Women in Prison: Sexual Misconduct by Correctional Staff (Letter Report,
06/22/1999, GAO/GGD-99-104).
Most U.S. correctional jurisdictions recognize that sexual misconduct by
staff against inmates is a problem that cannot be tolerated.
Staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct covers a wide range of behaviors, from
lewd remarks to voyeurism to assault and rape. As of April 1999, the
federal government, 41 states, and the District of Columbia had passed
laws criminalizing some types of staff sexual misconduct in prisons.
Also, most U.S. correctional systems have participated in training to
help them develop policies and procedures to deal with such misconduct.
The four correctional systems that GAO studied--the federal Bureau of
Prisons, the California Department of Corrections, the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, and the District of Columbia's correctional
system--have or were in the process of developing policies to ban staff
sexual misconduct. However, GAO's work in the four jurisdictions found
that sexual misconduct persists. Between 1995 and 1998, female inmates
in the three largest jurisdictions GAO studied made 506 allegations of
staff sexual misconduct; 92 of them were sustained, generally resulting
in staff firings or resignations. But the full extent of sexual
misconduct is unknown because two of the three jurisdictions did not
provide data on all types of allegations. Of the four jurisdictions,
only the Bureau of Prisons reported any criminal convictions under
sexual misconduct laws from 1995 to 1998. All four jurisdictions were
involved in at least two civil lawsuits arising from staff sexual
misconduct during this period. Officials in the four jurisdictions cited
a lack of evidence as the primary reason why more allegations were not
sustained. Generally, none of the four jurisdictions GAO studied had
readily available, comprehensive data or reports on the number, the
nature, and the outcome of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct
allegations. The absence of such systematic information makes it
difficult for lawmakers, corrections management, and others to
effectively address the problem.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-99-104
TITLE: Women in Prison: Sexual Misconduct by Correctional Staff
DATE: 06/22/1999
SUBJECT: Correctional personnel
Correctional facilities
Statistical data
Women
Prisoners
Sexual harassment
Sanctions
Ethical conduct
IDENTIFIER: California
District of Columbia
Texas
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton House of Representatives
June 1999 WOMEN IN PRISON Sexual Misconduct by
Correctional Staff GAO/GGD-99-104 United States General Accounting
Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 General
Government Division B-282772 June 22, 1999 The Honorable Eleanor
Holmes Norton House of Representatives Dear Ms. Norton: As you
requested, this report addresses two questions about staff-on-
inmate sexual misconduct1 in women's prisons: * What are the
applicable laws, policies, and procedures for addressing such
misconduct? * What are the number, nature, and outcome of
allegations that have been made in recent years? As agreed with
your office, the report focuses on four jurisdictions. These are
the nation's three largest correctional systems for women
offenders- the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the California
Department of Corrections, and the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice-and the correctional system in the jurisdiction you
represent, the District of Columbia. At calendar year-end 1998,
the 3 largest systems collectively held over one-third of the
nation's approximately 80,000 female prisoners. Comparatively,
female offenders held by the District of Columbia Department of
Corrections totaled about 320 at year-end 1998. We performed our
work from December 1998 to May 1999 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I presents
detailed information about our scope and methodology. During the
1990s, most U.S. correctional jurisdictions have recognized that
Results in Brief 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 1 Staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct can cover
a wide range of inappropriate verbal, visual, and physical
behaviors, such as using lewd language or making sexual remarks,
observing an inmate's personal activities (e.g., showering)
without a sound penological reason, and engaging in sexual contact
or acts with or without an inmate's consent (e.g., touching,
kissing, abuse or assault, intercourse, rape, etc.). Depending on
its nature and applicable law, staff sexual misconduct may involve
either noncriminal or criminal acts. Page 1
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
process of developing specific policies that prohibit staff sexual
misconduct. While laws and policies could help minimize staff
sexual misconduct, our work in four jurisdictions indicates that
such misconduct still occurs. According to data provided by the 3
largest jurisdictions, during calendar years 1995 to 1998, female
inmates in these jurisdictions collectively made a total of 506
allegations of staff sexual misconduct, of which 92 (or 18
percent) were sustained. Most of the sustained allegations
resulted in staff resignations or employment terminations.
Further, the full extent of staff sexual misconduct is unknown
since two of the three jurisdictions (BOP and Texas) did not
provide data on all types of allegations. The District of Columbia
provided data for December 1995 to June 1998, during which 12 (or
11 percent) of 111 female-inmate allegations were sustained and
resulted in staff resignations or disciplinary actions ranging
from suspensions to employment terminations. Of the four
jurisdictions studied, only BOP reported having any criminal
prosecutions with convictions under sexual misconduct laws during
1995 to 1998. All four jurisdictions were involved in at least two
civil lawsuits related to staff sexual misconduct during this
period. Officials in the four jurisdictions cited lack of evidence
as the primary reason why more allegations were not sustained. The
officials told us that most allegations involved verbal
harassment, improper visual surveillance, improper touching,
and/or consensual sex. The officials noted that allegations
involving rape and other types of forced sexual assault were
relatively rare. Generally, however, none of the four
jurisdictions we studied had readily available, comprehensive data
or reports on the number, nature, and outcomes of staff-on-inmate
sexual misconduct allegations. The absence of such systemic data
or reports makes it difficult for lawmakers, corrections
management, and others to effectively address staff sexual
misconduct issues in federal prisons. We are making a
recommendation to the Director, BOP, to develop systems and
procedures for monitoring, analyzing, and reporting allegations of
staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct in federal prisons. Generally,
"sexual misconduct by correctional staff" refers to any type of
Staff Sexual improper conduct of a sexual nature
directed at prisoners. Given the near Misconduct Issues
total control and power imbalance inherent in a prison
environment, there is widespread consensus among correctional
officials, advocacy groups, Have Received and others
that sexual misconduct by correctional staff should not be
Attention in the 1990s tolerated. Page 2
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
During the 1990s, sexual misconduct by correctional staff against
female inmates became a matter of increased concern for many
correctional agencies. In addition to the large increase in the
female inmate population, this concern, according to a 1996 report
by BOP's National Institute of Corrections (NIC), was largely
driven by two sources of external pressure.2 Specifically, the
1996 report noted that, within the past 5 years: * At least 23
departments of corrections had faced class action or individual
damage suits related to sexual misconduct. * Most state
legislatures had passed laws either making certain types of sexual
misconduct a criminal offense or increasing the penalties for the
offense. Also, during the 1990s, the Justice Department has filed
civil lawsuits alleging systemic sexual misconduct by male
correctional staff in women's prisons in two states (Arizona and
Michigan). Both suits were filed in March 1997 under the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980,3 which is
designed to protect the rights of people housed in state and local
governmental institutions, including state prisons. In March 1999,
the Justice Department and Arizona entered into a settlement
agreement, which among other things, requires Arizona to revise
employee and inmate training, strengthen investigative techniques,
and requires male officers to announce their presence-absent
reasonable suspicion of inappropriate behavior-when entering areas
in which female inmates may be undressed. In May 1999, the Justice
Department and Michigan entered into a settlement agreement.
According to Justice officials, in addition to provisions similar
to the Arizona requirements, the settlement agreement requires
Michigan to institute a 6-month moratorium on cross-gender pat-
down searches (not an issue in Arizona). In 1996, the Association
of State Correctional Administrators identified staff sexual
misconduct as one of its major management concerns. Further, in
recent years, additional attention to staff sexual misconduct has
resulted from media focus and reports issued by various 2 Sexual
Misconduct in Prisons: Law, Agency Responses, and Prevention,
November 1996. The report was based on the results of a survey
conducted by NIC during the summer of 1996. In its survey, NIC
mailed a data collection instrument to federal and state agencies
responsible for administering adult prisons. NIC received
responses from 53 departments of corrections-BOP, 47 states, the
District of Columbia, Canada, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands,
and Puerto Rico. NIC plans to update this survey in the summer of
1999. 3 P.L. 96-247 (1980). Page 3
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
organizations-such as Human Rights Watch4 and Amnesty
International5 -and an independent fact-finder for the United
Nations.6 Since 1995, a primary agenda item of NIC has been to
assist correctional departments in addressing the issue of sexual
misconduct among staff and inmates. For example, since October
1995, NIC has trained groups of correctional leaders-including
members of the Association of State Correctional Administrators,
as well as deputy directors and wardens of correctional
facilities-to assist them in developing deliberate management
responses as they shape policy in their agencies. Also, as of
March 1999, NIC had provided on-site technical assistance to 3 BOP
facilities, 17 states, and the District of Columbia. According to
NIC, during these on-site visits, NIC representatives provided
assistance, such as * conducting small focus groups with
correctional staff and inmates to assess training needs and
general practices within the institution, * reviewing operational
and management practices that may be contributing to staff
isolation and vulnerability to sexual involvement, and *
providing relevant training to correctional staff. Further, NIC
has developed a 36-hour (initially a 24-hour) seminar on
management strategies to address staff sexual misconduct.
According to NIC, this seminar is to be attended by three-person
teams who can shape and implement departmental policy and
procedures. Topics covered include policy development, training
strategies, investigative procedures, and institutional culture.
According to NIC, as of April 1999, officials from BOP and
correctional departments in 37 states have attended the training.
4 Human Rights Watch, Women Rights Project, All Too Familiar:
Sexual Abuse of Women in State Prisons (Human Rights Watch: New
York, NY), December 1996. The report reflects work conducted
during March 1994 to November 1996 at a total of 11 nonfederal
prisons housing female inmates in 5 states-California, Georgia,
Illinois, Michigan, and New York-and the District of Columbia.
5Amnesty International, Rights for All (March 1999). 6Ms. Radhika
Coomaraswamy, Report on the Mission to the United States of
America on the Issue of Violence Against Women in State and
Federal Prisons, in accordance with Commission Rights resolution
1997/44, January 4, 1999. The fact-finder's report is based on
visits to federal and state prisons in six states-California,
Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. Page 4
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
According to NIC, as recently as 1990, perhaps as few as 11 U.S.
Most Jurisdictions correctional jurisdictions-the
federal government and about 10 states- Have Laws That
had laws specifically prohibiting certain types of staff-on-inmate
sexual misconduct. As of April 1999, however, according to an
update to a 1998 Criminalize Certain National
Women's Law Center report:7 Types of Staff Sexual Misconduct in
Prisons * In addition to the federal government, 41 states and
the District of Columbia had laws specifically criminalizing
certain types of sexual misconduct in prisons.8 * The federal
government and 5 of the 41 states define certain types of sexual
misconduct in prisons as either a felony or a misdemeanor,
depending on the nature and severity of the conduct. * Of the
other 36 states with applicable laws, 28 states (and the District
of Columbia) define such conduct as a felony, and 8 states treat
such conduct as a misdemeanor. According to the National Women's
Law Center's 1998 report, because the provisions of criminal
statutes are jurisdiction specific, both the definition of sexual
misconduct and the penalty imposed for violations vary from state
to state. Further, the report noted that even if the state has no
criminal law specifically prohibiting sexual misconduct by
correctional staff, a prosecutor may apply the general sexual
abuse or assault laws of the state. The Center's report also noted
that inmates may file civil actions for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence, and assault and/or battery. NIC,
in its 1996 report mentioned above, noted that some states' laws
criminalizing sexual misconduct apply to correctional staff in
particular, whereas other states' laws apply to public employees
generally. All four jurisdictions we studied-the federal
government, California, Texas, and the District of Columbia-have
laws criminalizing certain types 7 The April 1999 update was
compiled by Brenda V. Smith (Associate Professor, Washington
College of Law, American University) and Giovanna Shay (Soros
Justice Fellow, American Civil Liberties Union National Prison
Project) and had not been published at the time of our review.
Professor Smith authored the 1998 report while employed as the
Director of the Women in Prison Project at the National Women's
Law Center, An End To Silence: Women Prisoners' Handbook on
Identifying and Addressing Sexual Misconduct (Washington, D.C.),
April 1998. 8 According to Professor Smith and Giovanna Shay, as
of April 1999, the nine states without laws specifically
criminalizing certain types of staff sexual misconduct were
Alabama, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont. The researchers noted that,
although Nebraska and Vermont did not have laws, they had
legislation pending. Page 5
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct. The federal law was passed
in 1986,9 while the other three laws-California,10 Texas,11 and
the District of Columbia12-were passed during the mid-1990s. Two
of the four jurisdictions (the federal government and California)
define certain types of staff sexual misconduct as either a felony
or a misdemeanor depending on the frequency, nature, and/or
severity of the conduct. The other two jurisdictions (Texas and
the District of Columbia) define such conduct as a felony. None of
the staff sexual misconduct laws in the four jurisdictions list
consent as a defense. Whatever the scope of applicable laws, NIC
suggests that departments of Sexual Misconduct
corrections have policies that clearly define, prohibit, and
specify penalties Policies, Staff Training, for the full range of
sexual misconduct involving staff and inmates. and Inmate
Awareness The four correctional jurisdictions we studied have or
were in the process Are Important of
developing staff sexual misconduct policies. More specifically, as
of June 1999, BOP and the District of Columbia Department of
Corrections had approved policies, the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice had a draft policy (expected to be finalized and
implemented in September 1999), and the California Department of
Corrections was in the process of developing its policy. NIC also
suggests that, in addition to having a clear policy, the elements
of a comprehensive approach to preventing staff sexual misconduct
include the following: * a staff-training program that presents
clear information on applicable laws, agency policies, and
penalties; * a means for providing inmates with basic information
about applicable laws, agency policies, and penalties, including
the penalties for making false allegations regarding sexual
misconduct; and * specific procedures for handling and
investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct. 9 The Sexual
Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-646) (codified at 18 U.S.C. sections
2241-2244, and other scattered sections). 10California Penal Code
section 289.6, "Employee or officer of detention facility;
Engaging in sexual activity with consenting adult confined in
detention facility." 11Texas Penal Code, section 39.04,
"Violations of the Civil Rights of Person in Custody; Improper
Sexual Activity with Person in Custody." 12The Anti-Sexual Abuse
Act of 1994 (D.C. Law 10-257) (D.C. Code section 22-4101 et seq.).
Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-
104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772 Three of
the four jurisdictions we studied (BOP, Texas, and the District of
Columbia) provide prison staff and female inmates with formal
training or briefings that were specifically developed to address
staff sexual misconduct. California Department of Corrections
officials told us that although prison staff are not provided with
training specifically developed to address staff sexual
misconduct, this topic is covered during staff orientation and
other training. California officials also told us that although
female inmates are not provided training on staff sexual
misconduct, they are given an orientation handbook that outlines
the process for reporting any type of employee misconduct.
Further, all four jurisdictions have procedures for handling and
investigating allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct,
including when such allegations should be handled administratively
or referred for criminal prosecution. Generally, an internal
affairs component is responsible for conducting investigations and
making referrals. Additional information on sexual misconduct
laws, policies, and procedures in the four correctional
jurisdictions we studied is presented in appendix II. Available
data provided to us by the four jurisdictions we studied indicate
Staff Sexual that staff sexual misconduct in women's
prisons is not a hypothetical Misconduct Occurs, issue, i.e.,
such misconduct does occur. The data show that during calendar
years 1995 to 1998: Although the Full Extent Is Unknown * At
least 92 allegations of staff sexual misconduct were sustained in
the three largest U.S. correctional systems. That is, the
allegations resulted in staff resignations,13 employment
terminations, or other administrative sanctions. * Only BOP
reported having any criminal prosecutions with convictions under
staff sexual misconduct laws. * Each of the four jurisdictions
was involved in at least two civil lawsuits related to staff
sexual misconduct. While the data indicate that staff sexual
misconduct occurs, the full extent of the problem is unknown. Many
correctional experts believe that staff- on-inmate sexual
misconduct is likely underreported nationally due to the fear of
retaliation and vulnerability felt by female inmates. Also, as
13Sustained allegations include applicable staff resignations that
resulted during or after investigations. According to correctional
officials, these were cases wherein the investigations concluded
that a preponderance of the evidence supported the allegations
that violations had occurred. Page 7
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
discussed more fully later in this report, the jurisdictions we
studied did not have readily available, comprehensive data on the
number, nature, and outcome of sexual misconduct allegations. For
example, BOP and Texas provided data only on the more serious
types of allegations, such as improper sexual contact and assault.
These jurisdictions either did not have or could not readily
compile data on allegations involving other types of sexual
misconduct, such as verbal harassment and inappropriate visual
surveillance. According to data provided to us by BOP, California,
and Texas officials, At Least 92 Allegations of
female inmates in these three jurisdictions collectively made a
total of at Staff Sexual Misconduct least 506
allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct during calendar
Were Sustained in the Three years 1995 to 1998. As table 1 shows,
92 (or 18 percent) of the 506 Largest U.S. Correctional
allegations were sustained; that is, the allegations resulted in
staff resignations, employment terminations, or other
administrative sanctions. Systems During 1995 to 1998 Table 1:
Staff-on-Inmate Sexual
Calendar years 1995 to 1998 Misconduct Allegations Reported and
Staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct BOPa
California Texasb Total Sustained at BOP, California,
and Texas Number of allegations reported
236 117 153 506 Female Prisons,
Calendar Years 1995 to Number of allegations sustained (staff
22c 22 48 92 1998
resignations, employment terminations, or other administrative
sanctions) Total allegations sustained as a
9% 19% 31% 18% percentage of
allegations reported Note: For each jurisdiction, some allegations
reported during calendar years 1995 to 1998 may not have been
fully resolved (e.g., investigated and found unsubstantiated or
sustained) during those same years. Similarly, some of the
allegations sustained during these years may have been filed
before 1995. aBOP data represent only those allegations
potentially involving sexual abuse as defined under federal law.
Data on allegations involving other types of sexual misconduct-
such as verbal harassment and inappropriate visual surveillance-
were not readily available. Also, according to BOP officials, the
data may include a small but indeterminable number of allegations
that involve female staff and male inmates, female staff and
female inmates, or male staff and male inmates. bTexas data
represent only those allegations referred to the Office of
Internal Affairs. According to Texas officials, these allegations
involved the more serious types of misconduct, such as sexual
contact and assault. Data on allegations involving other types of
sexual misconduct-such as verbal harassment and inappropriate
visual surveillance-were not readily available. cAlso, 14 of the
22 sustained allegations resulted in criminal prosecutions with
convictions. Source: GAO summary of BOP, California Department of
Corrections, and Texas Department of Criminal Justice data.
District of Columbia officials could not readily provide us with
data on allegations for the entire 4-year period, 1995 to 1998.
Rather, according to an official from the District's Office of the
Corporation Counsel, for the period December 1995 to June 1998,
female inmates in the District made 111 allegations of staff
sexual misconduct, of which 12 (or 11 percent) Page 8
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
were sustained.14 The official could not readily provide
information on the nature or outcome of the allegations but noted
that sustained allegations resulted in either staff resignations
or disciplinary actions ranging from suspensions to employment
terminations. Officials in the four jurisdictions we studied cited
lack of evidence as the primary reason why the number of sustained
allegations was relatively small compared to the total number of
reported allegations. The officials explained that medical or
other physical evidence frequently was not available and, thus,
investigators were often faced with instances of "she said versus
he said." The officials told us that another reason why more
allegations were not sustained was that many allegations were
false assertions made by inmates in an attempt to manipulate the
system and victimize staff. Federal Bureau of Prisons The 22
allegations BOP sustained during 1995 to 1998 resulted in 18 staff
resignations, 3 employment terminations, and 1 staff reassignment.
As noted in table 1, each of the 22 allegations involved sexual
abuse-which, by definition, is potentially criminal conduct. In
fact, 14 of the 22 allegations sustained also resulted in criminal
prosecutions with convictions. The 14 prosecution cases consisted
of (1) the 3 employment termination cases and (2) 11 of the 18
staff resignation cases.15 Regarding the other seven staff
resignation cases, BOP officials told us that six of the seven
employees resigned without any adverse personnel action being
recorded in personnel files.16 Information provided to us by BOP
indicates that two of the seven allegations had elements of forced
sexual contact, whereas the other five cases perhaps involved
consensual sex-which, nonetheless, can be a criminal offense under
federal law. A BOP official noted that BOP does maintain a
database of staff who resign while under investigation and that
BOP checks the database for rehiring purposes. California
Department of The 22 allegations California sustained during
1995 to 1998 resulted in 12 Corrections staff
resignations, 4 employment terminations, and 6 other types of
administrative sanctions being imposed (i.e., a letter of
instruction, a pay 14According to the Corporation Counsel
official, the female-inmate allegations of staff sexual misconduct
may include a small but insignificant number of allegations
involving female correctional staff. 15 The nature and outcome of
the 14 prosecution cases are discussed later in this report. 16
One of the seven employees who resigned worked for the U.S. Forest
Service. He allegedly abused a BOP female inmate assigned to a
work detail. Page 9
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
reduction, and 4 unspecified adverse personnel actions).
California officials could readily provide information on the
nature of only the five allegations that were sustained during
1998. Of the five sustained allegations during that year, three
resulted in resignations-two involving "overfamiliarity,"
including the exchange of personal information (address and
telephone number) and one involving alleged sexual intercourse-and
two resulted in terminations (involving improper touching).
California Department of Corrections officials told us that in
each of its 12 cases that resulted in resignations, the accused
staff member resigned while under investigation. The officials
noted, however, that the employees' personnel files were
documented with one of the following annotations: "resigned under
adverse circumstances," "resigned with fault," or "resigned with
prejudice." California officials noted that since late calendar
year 1998, all department investigations, including those during
which staff members exercise their right to resign, are to be
continued to resolution and, if warranted, the results recorded in
personnel files. Texas Department of Criminal As table 1 also
shows, Texas had the most sustained allegations (48) Justice
during the 4-year period, accounting for about 52 percent of the
92 total. Among these three jurisdictions, at 31 percent, Texas
also had the highest figure for total allegations sustained as a
percentage of allegations reported. Texas Office of Internal
Affairs officials could readily provide information on only the 11
allegations sustained during 1998. For that year, the 11
allegations involved consensual sex or other inappropriate sexual
contact-which can be criminal offenses under Texas law-and
resulted in employee resignations or terminations. The officials
told us that most of the 11 sustained allegations resulted in the
employee resigning either during the investigation or when he
found out he would be terminated. The officials told us that
regardless of whether the employees resigned or were terminated,
Internal Affairs completed the investigations and documented the
outcome in personnel files. The officials also told us that in
each of the 11 cases, a "no rehire letter" was put in the
employee's file. Texas Internal Affairs officials told us that,
although detailed information was not readily available for
allegations filed during 1995 to 1997, most of these allegations
involved consensual sex or other inappropriate sexual contact. The
officials also told us that, similar to the allegations sustained
during 1998, most, if not all of the allegations sustained during
1995 to 1997 resulted in employee resignations or terminations.
Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct
in Female Prisons B-282772 As previously mentioned, all four of
the jurisdictions we studied have laws Only BOP Reported
that specifically criminalize certain types of staff-on-inmate
sexual Criminal Prosecutions With misconduct. Officials in all
four jurisdictions told us that criminal Convictions
prosecutions can be initiated even if the staff member resigns.
However, only BOP reported having any criminal prosecutions with
convictions under applicable laws during calendar years 1995 to
1998. BOP provided us with summary information for the 14 cases
that resulted in prosecutions with convictions during this period.
The summary information shows that the allegations involved male
staff at seven different BOP facilities and included having sex
with an inmate, having sex in exchange for money, sexual abuse,
and forced sexual assault (i.e., rape). BOP provided the following
sentencing information for the 14 cases: * Seven convictions
resulted in sentences of incarceration ranging from 3 to 232
months. * Six convictions resulted in sentences of probation
ranging from 12 to 60 months, of which, 1 conviction also included
home confinement. * One conviction resulted in a sentence of 3-
months home confinement. In addition to incarceration, probation,
and home confinement, 10 of the 14 sentences included fines or
restitution ranging from $25 to $5,000. Other sentencing
provisions included community service and supervised release.
Regardless of whether incarceration was or was not a sentencing
provision, as previously mentioned, the 14 convicted staff members
either resigned or BOP terminated their employment. BOP's Office
of Internal Affairs generates quarterly status reports on criminal
investigations involving staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct and
provides these reports to BOP's Office of General Counsel. In
California, at the time of our review, no cases involving alleged
staff-on- inmate sexual misconduct were under investigation by
cognizant prosecution authorities. However, the other two
jurisdictions did have open or ongoing investigations at the time
of our review. Specifically, in Texas, local district attorney's
offices were considering three cases for possible prosecution;
and, in the District of Columbia, the U.S. Attorney's Office was
considering six cases. Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-104
Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772 In addition to
resignations, employment terminations, other administrative Civil
Lawsuits Related to sanctions, and criminal prosecutions,
staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct at Staff Sexual Misconduct
female prisons may result in civil lawsuits. According to summary
Were Filed in All Four information provided to us by BOP,
during 1995 to 1998, BOP was involved Jurisdictions
in 14 civil lawsuits. Of these 14 cases, 4 had been closed or
dismissed, 3 had been settled, and 7 were still pending at the
time of our review. In one of the cases settled, BOP agreed to pay
three women $500,000 to end a lawsuit in which the women claimed
they had been beaten, raped, and sold by guards for sex with male
inmates. According to California Department of Corrections
officials, the department was involved in two civil lawsuits
related to staff sexual misconduct during 1995 to 1998. In one
case, settled in 1996, the department agreed to pay the plaintiff
and her attorneys $73,000 to end a lawsuit that alleged forced
sexual intercourse, among other things. The other lawsuit-alleging
sexual harassment, assault, improper touching, and lewd sexual
remarks-was still pending at the time of our review. However,
according to department officials, the employee was terminated in
1997 for behavior not specifically related to the lawsuit. Since
1995, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has been involved
in four civil lawsuits related to sexual assault claims by female
inmates against male correctional staff, according to information
provided us by the Law Enforcement Defense Division, Texas Office
of the Attorney General. One of the lawsuits, filed by a female
inmate in 1996, was closed in 1997 based on the federal district
court's granting of a motion to dismiss. The other three lawsuits,
each filed in 1998, were still open at the time of our review. One
of these 3 open lawsuits was filed on behalf of 12 plaintiff
female inmates, who alleged that they had been sexually assaulted.
The other two open lawsuits each involved one plaintiff, i.e., a
different female inmate in each case. The District of Columbia
Department of Corrections has had long-standing problems involving
allegations of sexual misconduct by correctional staff. For
example, in October 1993, female inmates filed suit in federal
district court, alleging various violations of constitutional
rights, including an allegation that the Department of Corrections
failed to protect them against sexual harassment, sexual assault,
and rape by guards.17 A result of this lawsuit was that, in
December 1994, the Department of Corrections 17Women Prisoners of
the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. District of
Columbia, 877 F. Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1994), vacated in part,
modified in part, 899 F. Supp. 659 (D.D.C. 1995), vacated in part,
remanded by 93 F. 3d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S.
Ct. 1552 (1997), on remand, 968 F. Supp. 744 (D.D.C. 1997). Page
12 GAO/GGD-99-104
Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772 was required by
court order to develop a policy, provide staff and inmates with
training, and take other appropriate steps to prevent and remedy
staff sexual misconduct. The department implemented its initial
sexual misconduct policy in March 1995. In September 1995, female
inmates performed a striptease for a group of predominantly male
correctional staff, according to an official from the District's
Office of the Corporation Counsel. The official noted that based
on this incident (1) four correctional officers were fired and six
were suspended without pay and (2) four civil lawsuits were filed,
all of which were pending at the time of our review. The official
told us that no other civil lawsuits were filed or ongoing from
1995 to 1998. According to the cognizant NIC official, a
nationally recognized expert on Justice Department and Better
Monitoring and sexual misconduct in correctional facilities, both
the reporting of staff-on- Arizona Reached a Analysis Could Help
inmate sexual misconduct allegations and the breadth of
investigations Settlement Agreement in have improved in
many jurisdictions during the 1990s. The official noted, Address
Staff Sexual March 1999 however, that most
U.S. correctional systems still do not adequately Misconduct
capture or track data related to such allegations. The absence of
adequate information systems makes it difficult to monitor the
incidence of sexual misconduct, to keep track of allegedly abusive
employees or those who have been found to have violated prison
rules and/or criminal law, and to identify corrective actions
needed to help prevent such misconduct. As previously mentioned,
the four jurisdictions we studied generally had no readily
available, comprehensive data or reports on the number, nature,
and outcomes of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct allegations.
Rather, in response to our inquiries for such information,
corrections officials conducted file reviews or undertook other
manual efforts rather than rely on management information systems
or other centralized sources. BOP's Office of Internal Affairs is
responsible for tracking both noncriminal and potentially criminal
allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct in federal
prisons.18 However, information on all allegations was not readily
available from BOP's tracking system. For example, Internal
Affairs officials could not readily differentiate allegations of
noncriminal sexual misconduct-involving, for example, indecent
language-from other types of allegations classified as
"unprofessional conduct." Consequently, BOP did not provide us
with any information on noncriminal allegations. According to BOP
officials, while such 18 The Justice Department's Office of the
Inspector General is to review all cases and investigate those
involving suspected criminal activity. Page 13
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
information is not readily available from BOP's tracking system,
noncriminal allegations are routinely reported and investigated.
Also, BOP's legal database could not readily differentiate
lawsuits involving staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct from other
lawsuits. Consequently, in response to our request, BOP obtained
this information from each of its six regional offices. BOP
officials told us that before our inquiries, BOP had awarded
contracts for databases that, when implemented, will allow
Internal Affairs and legal officials to perform data searches by
name, subject matter, and other items. California Department of
Corrections officials told us that the department's current system
does not provide a format for distinguishing staff sexual
misconduct from other types of staff misconduct. Consequently, in
response to our request, the department contacted each of
California's five prisons housing female inmates to obtain
information on the number and outcome of staff-on-inmate sexual
misconduct allegations. Also, department officials told us that
providing specific information or examples on the nature of
allegations (e.g., verbal harassment, improper touching, and/or
rape) was impractical, since it would require a thorough reading
of all allegations or complaints filed as staff misconduct to
identify those involving staff sexual misconduct.19 In response to
our request, department officials reviewed files and provided
information on the nature of the five allegations sustained during
1998. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice provided
information on only those staff sexual misconduct allegations that
were referred to the department's Internal Affairs Division by
prison wardens. According to Internal Affairs officials, these
allegations generally involved the more serious types of
misconduct, such as sexual contact and assault. The officials
noted that allegations involving other types of sexual misconduct-
such as verbal harassment and inappropriate visual surveillance-
are usually handled administratively by prison wardens and,
consequently, information on these allegations is not readily
available. Further, Texas Internal Affairs Division officials told
us that information on the allegations referred by wardens to
Internal Affairs was not readily available or extractable from the
department's systems or databases. Consequently, to obtain
information on the number of staff sexual misconduct allegations
filed and sustained during calendar years 1995 to 1998, the
department conducted a case-by-case search of all allegations 19
In California's correctional system, inmate allegations or
complaints are referred to as "appeals." Page 14
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
filed under improper employee-inmate relationships. In response to
our request, department officials reviewed files and provided
information on the nature and outcome of cases sustained during
calendar year 1998. However, the department could not readily
determine the nature and results or outcomes of the allegations
sustained during calendar years 1995 to 1997, because, according
to department officials, providing such information would require
a time-consuming review of case files. As previously mentioned,
District of Columbia officials could not readily provide us with
data on the number, nature, or outcome of staff sexual misconduct
allegations during the 4-year period, 1995 to 1998. Rather,
District officials provided us with information on the number of
allegations filed and sustained for the period December 1995 to
June 1998. Also, the Department of Corrections has been required
by court order since December 1994 to (1) notify the Metropolitan
Police Department about any allegation involving unwelcome sexual
intercourse or unwelcome sexual touching, (2) communicate with the
police department concerning the status of any investigations of
these allegations, and (3) periodically document the status of
police investigations.20 However, in response to our initial
inquiries, the Department of Corrections did not have any current
or readily available information on the status of police
investigations. In response to our follow-up inquiries, the
Department of Corrections obtained investigation status
information from the Metropolitan Police Department. Further, all
four jurisdictions we studied did not routinely analyze data on
staff sexual misconduct allegations or generate management reports
to identify potential trends or problem areas. Correctional
officials in these jurisdictions told us that the current systems
used to capture sexual misconduct data do not facilitate
subsequent analyses and reports. Recognizing the need for better
data and management systems to address staff sexual misconduct
issues, NIC began offering training in this area in 1996. NIC
suggests that important data to capture, monitor, and analyze
include the facility in which the alleged incident occurred; the
date, time, and place of the alleged incident; the name of the
complainant and respondent(s); and the nature of the incident.
Because many female inmates may be reluctant or unwilling to
report staff Conclusions sexual misconduct and jurisdictions
lack systematic data collection and 20 The District of Columbia
Department of Correction's October 1997 policy on sexual
misconduct against inmates requires that the status of police
investigations be documented every 30 days. Page 15
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
analysis of reported allegations, the overall extent of staff-on-
inmate sexual misconduct in female prisons is largely unknown.
However, prior research and our work indicate that such behavior
can and does occur. Moreover, there is widespread consensus that
sexual misconduct by correctional staff should not be tolerated.
While applicable laws, policies, and procedures would not
eliminate staff sexual misconduct, these tools could help minimize
the incidence of such behavior. For the most part, the
jurisdictions we studied do have these tools. None of the four
jurisdictions we studied had readily available, comprehensive data
or reports on the number, nature, and outcomes of staff-on-inmate
sexual misconduct allegations. The systemic absence of such data
or reports makes it difficult for lawmakers, correctional system
managers, relevant federal and state officials, inmate advocacy
groups, academicians, and others to effectively address staff
sexual misconduct issues. For example, without such data or
reports, correctional system managers cannot effectively monitor
the incidence of staff sexual misconduct, keep track of allegedly
abusive employees, and identify corrective actions needed to help
minimize such misconduct. Also, absent better management
information systems and more comprehensive data, it remains
unclear the extent to which laws are routinely enforced and
policies and procedures are followed. Accordingly, this is an area
wherein NIC began providing training in 1996. We recommend that
the Director of BOP develop systems and procedures Recommendation
to to the Director, BOP * monitor and
analyze allegations of staff sexual misconduct in federal prisons
and * periodically report results to the Justice Department's
Office of the Inspector General and to appropriate BOP officials
(e.g., senior managers and wardens). These analyses and reports
should be in sufficient detail to identify and monitor trends and
determine whether any corrective actions are needed. For instance,
the analyses and reports should quantify all categories of alleged
staff sexual misconduct, including allegations of unprofessional
or noncriminal conduct, as well as allegations involving
potentially criminal conduct. On May 26, 1999, we provided a draft
of this report for review and Agency Comments and comment to the
Department of Justice, BOP, the California Department of Our
Evaluation Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual
Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772 Corrections, the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, and the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections. On June 3, 1999, Justice's Audit
Liaison Office (Justice Management Division) orally advised us
that (1) the draft had been reviewed by Justice's Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Inspector General, and
the Civil Rights Division and (2) these reviewers generally had no
specific comments on the information presented in the draft.
However, Justice's Civil Rights Division provided updated
information regarding a civil lawsuit. That is, the division
informed us that, in May 1999, the Justice Department and Michigan
entered into an agreement to settle a civil lawsuit related to
sexual misconduct by male correctional staff in the state's
prisons for women. This information has been incorporated in this
report where appropriate. In its written comments dated June 3,
1999, BOP concurred with our recommendation that BOP develop
systems and procedures for monitoring, analyzing, and reporting
allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct. The Director of
BOP noted that, as stated in our draft, BOP has begun the process
for acquiring a new, more sophisticated database. According to the
Director, this database is expected to be operational by the end
of calendar year 1999, and when fully implemented, will (1) allow
better sorting and analysis of allegations of staff sexual
misconduct and (2) enable BOP to improve its monitoring and
identification of potential trends. During the period June 2-4,
1999, we also received oral comments from BOP indicating that the
draft was reviewed by BOP's Office of Internal Affairs, Office of
General Counsel, Correctional Programs Division, and NIC. These
components provided technical comments and suggestions, which have
been incorporated in this report where appropriate. During the
period June 2-7, 1999, the California Department of Corrections,
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the District of
Columbia Department of Corrections provided either oral or written
technical comments and clarifications, which have been
incorporated in this report where appropriate. As arranged with
your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this
report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies
to Representative Henry Hyde, Chairman, and Representative John
Conyers, Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Committee; and
to Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, and Senator Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Minority Member, Senate Page 17
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons B-282772
Judiciary Committee. We will also send copies of this report to:
The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General; The Honorable Kathleen
Hawk Sawyer, Director, BOP; Mr. C.A. "Cal" Terhune, Director,
California Department of Corrections; Mr. Wayne Scott, Executive
Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice; Mr. Odie
Washington, Acting Director, District of Columbia Department of
Corrections; and other interested parties. Copies will also be
made available to others upon request. The major contributors to
this report were Danny Burton, Assistant Director; Eric Erdman,
Evaluator-in-Charge; Kay Muse, Senior Evaluator; and Geoffrey
Hamilton, Senior Attorney. Please contact me on (202) 512- 8777 if
you or your staff have any questions about this report. Sincerely
yours, Norman J. Rabkin Director Administration of Justice Issues
Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct
in Female Prisons Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual
Misconduct in Female Prisons Contents 1 Letter 22 Appendix I
Overview Perspectives
22 Scope and Four Correctional Systems Studied
22 Limitations and Clarifications
23 Methodology 25 Appendix II Federal Bureau of
Prisons 25
Laws, Policies, and California Department of Corrections
27 Texas Department of Criminal Justice
29 Procedures Related to District of Columbia Department of
Corrections 30 Staff-on-
Inmate Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions
Table 1: Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Misconduct Allegations
8 Tables Reported and Sustained at BOP,
California, and Texas Female Prisons, Calendar Years 1995 to 1998
Abbreviations BOP Bureau of Prisons NIC
National Institute of Corrections Page 20
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Page 21
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
I Scope and Methodology To obtain overview perspectives regarding
staff-on-inmate sexual Overview Perspectives misconduct, we
conducted a literature search and also contacted the National
Institute of Corrections (NIC), a component of the federal Bureau
of Prisons (BOP) that provides assistance to federal, state, and
local corrections agencies working with adult offenders. In recent
years, NIC has focused on staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct issues
and has provided extensive training to federal and state
correctional system personnel. Also, we contacted the National
Women's Law Center (Washington, D.C.), a nonprofit organization
that has been working since 1972 to advance and protect women's
legal rights. In 1990, the center initiated a project to address
problems confronting women prisoners. As part of this project, in
1998, the center produced an educational manual designed for
incarcerated women and others concerned about sexual misconduct in
correctional institutions.1 To obtain additional perspectives
regarding staff sexual misconduct at female prisons, we contacted
the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, which is
responsible for investigations and litigation under the Civil
Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980.2 According to the
Justice Department, investigations are initiated when there is
reason to believe that serious, systemic, unconstitutional
conditions exist at a facility covered by the statute.3
Investigations and related actions can involve general conditions
of confinement, such as inadequate fire safety, poor sanitation,
improper use of restraints, inadequate medical and mental
healthcare, and staff sexual misconduct. As agreed with the
requester, to obtain specific information about (1) Four
Correctional applicable laws, policies, and
procedures and (2) the number, nature, and Systems Studied
outcomes of allegations made in recent years, we focused on four
correctional systems-BOP, the California Department of
Corrections, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the
District of Columbia Department of Corrections. The first three
are the nation's largest correctional systems for female
offenders. At calendar year-end 1998, approximately * 9,200
female inmates were in federal prisons, 1 National Women's Law
Center, An End to Silence: Women's Prisoners Handbook on
Identifying and Addressing Sexual Misconduct, April 1998. 2 P.L.
96-247 (1980). 3 This act is designed to protect the rights of
people housed in state and local governmental institutions,
including state prisons. Page 22
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
I Scope and Methodology * 11,500 female prisoners were under the
jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections, and *
10,700 female prisoners were under the jurisdiction of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. In 1998, these three correctional
systems held over one-third of the nation's approximately 80,000
female prisoners. At calendar year-end 1998, about 320 female
offenders were under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections. Our contacts included officials in (1)
BOP's Office of Internal Affairs, Office of General Counsel, and
Correctional Programs Division; (2) the California Department of
Corrections' Institutions Division and Internal Affairs Division;
(3) the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Internal Affairs
Division; and (4) the District of Columbia Department of
Corrections' Office of the Deputy Director for Institutions and
the District's Office of the Corporation Counsel (Special
Litigation Division). We reviewed applicable statutes; policy
documents and operations manuals; inmate orientation handbooks;
and available statistics (for calendar years 1995 to 1998)
regarding the number of allegations filed and the number sustained
(i.e., allegations that resulted in staff resignations, employment
terminations, or other administrative sanctions). Further, we
inquired about the number and outcomes or status of criminal
prosecutions with convictions and civil lawsuits alleging staff-
on-inmate sexual misconduct. The scope of our work did not include
(1) interviewing inmates, (2) testing Limitations and or
confirming whether applicable policies for reporting and
investigating Clarifications sexual misconduct were being
followed in actual practice, or (3) reviewing the merits of
allegations or the appropriateness of outcomes or disciplinary
actions. Further, except for some civil lawsuits that are public
records, correctional officials did not provide us information
identifying either the individuals who filed allegations of sexual
misconduct or the correctional staff who allegedly engaged in the
prohibited behaviors. Thus, we did not specifically determine
whether a relatively few inmates were responsible for making
multiple or repeated allegations against relatively few or the
same correctional staff. Also, we did not independently verify
information provided to us by corrections officials regarding the
number, nature, and outcomes of sexual misconduct allegations made
by female inmates during calendar years Page 23
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
I Scope and Methodology 1995 to 1998. However, we did obtain
annual statistics that do add to the 4- year totals presented in
table 1. Also, the information we reported regarding the nature
and outcomes of allegations is based on written responses provided
to us by corrections officials. These responses, according to
senior corrections officials, were compiled by applicable program
staff and were reviewed by applicable managers before being
provided to us. Finally, as previously mentioned, "sustained"
allegations include applicable staff resignations that resulted
during or after investigations. According to correctional
officials, these were cases wherein the investigations concluded
that a preponderance of the evidence supported the allegations
that violations had occurred. Page 24 GAO/GGD-
99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix II Laws,
Policies, and Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate Sexual
Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions This appendix
presents information about staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct1
laws, policies, and procedures regarding women's prisons in four
correctional jurisdictions-the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP),
the California Department of Corrections, the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, and the District of Columbia Department of
Corrections. At the federal level, criminal offenses enacted by
the Sexual Abuse Act of Federal Bureau of 1986 are the primary
laws covering staff-on-inmate sexual abuse.2 Under Prisons
the act, a staff person who engages in a sexual act with an inmate
is criminally liable. Consent is not listed in the statute as a
defense to criminal prosecution. According to an April 1999
survey,3 the federal government is one of the few jurisdictions
that does not define all cases of staff sexual assault in prisons
as a felony. Rather, misconduct is defined as either a felony or a
misdemeanor, depending on the nature and severity of the assault.
According to BOP officials, since 1973, BOP's "standards of
employee conduct" has covered inappropriate staff relationships
with inmates. The officials noted that in 1996, BOP modified its
standards to prohibit an employee from engaging in, or allowing
another person to engage in, sexual behavior with an inmate. In
1995, BOP approved a sexual misconduct policy that primarily
addressed inmate-on-inmate sexual misconduct. In December 1997,
BOP updated its policy to include instances of staff-on-inmate
sexual misconduct and to present more detailed mental health
treatment protocols for victims. The 1997 policy update defines
staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct as "engaging in, or attempting
to engage in a sexual act with any inmate or the intentional
touching . . . with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, arouse, or gratify the sexual desire of any person." As
with applicable federal law in which consent is not listed as a 1
Staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct can cover a wide range of
inappropriate verbal, visual, and physical behaviors, such as
using lewd language or making sexual remarks, observing an
inmate's personal activities (e.g., showering) without a sound
penological reason, and engaging in sexual contact or acts with or
without an inmate's consent (e.g., touching, kissing, abuse or
assault, intercourse, rape, etc.). Depending on its nature and
applicable law, staff sexual misconduct may involve either
noncriminal or criminal acts. 2 The Sexual Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L.
99-646) (codified at 18 U.S.C. sections 2241-2244 and other
scattered sections). The laws address aggravated sexual abuse,
sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a minor or ward, and abusive sexual
contact. 3 The April 1999 survey was conducted by Brenda V. Smith
(Associate Professor, Washington College of Law, American
University) and Giovanna Shay (Soros Justice Fellow, American
Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project) and had not been
published at the time of our review. Page 25
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
II Laws, Policies, and Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate
Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions defense,
the 1997 policy update also provides that any sexual act between
staff and inmates is prohibited, even when no objections are
raised. BOP's current policy does not cover the full range of
staff sexual misconduct, but an update of the policy is planned
for late 1999. That is, currently, while sexual acts and improper
touching are covered, the policy does not mention other types of
misconduct, including, for example, indecent sexual language or
gestures and inappropriate visual surveillance. According to BOP
officials, although such behaviors are not covered by BOP's sexual
misconduct policy, these behaviors are included under a more
encompassing category in BOP's standards of employee conduct.
While the standards do not specifically define or prohibit staff
sexual misconduct, BOP training documents indicate that these
other types of misconduct are defined and discussed during staff
training. Also, according to BOP officials, before our inquiries,
BOP had planned to update its sexual misconduct policy in late
1999 to cover noncriminal sexual behavior, such as indecent,
profane, or abusive language or gestures and inappropriate visual
surveillance of inmates. Key elements of BOP's 1997 sexual
misconduct policy include (1) educating and training staff and
inmates; (2) safeguarding, assessing, treating, and managing
sexually assaulted inmates; and (3) investigating, disciplining,
and/or prosecuting perpetrators of sexual assault. BOP's policy
requires that all staff be trained to recognize signs of sexual
assault, understand the identification and referral process, and
have a basic understanding of sexual assault prevention and
response techniques. In 1998, BOP began training its staff
regarding staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct, and it plans to
continue such training in future years during required annual
refresher courses. Specialized training is also required for staff
who are likely to be most involved in the treatment or management
of sexually assaulted inmates, such as health and psychology
services staff. Further, the Director of BOP has addressed BOP's
zero tolerance towards staff sexual misconduct during training and
briefings to senior BOP officials. According to BOP officials,
before 1998, the topic of staff sexual misconduct was covered
during other staff training. BOP's policy also requires that
inmate education include information about (1) how inmates can
protect themselves from becoming victims while incarcerated, (2)
treatment options available to victims of sexual assault, and (3)
methods of reporting incidents of sexual assault. According to
BOP, each inmate is also provided a handbook that details BOP's
policy and explains the process for filing sexual misconduct Page
26 GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct
in Female Prisons Appendix II Laws, Policies, and Procedures
Related to Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S.
Correctional Jurisdictions complaints. The handbook describes the
various methods inmates can use to report allegations of staff
sexual misconduct-i.e., directly to a facility staff member, the
warden, a chaplain, the applicable BOP regional office, and/or the
Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. According to
BOP policy, after reporting an allegation, the complainant should
be referred for a medical examination and offered immediate
protection. BOP's Office of Internal Affairs is responsible for
tracking all sexual misconduct allegations.4 The Justice
Department's Office of the Inspector General is to review all
cases and investigate those involving suspected criminal activity.
If warranted, the Inspector General's Office can refer cases to
the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution. Cases not involving
criminal activity are to be returned to BOP's Office of Internal
Affairs for an administrative investigation, which can result in
various types of disciplinary action. California state law related
to staff sexual misconduct specifically defines California
Department prohibited sexual activity.5 Under this law,
correctional staff who engage in of Corrections
sexual activity with an inmate are criminally liable. Consent is
not a defense to criminal prosecution for this offense. The first
violation of this offense is considered a misdemeanor and any
subsequent violation of this offense is a felony. California
Department of Corrections policy documents do not specifically or
separately cover staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct. Rather,
California Department of Corrections officials told us that such
behaviors are included under a more-encompassing category of
"employee misconduct," as presented in Title 15 of the California
Code of Regulations and the department's Operations Manual.
According to the manual, allegations of "serious" employee
misconduct-which include having intimate relationships with an
inmate-are to be investigated by the department's Office of
Internal Affairs. If sustained by Internal Affairs, these serious
allegations are to be referred to (1) the applicable warden, who
can impose administrative sanctions (adverse personnel actions)
ranging from an official reprimand to employment termination
and/or (2) the local district attorney's office for criminal
prosecution. Allegations of less serious or performance-related
conduct-such as becoming overly familiar with an inmate (e.g.,
sharing a lunch with an inmate)-are subject to a fact-finding 4
BOP, Program Statement 1210.17, "Office of Internal Affairs,"
August 4, 1997. 5 California Penal Code, section 289.6, "Employee
or officer of detention facility; Engaging in sexual activity with
consenting adult confined in detention facility." Page 27
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
II Laws, Policies, and Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate
Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions inquiry
conducted by a staff person assigned by the warden or other
appropriate authority. According to California Department of
Corrections officials, although prison staff are not provided with
training specifically developed to address staff sexual
misconduct, this topic is covered during staff orientation and
other training. The officials told us that female inmates are not
provided formal training to assist them in recognizing, handling,
and reporting staff sexual misconduct. The officials noted,
however, that female inmates are given an orientation handbook
that outlines the process for reporting any type of employee
misconduct. In January 1999, the department appointed an
ombudsman-reporting directly to the Chief Deputy Director, Field
Operations-to oversee conditions in female prisons and to serve as
a focal point for the most sensitive complaints and issues. In
March 1999, senior officials from the California Department of
Corrections attended NIC training on staff-on-inmate sexual
misconduct. Based on information presented at this training,
according to California officials, the department has adopted a
three-pronged approach to the issue of staff sexual misconduct as
follows: * First, a bill drafted by the department has been
submitted to the California legislature to increase the penalties
for staff sexual misconduct and expand the scope of proscribed
activities under the law. * Second, in April 1999, the Director,
California Department of Corrections, distributed a memorandum to
all staff emphasizing the department's "zero tolerance" towards
employees engaging in sexual misconduct with inmates and parolees.
Also, as of May 1999, the department was in the process of
drafting regulations specifying its zero-tolerance towards staff
sexual misconduct. * Third, the department's Office of Internal
Affairs, rather than institutional investigators, now investigates
allegations of staff sexual misconduct. The department anticipates
that a significant number of Internal Affairs staff will acquire
specialized training related to sexual misconduct investigations.
Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual
Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix II Laws, Policies, and
Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Misconduct in Four
U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions Texas state law was changed in
September 1997 to provide that Texas Department of correctional
staff who engage in sexual intercourse or in deviate sexual
Criminal Justice intercourse with an individual in custody
are criminally liable.6 According to Texas Department of Criminal
Justice officials, effective September 1, 1999, new laws will also
prohibit certain types of sexual contact and will cover both
incarcerated and supervised (e.g., parolees) individuals. The
officials told us that before 1997, other state laws generally
applicable to sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault could be
used to prosecute cases of staff-on-inmate sexual assault. The
Texas Department of Criminal Justice's employees' general rules of
conduct cover prohibited employee-offender relationships. At the
time of our review, Texas had a draft policy on staff sexual
misconduct with offenders (expected to be finalized and
implemented in September 1999). The draft policy also addresses
prohibited employee-offender relationships and specifically
defines staff sexual misconduct, including written or electronic
communication of a sexual nature; obscene or sexual advances,
gestures, or comments; sexual intercourse; and other sexual
conduct (e.g., inappropriate touching). The draft policy also
specifies penalties or disciplinary actions related to sexual
misconduct, describes staff responsibilities for reporting
prohibited sexual activities, and requires staff training
regarding sexual misconduct with inmates. Also, according to
department officials, female inmates are provided sexual
misconduct training during intake orientation and are given a
handbook that describes the process for reporting any type of
employee misconduct. The department's Internal Affairs Division is
responsible for investigating the more serious types of staff
sexual misconduct allegations, such as sexual contact and assault.
Internal Affairs is to refer suspected violations of criminal law
to local district attorney's offices for prosecution. All other
alleged violations of departmental policy are to be investigated
by the facility or department administration, with possible
disciplinary action taken against the employee. 6 Texas Penal
Code, section 39.04, "Violations of the Civil Rights of Person in
Custody; Improper Sexual Activity with Person in Custody." Page 29
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
II Laws, Policies, and Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate
Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions
According to various correctional experts, the District of
Columbia has District of Columbia one of the strictest and
most comprehensive sets of sexual abuse laws and Department of
policies in the country. The District's Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of
1994, in general, makes staff-on-inmate sexual acts and sexual
contact felony Corrections offenses.7 The District
of Columbia Department of Corrections has been required by court
order since December 1994 to take appropriate steps to prevent and
remedy staff sexual misconduct. The court order provisions are
primarily addressed in the department's sexual misconduct policy,
as revised in 1997. In general, the department's policy defines
prohibited staff sexual misconduct to include sexual abuse (any
sexual act or sexual contact), sexual harassment (verbal or
physical sexual conduct creating a hostile environment), and
invasion of privacy (observing an inmate's personal activities
without a sound penological reason or failing to announce presence
when entering the housing unit of an inmate of the opposite sex
without a sound penological reason). The department's policy, as
does the staff-on-inmate provision of the Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of
1994, provides that consent is not a defense to the crime of
staff-on-inmate sexual abuse. The policy also specifies
administrative penalties for sexual misconduct involving staff and
inmates. Further, the department's policy prohibits * overt or
covert retaliation by any staff against either female inmates or
correctional staff for filing a sexual misconduct complaint or
cooperating in investigations of sexual misconduct; *
interference with sexual misconduct investigations or refusal to
testify during an investigation; * failure of staff to report any
sexual misconduct, either witnessed or suspected; and * breach of
confidentiality by an employee. Also, among others, the policy's
provisions include the following: 8 * All correctional staff are
required to receive training on prohibited sexual misconduct, and
all inmates are to be briefed (during intake orientation) and
provided written information on prohibited practices and reporting
procedures. 7 Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of 1994 (D.C. Law 10-257)
(D.C. Code section 22-4101 et seq.). 8 District of Columbia
Department of Corrections Order 3350.2B, "Sexual Misconduct
Against Inmates" (revised October 15, 1997). Page 30
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Appendix
II Laws, Policies, and Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate
Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions * A
confidential 24-hour telephone hotline was installed for inmates
to use in reporting sexual misconduct. Also, inmates may report
such misconduct directly to the warden or any staff member. * A
sexual misconduct coordinator position was established to monitor
complaints filed and ensure that allegations are investigated. The
coordinator is to refer potentially criminal allegations to local
law enforcement authorities, who, when applicable, are to refer
cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution. Page 31
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Page 32
GAO/GGD-99-104 Staff Sexual Misconduct in Female Prisons Ordering
Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is
free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and
MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more
copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Order by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of
4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO
issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive
facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A
recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the
INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office
Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 Postage & Fees Paid GAO
Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested (182078)
*** End of document. ***