Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003

1. Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth 2008-09:Comments from the field, selected findings, and credibilityPresented by:Allen J. BeckBureau of Justice Statistics

2. Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 • Requires BJS to • “carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical report and analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape” • sample “not less than 10 percent of all federal, State, and county prisons, a representative sample of municipal prisons” • “use surveys and other statistical studies of current and former inmates” • “Not later than June 30 of each year, ...submit a report … with respect to prison rape, for the preceding calendar year” • “The report shall include … a listing of those institutions … ranked according to the incidence of prison rape in each institution... and a listing of any prisons … that did not cooperate with the survey”

3. Challenges for BJS as a statistical agency • Data collection for statistical purposes vs. oversight, monitoring, and policy change • Voluntary vs. mandatory data collection • Opportunity costs – deferred collection activities • Limitations of survey tools vs. auditing function (substantiated incidents, allegations, false positives, and false negatives) • Data dissemination at facility level under conditions of low prevalence

4. Comments from the field • Report took too long to complete • Report focused on large facilities, didn’t include all facilities or all youth • Our data collections show a much lower rate; something must be wrong with the survey • Report fails to make clear that these reports are based on allegations (kids lie; kids conspired to get back at the staff) • Report under-estimates the prevalence of victimization (victims reluctant to report) • Report overstates the severity of the allegations, not all of the incidents involve rape

5. Comments from the field • Reported prevalence rates were based on small numbers, which are unreliable • Report was too complex, too many qualifiers • Report didn’t offer any policy recommendations • Report based on bad methodology (e.g., failed to adjust for non-response; didn’t adjust for types youth held) • BJS/Westat failed to follow mandatory reporting of abuse and neglect • Report destroys everything we’ve tried to do on PREA; the report slanders our staff; we can’t defend ourselves • Would have liked more detailed break outs

6. 12% of adjudicated youth reported 1 or more incidents of sexual victimization (in the past 12 months or since admission, if less than 12 months)

7. Facility selection: • PREA requirement: Select at least one facility per state • Select facilities in which least 25% of youth population is adjudicated • Select all large facilities • All non-state facilities with 150+ youth • All state facilities with 90+ youth • Select a sample of state facilities with 10-89 youth

8. Sampling of youth: • Youth roster 8 weeks prior in PGC and 4 weeks in ILP • Selected all youth in small/mid-size facilities (fewer than 240 youth) • Sample if > 240 youth projected for interviews • All male youth selected with equal probability • All females selected • All youth selected in 85% of facilities; sampled in 15% of facilities • Survey representative of 26,500 adjudicated youth held at time of the survey

9. Sample outcomes: • 195 facilities participated in data collection (3 refusals) • Original sample: 25,939 youth (18,764 eligible; 7,175 left prior to arrival at facility) • Survey participants: 10,263 • 9,198 Sexual victimization survey • 1,065 Drug/alcohol survey • 54% response rate (80% ILP; 40%PGC)

10. Measuring victimization: • Ask youth about specific acts • If yes to any act: • Asked which were with youth/staff • Asked if the perpetrator used force, threat of force, or other coercion • Asked which acts were due to force • If no/DK/refuse to all acts • Asked if anyone used force, threat of force, or other coercion to do anything sexual • If yes: • Asked if youth/staff used coercion • Asked about specific acts

11. Sexual victimization involves varying levels of force/coercion and low levels of physical injury

12. Prevalence of victimization varies by demographic characteristics

13. Other risk factors and type of victimization

14. Incident characteristics and type of victimization

15. 13 facilities identified as high rate facilities

16. 11 facilities identified as low rate facilities

17. Should we believe these reports? • Survey designed to reduce measurement errors • Interviews checked for extreme and inconsistent response patterns (164 interviews deleted) • Reports are nevertheless allegations, not substantiated incidents • Unable to follow up with checks of reported incidents • Must rely on assessments of consistency and internal reliability • Supported by credibility of response patterns and co-variation with other measures

18. Other indicators of consistency • Co-variation patterns are consistent (e.g., SSM co-varies with assessment of staff, environment and fear of assault; SSM with no force/coercion increases with time in facility and by age ) • Response patterns related to types of sexual acts with staff credible (e.g., distribution of activities) • Youth unaware of questions in advance or skip patterns – difficult to be so consistent if they were answering questions untruthfully or at random • No pattern of collusion – reports of sexual victimization did not go up with time in the facilities • Some facilities in “high rate” category have known history of problems (e.g., Pendleton) • Consistency with substantiated incidents in BJS SSV reports