Indiana adult women PREA poster in English and Spanish.
Overview of sexual abuse and sexual assault prevention and intervention at Alvis House Community Corrections Center.
Utah PREA training promising practices.
Victim safety/trauma plan to be completed if there is reason to believe that sexual abuse/sexual assault has occurred.
With help from Urban Institute researchers, three county jails adopted strategies to prevent sexual assault and violence among inmates by increasing the effort required to commit violent acts and by making perpetrators more likely to get caught. Rather than changing the underlying motivation behind offending behavior, these strate- gies used a situational crime prevention approach to change the environment and how it is managed, closing off opportunities for crime (Clarke 1997). Fewer triggers and opportunities to commit violence should translate into fewer offenses—and the jail environment is, in most cases, easier to control than individual behavior.
This document defines and outlines the policies and procedure for inmate sexual misconduct and sexual assault for the Arlington County Sheriff’s Office.
This guide provides various staff checklists for inmates of the Arlington County Detention Facility. These relate to inmate injury or death/suicide, communicable diseases, mass arrests, and PREA investigations, among others.
The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funded a meeting that brought together content experts to discuss the issue of classification, particularly as it relates to the PREA draft standards. The workshop provided a valuable opportunity to assemble a small group of researchers and practitioners to identify the state of current research and practice, to discuss the challenges in the field, and to make recommendations to BJA and the U.S. Attorney General regarding strategies for improving classification as a means to contribute to sexual safety in jails and
This is essential reading for anyone tasked with eradicating the sexual assault of incarcerated individuals. Eleven promising practices are described: leaders who promote values; officials who seek better ways of managing the inmate population; open communication; recruitment and hiring of well-rounded individuals, mentoring, and succession planning; staff training; direct supervision; effective programs and services; an objective classification system; a comprehensive and independent investigation process; a system for data-driven decision making; and officials committed to correcting mistakes. Appendixes are also included that provide valuable information: literature review; inmate-on-inmate sexual assault investigation, a case description; a guide to effective medical response to prison sexual violence; effective victim services; and “Building Blocks for Institutional Safety” bulletins.
This document contains the code of ethics and conduct for employees of the Arlington County Sheriff’s Office. Policy, definitions and procedures are included.
Summary of topics addressed the State PREA Coordinators’ Conference on December 14 – 16, 2009. Some of the topics discussed were: Written Policies and Procedures, PREA Staff Training and Inmate Education, Concerns about the NPREC standards, Responding to PREA Standards,Technical Assistance and Training, Investigation and Reporting,and Inmate Medical and Mental Health Services.
“The intention of this guide is to provide a general overview of corrections-based sexual assault as it relates to line staff and supervisors in community corrections agencies” (p.vii). Six sections are contained in this publication: sexual violence and community corrections; sexuality, violence, and the correctional environment; offenders as victims—the impacts and implications of offender victimization; identifying and working with victims; responding to abuse—the role of community corrections staff; and protecting offenders and preventing abuse.
This study investigated the application of “empirically validated static and dynamic risk ma[r]kers for violence in the community to sexual predation and victimization in prisons” (p.2). Twelve chapters follow an abstract and executive summary: an introduction to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and the study; methodology; the sexual behavior of incarcerated men and women; early life markers for sexual predation and victimization; violence and criminality as risk markers; sex risk markers; affective and perceptual states as risk markers; personality risk markers; structured and actuarial instruments for assessing violence risk; social environment risk markers; CHAID (Chi Square Automated Interaction Detector) classification for sexual behavior in prison; and conclusions and references. Many of the risk markers for sexual behavior in prisons are the same risk markers that predict violent behavior outside of prison. Sexual acts are “consistently associated with higher levels of threatened, physical, and relational violence within both the male and female institutions” (p.30).
The effectiveness of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop the sexual abuse of federal prisoners by federal correctional and law enforcement employees is examined. Sections following an executive digest are: background; purpose, scope, and methodology of this review; results—data on Bureau of Prisons (BOP) staff sexual abuse, BOP efforts to prevent and intervene in staff sexual abuse incidents, USMS (U.S. Marshals Service) policies and practices relevant to staff sexual abuse, investigations of staff sexual abuse allegations, and prosecutions of staff sexual abuse cases; and conclusion and recommendations. Appendices include: number of allegations reported by BOP-managed institutions; federal sexual abuse crimes; U.S. Sentencing Guidelines; timeframes for reporting allegations to the OIG (Office of the Attorney General); the BOP’s response; OIG’s analysis of the BOP’s response; the USMS’s response; OIG’s analysis of the USMS’s response; the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorney’s response; and the OIG’s analysis of the U.S. Attorney’s response.
Results from an assessment of the Colorado Department of Corrections implementation of its PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) program are presented. This report includes these sections: executive summary; introduction; PREA incidents; PREA prevention—offender victim and predator profile, staff predator profile, diagnostic assessment of aggressive behavior and vulnerability, offender orientation and education, and staff training; PREA response; and discussion and recommendations. Of those cases investigated, 65% resulted in an unsubstantiated or unfounded outcome; 50% were offenses of inmates against staff.
These four key provisions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) are covered: comprehensive study and issuance of national standards; annual statistical review; assistance, research, and grants; and review panel.
This entry contains forms for documenting an injury from an attack are provided. The incident report compiles information regarding: responding law enforcement agency; abuse, neglect, exploitation, or death; serious incidents (to be reported within 24 hours); location of incident; and alleged victim/juvenile information. The internal investigation form records: alleged victim(s); alleged perpetrator(s); person reported to; date of allegation reporting; date of internal investigation initiation and completion; incident specifics; and person completing the investigation.
This report details the performance measures of the PREA training for VADOC staff. The performance measures for this goal included gathering the total number of staff who received the PREA staff training. An additional performance measure required gathering and analyzing pre-test and post-test results (gains in staff knowledge of sexual assault awareness, knowledge of prevention of inmate sexual assault, expertise in eliciting sexual assault reports, and effective handling of inmate sexual assault) of the staff’s competency scores. Roughly 9,000 staff completed the PREA training in CY 2007.
Findings are presented from hearings intended “to aid BJS [Bureau of Justice Statistics] in the identification of common characteristics of victims and perpetrators of rape [in jails],” and to also aid in identification of facility characteristics where rape incidence is high or low (p. 4). Four sections comprise this report: role of the Review Panel on Prison Rape; panel members and staff; panel’s 2008 jail hearings—selection of jails invited to testify, identified common characteristics of victims and perpetrators of sexual violence, and common characteristics of jail systems with high or low prevalence of sexual assault; and best practices to lessen the risk of rape in U.S. prisons—training of staff and inmates, classification, surveillance, reporting, investigation, prosecution, and relevant policies and practices.
The purpose of these Policy and Practice Guidelines is to establish operational practices that reinforce a facility's commitment to respect the dignity of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, create a safe environment for all members of the correctional community, and ensure that all youth have equal access to all available services, placement, care, treatment, and benefits provided by the facility.
This document includes policy and procedure in keeping with the statement that “the New York State Office of Children and Family Services is committed to providing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth in residential and after-care programs it operates with a safe and discrimination-free environment.”
Hearing transcripts regarding medical and mental health care, community corrections, and oversight related to the prevention of and response to inmate sexual assault. Points of entry are: full transcript; opening remarks; personal accounts; response and treatment—caring for sexual assault victims in correctional and detention facilities; confidentiality and reporting—medical ethics, victim safety, and facility security; sexual violence and community corrections—the special considerations of community-based settings; and best practices and emerging trends—the community corrections field’s response to the Prison Rape Elimination Act. This article contains testimony specifically about the State of North Carolina.
Description: This document describes the DC Metropolitan Police policy “to interact with the transgender community in a manner that is professional, respectful, and courteous. And to handle transgender arrestees in a manner that ensures they are processed and housed safely and efficiently to the greatest extent possible”. Definitions, regulations and procedural guidelines are included.
This document contains the King County Sheriff’s Office policy to “promptly and thoroughly investigate alleged misconduct involving employees”. Definitions and procedures are included.
Strategies for preventing inmate sexual assaults in the San Francisco County Jail are related. This publication contains these sections: the San Francisco County Jail—a model for protecting inmates; consistency in leadership and vision; employee hiring and training; staff diversity; objective jail classification system; investigation process; San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Sexual Assault Policy; collaboration with the legal system; direct supervision; inmate programming; recommendations; Logic Model: San Francisco Sheriff’s Jail; and summary.
This document states the policy on inmate possession of pornography in the state of Wyoming.
This document states the policy on inmate possession of pornography in Pinal County Arizona facilities.
This document states the policy on inmate possession of pornography in West Virginia Regional Jail Authority facilities
Description:”This article outlines the different constitutional standards that courts apply when analyzing agency restrictions on relationships between ex-offenders and community corrections staff. The article also details the various factors that courts, in particular cases, consider in determining whether correctional policies which prohibit staff/ex-offenders relationships are constitutional. Finally, the article concludes with recommendations about how agencies might develop policies in this area that both protect community corrections agencies and are constitutional” (pg 44).
The Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards is based on the American Correctional Association Standards, and is designed for use in reviewing non-federal facilities that house federal detainees to ensure these facilities are safe, humane, and protect detainee’s statutory and constitutional rights. The Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards is an aid for Subject Matter Experts designed to support the Government Contract Quality Assurance Program. The Federal Performance-Based Detention Standards Review Book provides Subject Matter Experts with direction on making assessments based on detention standards developed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS/ICE).
This document includes policies on inmate possession of pornography in the state of Oregon
This document outlines the disciplinary segregation procedure for the Oregon Department of Corrections. Definitions and Procedures are included.
This document contains the King County Sheriff’s office policy on sexual misconduct which states that “It is the policy of DAJD that all Staff, visitors, contractors, volunteers and inmates conduct themselves in a safe, secure and professional manner at all times”. Definitions and guidelines are included.
This report includes recommendations for training objectives and topics that will enable an examiner to implement the recommendations. This publication is a companion for a National Protocol for Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Examinations, which was released in September 2004
The Correctional Institution Inspection Committee (CIIC) staff met with Department of Youth Services (DYS) Central Office staff on March 17, 2005, prior to the April 2005 effective date of the new CIIC responsibilities regarding juvenile correctional institutions.
Monthly data on specific areas were requested that would enable CIIC to monitor and evaluate operations, conditions, programs, and the grievance procedure. However, due to the reported lack of system-wide standardization in data gathering and reporting, CIIC staff received data limited to youth population, mental health caseload, and grievance summaries. Additional data were provided on a one-time basis in response to a request for Incident Summary Data that each facility provides to the American Correctional Association at the time of an audit. The data pertained to differing time periods from institution to institution. Further, urine drug test data was provided on one occasion.
CIIC staff were subsequently advised that on August 8, 2005, a DYS committee was formed to look at the data process relevant to establishing a uniform system-wide database on the number of incidents in DYS facilities. In the communication from the DYS director on the subject, it was reported that there were too many points of entry, too much room for interpretation, and no standards for quality assurance.
On May 16, 2006, in follow-up to the prior CIIC meeting on May 10, 2006, further inquiry was made on the status of the prior request for additional DYS data. Data were requested on use of force including information on injuries, youth on youth assaults, youth on staff assaults, seclusion rooms, and program participation. The information was requested for 2006 to date on these subjects, with monthly reports thereafter.
In response to the request, CIIC staff were advised that until a new computerized data management system could be put into place, the Superintendents were manually reporting data on a monthly basis on assaults, injuries, and seclusion. However, the data were reported to be reliable. Such data for January through March 2006 was subsequently provided on May 24, 2006, with assurance that it would be submitted on a monthly basis in the future. It was further relayed that DYS staff were in the process of putting the data in a useable, readable format.
This document describes the Department's policy that “any offenders in partial or total confinement alleging sexual abuse or assault will be referred to a medical provider. The purpose of the referral is to evaluate injury, collect forensic evidence, and to provide treatment. The offender will be provided medical and mental health treatment services that are clinically indicated based upon the evaluation”. Directives are included.
Before the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) of 2003, it was not clear the extent to which state departments of corrections (DOCs) were addressing sexual violence in systematic ways. In fact, little information existed about what strategies were being put into practice in prison systems across the country. PREA has changed the way DOCs are addressing prison sexual violence (PSV). Mandatory recordkeeping and a push for eliminating such incidents have moved many DOCs to develop specific responses to PSV or to further refine approaches already in place. The purpose of the current project was to provide a national snapshot of DOC initiatives to address PSV, as well as to identify specific practices that seemed to be, in the absence of formal evaluations, particularly promising or innovative in nature.
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 brochure explains definitions and procedures around reporting sexual misconduct perpetrated against inmates for the Arlington County Detention Facility. Resources and appropriate facility contacts are included.
The purpose of this document is “to define the purpose, scope, authority, responsibility, selection, and training of Internal Affairs personnel”. Definitions and procedures are included.
This document contains the Dane County Sheriff’s Office policy which informs “all staff of procedures for accepting, processing, and investigating complaints concerning allegations of misconduct”. It also “defines provisions applicable to investigation and disposition of allegations of misconduct”.
This document describes the Department of Corrections policy meant to “establish standardized procedures to request approve and govern the actions, reporting procedures and authority of Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) Internal Affairs (IA) functions”. Definitions and procedures are included.
This document contains the Colorado Department of Correction’s staff code of conduct which states that “It is the policy of the Department of Corrections (DOC) that staff are to have honesty, integrity, and respect for the worth and individuality of human beings as well as a strong commitment to professional and ethical correctional service. Staff must constantly strive to live up to the highest possible standards of their profession and to incorporate and adhere to the January 15, 1999 Executive Order, ‘Executive Department Code of Ethics,’ as its ethical performance standard”. Definitions, procedure and relating previous documents are included.
Materials used during this training program addressing staff sexual misconduct with youth are available at this website. Participants of this course will be able to: define and understand the scope and impact of PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) in juvenile settings; understand the links between law and policy in eradicating the sexual abuse of juveniles under correctional supervision; understand the significance and impact of organizational and institutional culture on eliminating sexual violence in juvenile facilities; identify critical management and operational issues that affect staff sexual misconduct with youth in custody; identify an operational training plan and elements of training; recognize the legal implications of staff sexual misconduct with youth in custody; and develop a systematic approach to addressing sexual assault in juvenile settings.
This guide is part of "Future Force: A Guide to Building the 21st Century Community Corrections Workplace". This is an internal culture assessment tool used to score your agency's leadership, professionalism, quality of work life, daily operations, personnel development, and communications.
This article focuses on the “use of jail exit surveys as an effective data-collection tool for creating [a] picture of the characteristics of women in contact with the local jail.” (pg. 1) Sections of this bulletin are: introduction; how one jurisdiction used data to inform responses to women offenders; reasons for conducting a jail exit survey; what a jail exit survey entails; tips for getting started; designing a jail exit survey; understanding jail exit survey information; comprehensive listing of major data elements to include in a jail exit survey; and lessons learned. A sample questionnaire is also included.
Description: The purposes of this law are: to protect crime victims’ rights; to eliminate the substantial backlog of DNA samples collected from crime scenes and convicted offenders; to improve and expand the DNA testing capacity of federal, state, and local crime laboratories; to increase research and development of new DNA testing technologies; to develop new training programs regarding the collection and use of DNA evidence; to provide post-conviction testing of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent; to improve the performance of counsel in state capital cases; and for other purposes.
Ombuds receive complaints and questions concerning people within an entity or the functioning of an entity. They work for the resolution of particular issues and, where appropriate, make recommendations for the improvement of the general administration of the entities they serve. Ombuds protect: the legitimate interests and rights of individuals with respect to each other; individual rights against the excesses of public and private bureaucracies; and those who are affected by and those who work within these organizations.
Government, academia, and the private sector are answering demands for fairness and
responsiveness by establishing ombuds. Ombuds receive complaints and questions concerning the administration of the establishing entity. However, the basic authorities of these persons called ombuds and the independence, impartiality, and confidentiality with which they operate vary markedly. An ombuds works for the resolution of a particular issue and, where necessary, makes recommendations for the improvement of the general administration of the entity. To be credible and effective, the office of the ombuds must be independent in structure, form, and appearance. The ombuds’ structural independence is the foundation upon which the ombuds’ impartiality is built. The ombuds must conduct investigations and inquiries in an impartial manner, free from initial bias and conflicts of interest. Confidentiality is a widely accepted characteristic of ombuds, which helps ombuds perform the functions of the office. Without these Standards, individuals may be reluctant to seek the ombuds’ assistance because of fear of personal, professional, or economic retaliation; loss of privacy; and loss of relationships. This Resolution and the Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices are appropriate now to ensure that ombuds can protect individual rights against the excesses of public and private bureaucracies. Practical and political considerations may require variations from these Standards, but it is urged that such variations be eliminated over time.
This article addresses definitions of staff sexual misconduct with offenders, myths and realities of sexual misconduct in corrections, national developments that have affected staff sexual misconduct with offenders, state laws prohibiting staff sexual misconduct with offenders, critical issues for community corrections, actions agency administrators can take address and prevent staff misconduct and investigations.
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).
Description: Tools to assess an organization and implement strategies to prevent staff sexual misconduct in a jail setting are provided. The following sections comprise this document: introduction; using this guide; how to know if an agency needs a policy -- what staff sexual misconduct is, definitions, red flags, and writing policies and procedures; and agency triage -- administrative and management practices, security and supervision, investigations, and inmate programming.
Anti-fraternization policies of the Idaho Department of Corrections. This document states that “it is the policy of the Board of Correction that employees, volunteers, contractors and agents shall maintain only a professional relationship with offenders and ex-offenders, family members of offenders and ex-offenders, inmate visitors, and anyone residing in the last known or same household as the offender or ex-offender”. Includes definitions as well as explanations of procedure, applicability, prohibited activities, notifications of relationship to an offender, investigation and consequences for violations.
This document contains the code of ethics and conduct for employees of the Arlington County Sheriff’s Office. Policy, definitions and procedures are included.
Changes since 1996 in state laws and agency policies and procedures regarding sexual misconduct are reported. Sexual misconduct is defined as “sexual behavior, contact, or relationships between correctional staff and inmates/offenders” (p. 1). Sections cover: an introduction; legislative actions; litigation; agency strategies for addressing staff sexual misconduct such as policies, training, investigation processes, and apprising inmates of sexual misconduct issues; incidence and outcomes of sexual misconduct; respondents’ views on the problem; and concluding remarks. Overall, there has been considerable activity to address this problem.
Women now represent a significant proportion of all offenders under criminal justice supervision. Numbering more than 1 million, female offenders make up 17 percent of all offenders, or one in every six offenders, under some form of correctional sanction. The vast majorities (85 percent) are under community supervision and are typically on probation. The total number of women under correctional control increased 81 percent from 1990 to 2000, while the number of men increased 45 percent.
The increase in the number of women under correctional supervision has called attention to the status of women in the criminal justice system and to the particular circumstances they encounter. The first step in understanding women offenders in the criminal justice system is to understand gender-based characteristics. In addition to offense and demographic characteristics, the specific life factors that shape women’s patterns of offending should be looked at when dealing with women offenders.
Fifty-three departments of corrections responded to a survey regarding sexual misconduct by correctional staff, defined as sexual interactions between staff and inmates. Responses are summarized and tabulated in areas including: legislation; litigation; DOC policies; agency response to sexual misconduct; staff training; and prevention.
Governs the transfer of Oregon Department of Corrections' youth to Oregon Youth Authority