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:
    [email protected] 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. ***