced visit to facilities and to submit reports to the Texas Sunset Commission for inclusion in TYC’s Sunset review evaluation.
Description: Covering the calendar year 2005, this third annual report to Congress summarizes the activities of the Office of Justice Programs (i.e., the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance) and the National Institute of Corrections to curtail prison rape. In addition to an introduction and background, this report reviews activities and accomplishments for the: Office of Justice Programs (OJP); National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—legislative mandate, research awards, and requests for proposals (RFPs); Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)—legislative mandate, expert panel meetings, administrative survey collections, victim self-report survey collections, coordination efforts, and PREA-related publications; Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)—legislative mandate, awarding of Protecting Inmates and Safeguarding Communities Program Grants; and National Institute of Corrections (NIC)—legislative mandate, classroom training, regional workshops for executive leadership, professional conferences, videoconference, informational video, technical assistance, and national clearinghouse.
Covering the period from October to December 2004, this second report to Congress summarizes the activities of the Office of Justice Programs (i.e., the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance) and the National Institute of Corrections to curtail prison rape. In addition to an introduction and background, this report reviews activities and accomplishments for the: Office of Justice Programs (OJP); National Institute of Justice (NIJ)—legislative mandate, research on sexual violence in corrections and the protection of human subjects, research awards, and requests for proposals (RFPs); Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)—legislative mandate and administrative survey collections; Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)—legislative mandate and awarding of Protecting Inmates and Safeguarding Communities Program Grants; and National Institute of Corrections (NIC)—legislative mandate, training and education, regional workshops for executive leadership, informational video, NIC videoconference, continued distribution of “Video Tool Kit 1: Facing Prison Rape,” agency/staff focus groups, technical assistance, and national clearinghouse.
This semiannual report summarizes the work of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) from October 1, 2005, through March 31, 2006. In January 2006 legislation was enacted that increases the statutory penalty for sexual abuse of federal inmates by correctional staff and expands federal jurisdiction to sex abuse and contraband cases involving federal inmates housed in non-federal correctional facilities. The OIG has investigated many allegations of sexual abuse of federal inmates and introduction of contraband into contract facilities, and we believe the increased penalties can help deter this criminal conduct.
This article covers a law suit brought by a group of prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison in Northwest California. The prisoners described abhorrent conditions. As a result of this trial, a special master was appointed to monitor conditions at Pelican Bay, and develop a remedial plan to address numerous constitutional violations. It was noted that a goal of correctional institutions in the United States is to “degrade and demean the prisoner,” which is “unacceptable in a society founded on respect for the inalienable rights of the people.”
Although there have been previous attempts to improve conditions in the nation’s correctional facilities, results have been difficult to measure. Prison litigation has forced federal courts into intervention of prison living conditions, which has resulted in measurable improvements.
Case law concerning the relationships of correctional officers and inmates in prison or in the community is discussed. Sections of this memorandum include: background; brief answer—it is permissible to limit staff-inmate relationships; case law in the Ninth Circuit; Freedom of Association case law in other jurisdictions; exceptions to the majority view; and conclusion with seven tips for developing a policy prohibiting staff-offender relations.
This report examines the prevalence of the sexual abuse of inmates by correctional staff and also analyzes the laws that exist to deter this type of abuse. The Office of the Inspector General reviewed reports of such abuse in federal prison, examined the current statutes in place and deficiencies that exists in those statutes, compared state and local laws on staff abuse of inmates to federal laws, and gives recommendations for changes in the current law.
This report “fulfills the requirement in section 5(b) of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) for the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to submit an annual report to Congress and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, summarizing the activities of the Department of Justice regarding prison rape abatement for the preceding year” (p. 3). This report is divided into two parts: introduction; and activities and accomplishments by five U.S. Department of Justice agencies. Also included is “Rape and Coercive Sex in American Prisons: Interim Findings and Interpretation on Preliminary Research” by Mark S. Fleisher.
This document includes the transcript from a hearing by Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on the conditions on Tribal Detention Facilities. Statements were made by various Senators, tribal organizations, and staffers from the U.S. Department of the Interior. This document also has supporting documentation provided that was relevant to the hearing.
This analysis by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) evaluates the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) response to the recommendations contained in the OIG's report entitled "Supplemental Report on September 11 Detainees' Allegations of Abuse at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York." (MDC Report). The OIG supplemental report, issued on December 18, 2003, examined allegations that some correctional officers in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn, New York, physically and verbally abused aliens who were detained on immigration charges and held in connection with the investigation of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In our MDC Report, we described the evidence of that abuse, concluded that the evidence substantiated allegations of abuse, and recommended that the BOP discipline certain MDC correctional officers.
In our report, we also described systemic problems in how the MDC handled the September 11 detainees. We made a series of recommendations to the BOP to address those systemic problems, which we concluded would improve the BOP's ability to prepare for and respond to future emergencies involving detainees, as well as improve its routine handling of inmates.
This article describes how Supreme Court rulings and policies like the Prison Litigation Reform Act have impacted how correctional facilities are run, including administrative policies, inmate rights, and prison conditions.
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 a new national data collection on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault within correctional facilities. This report updates Implementing the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, dated February 5, 2004.
In an effort to get a summary estimate of the level of sexual victimization, a meta-analysis was conducted to provide a calculation of an average estimate over all of the studies, even though any single study may not meet conventional levels of statistical significance. Results of the meta-analysis indicate an average prison lifetime sexual assault prevalence of 1.91 percent. This means that 1.91 percent of inmates have experienced a sexual victimization over a lifetime of incarceration. This estimate is based primarily on studies which report completed victimizations, although it incorporates some studies which also include serious attempts of sexual assault and one study that includes sexual pressure.
The task framed by the Prison Elimination Act of 2003 presents problems of estimation, validity, and bias. The correctional setting amplifies the problems encountered when researchers measure sensitive and stigmatized behaviors in the community. Most of the literature has been concerned with adult prisons. While there are difficulties encountered in prisons, there will be additional problems in jails and juvenile facilities. Jails have high turnover rates. To get compliance from adolescents, in most jurisdictions you need the consent of their parents. While the task is a formidable one, it is worth the effort, even if prison rape is a relatively rare event. The data can be used to raise or allay concerns depending on the results of the jurisdiction. The survey results can be used to train staff and inmates. The data may lead to better classification of victims and assailants which will help to reduce the level of sexual assault. The American Correctional Association has already promulgated new standards that address prevention, detection, and records collection associated with sexual assault. Because there is no validity check on the outcomes, there will probably always be some controversy associated with the results of a facility-based estimate. The adjustments to the estimates required by the public law will probably amplify that controversy. Furthermore, there are critics of correctional administration and some researchers who argue that prison sex is part of a subculture of sexuality that is not commonly understood by most analysts doing work in this domain. They argue that to fully understand the level of sexual victimization, one must first understand the language and sub-cultural definitions used by the confined. The data may also lead to a more objective understanding of the actual level of prison sexual victimization that will either support or invalidate the assumptions inherent in the Rape Elimination Act that make it appear prison rape is endemic in American correctional institutions. However, since there is no independent assessment of the validity of the self-reported incidents, there may well be dissatisfaction with the results of a national probability assessment regardless of the outcome.
By almost any measure it is clear that, during the 30 years preceding the production of this report, litigation had a dramatic impact on the nation’s jails and prisons. New doctrine has become part of the established legal landscape. The Plantation Model, securely ensconced in southern prisons as late as the 1970s, is now socially unacceptable and has been largely dismantled. Sadistic treatment at the hands of inmate trustees is a thing of the past. Instruments of torture routinely employed in Southern prisons just a few years ago have been relegated to the museums. Inmates can now expect to receive nourishing meals and adequate medical care. Nowadays, basic services and amenities are routinely made available to all prisoners. And although these practices and expectations are at times honored in the breach, officials feel compelled to lie about or acknowledge problems and promise remedies when failures are exposed. It has now become socially unacceptable to acknowledge many practices that just a few short years ago were standard operating procedures or reconciled as regrettable by-products of a challenging task.
This is the text of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. An Act to provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources,· recommendations, and funding to protect individuals from prison rape.
In 1995, prison and jail inmates brought about 40,000 new lawsuits in federal court—nearly one-fifth of the federal civil docket. Court records evidence a success rate for inmate plaintiffs under 15%. These statistics highlight two qualities long associated with the inmate docket: its volume and the low rate of plaintiffs’ success. Then, in 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which dramatically altered the litigation landscape, restricting inmates’ access to federal court in a variety of ways. This article examines inmate litigation before and after the PLRA. Looking first at the litigation process itself, it brings together prior research, the results of new quantitative analysis of a comprehensive database of federal district court cases, and interviews and other qualitative inquiry. The article canvasses filing trends, subject matter, and settled and litigated outcomes, exploring what is happening in each of these areas and why. Then it uses a variety of analytic tools to uncover and assess the PLRA’s impact. Most obviously, the PLRA has shrunk the number of new federal filings by inmates by over 40%, notwithstanding a large increase in the affected incarcerated population. Simultaneously, the statute seems to be making even constitutionally meritorious cases harder both to bring and to win. Finally, the article looks beyond federal courthouses to the ways litigation affects jail and prison operations. Specifically, it explores agencies’ efforts to respond efficiently to the high-volume, low-probability docket and to reduce their liability exposure, and offers some tentative observations about the PLRA’s likely impact on these efforts. The article suggests in conclusion that use of the PLRA as a model for broader litigation reforms should proceed with enormous caution given the statute’s problematic effects.
Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act (Pub. L. No. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.) in 1974. This landmark legislation established OJJDP to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. On November 2, 2002, Congress reauthorized the JJDP Act. The reauthorization (the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758) supports OJJDP's established mission while introducing important changes that streamline the Office's operations and bring a sharper focus to its role. The provisions of the reauthorization took effect in FY 2004 (October 2003).
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that HIV and HIV-related discrimination are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
There were few other major legal developments affecting HIV/AIDS in correctiona facilities during the period covered by this update report, although courts generally continued to uphold correctional systems’ policy responses to HIV/AIDS.
Some State legislatures have attempted to expand the requirements for the HIV-antibody testing of inmates and disclosure of inmates’ HIV status, but these efforts have been generally unsuccessful.
During the 1990s, most U.S. correctional jurisdictions have recognized that staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct is a problem that should not be tolerated. As of April 1999, the federal government, 41 states (including California and Texas), and the District of Columbia had passed laws criminalizing certain types of staff sexual misconduct in prisons. Also, most U.S. correctional systems have participated in training to help them develop and implement applicable policies and procedures to address such misconduct. The four correctional systems we studied have or were in the process of developing specific policies that prohibit staff sexual misconduct.
Governs the transfer of Oregon Department of Corrections' youth to Oregon Youth Authority
Color coded map of the United States depicting states with criminal legislation concerning Sexual Abuse of Individuals in Custody