Abstract
Women inmates in a southern women’s minimum security facility were interviewed to explore their perceptions of and experiences with reporting sexual victimization in the context of the post-PREA era. The interviewees identified stigma and gossip, officer camaraderie, and fear of retaliation as the dominant barriers to reporting and investigating incidents of sexual assault. The article concludes with recommendations to improve sexual assault training and education in women’s correctional institutions.
Introduction
The incarceration rate of women has increased at a faster pace than the incarceration rate of men. Between 1980 and 2016, the number of incarcerated women increased from 26,378 in 1980 to 213,722 in 2016 (Carson, 2018; Piecora, 2014).While women make up only 7% of the total U.S. adult prison population, their incarceration rates have increased in 26 states since 2015 (Carson, 2018). The increase in the number of incarcerated women creates a number of complex issues, including the need to enforce effective rape preventive policies. Historically, sexual victimization in prison has been a daunting and ubiquitous experience for female inmates, often fraught with detrimental consequences (Dobash et al., 1986; Rafter, 1992). While sexual victimization is usually bound by secrecy and silence, it is an integral part of the inmate culture (Gibbons & Katzenbach, 2011) and has become widely recognized as an on-going problem (Nacci & Kane, 1983; Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996).
The plight of sexually victimized incarcerated women remains in the shadow of scholarship that has focused primarily on rape culture in men’s prisons. Research on incarcerated women’s lived experiences with sexual victimization is limited, especially in the context of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), passed by the U.S. Congress in 2003.Despite the vulnerability of female inmates to sexual victimization by male correctional staff, government research has almost completely focused on inmate-to-inmate sexual victimization, ignoring the problematic issue of correctional staff engaging in inappropriate sexual behaviors with inmates, specifically female inmates (VanNatta, 2010). Research examining the narratives of sexually victimized women inmates is scarce despite statistical documentation of their sexual abuse in carceral settings. This study adds to the dearth of research on sexual victimization of incarcerated women by investigating their experiences with reporting and investigative processes in the post-PREA era. Although PREA legislation was passed to detect, report, investigate, and prevent incidents of sexual misconduct in correctional facilities, prison rapes, and sexual assaults are still problematic in many correctional institutions (Beck & Johnson, 2012; Smith, 2020) because some institutions have not fully implemented PREA guidelines (Anderson, 2005). It has been documented that some correctional administrators have failed to implement PREA standards or have implemented guidelines in an ineffective manner which limits inmates’ recourse to reporting sexual victimization (Beck & Johnson, 2012; Beck et al., 2007). The goal of the research is to examine incarcerated women’s lived experiences with sexual victimization, barriers to reporting sexual victimization, and measurable changes of correctional staff adherence to mandated PREA guidelines.
Literature Review
Prison Rape Elimination Act
One of the most important legal reforms in addressing sexual victimization behind prison walls is PREA. The passage of PREA was fueled by the disruption of institutional operations by prison rapes, the harmful effects of prison rapes, and the unexpected demands that rape victims placed on communities once released from correctional facilities. Signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2003, PREA supports a “zero-tolerance” policy for prison rapes and requires BJS to collect on-going data that are aimed at detecting, reporting, and preventing prison rape. Further, the guidelines of PREA were designed to increase the accountability of correctional officials who fail to prevent the occurrence of prison rapes. While PREA’s standards are binding on all correctional facilities, the implementation and pursuit of PREA goals vary across correctional institutions. Strict penalties should be imposed on correctional officials who violate state law and PREA guidelines (Kubiak et al., 2017); however, despite the passage of PREA, some prisons have remained uncooperative and indifferent to rape prevention (Anderson, 2005; U. S. Department of Justice, 2014).
Prevalence of Sexual Victimization
Sexual victimization in women’s prisons includes a myriad of behaviors ranging from sexualized language to rape (Hensley, 2002). Incarcerated women experience sexual victimization in the forms of sexual harassment, molestation during strip searches, coercive sexual fondling, and pressured or forced sexual intercourse perpetrated by prison staff (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2006). The reporting of sexual misconduct is constrained by individual, institutional, and cultural factors (Kubiak et al., 2017; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2006) and by the identity of the perpetrator, especially if the offending party is a correctional staff member (Kubiak et al., 2017; Miller, 2010). In incidents of staff-to-female inmate victimization, males are the perpetrators in 98% of the cases (Piecora, 2014). Findings on perpetrators of sexual victimization, however, reveal that incarcerated women report higher rates of sexual victimization than men (Beck et al., 2007), and have been noted as more likely to be sexually victimized by male correctional staff (Calhoun & Coleman, 2002; Kubiak et al., 2018) In contrast, some research reveals that incarcerated women are more likely to be sexually victimized by other inmates than correctional staff (Wolff et al., 2009). The Survey of Sexual Victimization (SSV) conducted by BJS (2018) revealed that 24,661 sexual victimization allegations were reported by correctional administrators in 2015, an almost triple increase (8,768) from 2011. Increases in sexual allegations over time can be attributed to increases in unsubstantiated or unfounded allegations. According to the SSV data, 58% of substantiated allegations were perpetrated by inmates, and 42% were perpetrated by staff members. Further, a study of prison rapes in three mid-western women’s prisons revealed 7% to 27% of women inmates reported being pressured or forced into sexual acts. Further, the abuse frequently involved multiple victimizations perpetrated by multiple individuals, including both correctional staff and female inmates (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2006).
Barriers to Reporting Sexual Victimization in Women’s Prisons
Parallels of reporting patterns of rape and sexual assault inside and outside of prison can often be drawn and share similar levels of resistance to sexual victimization reporting. Female victims of sexual misconduct (both free world and incarcerated women) often do not report the abuse because of the perception that they will not be believed; mistrust of legal authorities; self-blame; fear of retaliation; shame, embarrassment and fear of stigma; victim-perpetrator relationship; and physical injury (Miller, 2010). Notably, Incarcerated women experience unique barriers to reporting due to their status as inmates and the repressive space in which sexual misconduct takes place. Given the oppressive environment of prison, the authoritarian power of correctional officials, and the women inmates’ lack of agency over their bodies, women victims of sexual assaults in prisons may have lower reporting rates than women victims of sexual assaults in free society.
For female inmates, unwanted sexual behaviors, whether rape, sexual assault, fondling, sexual harassment, or the sheer intimidation of being sexually violated, represent a continuation or re-traumatization of sexual victimization dating back to childhood (Kennedy & Mennickle, 2017; Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). Wolff et al. (2009) conducted a study of 7,500 inmates housed in 12 adult male prisons and one female prison, revealing that incarcerated women and men who were physically and sexually victimized by other inmates or correctional staff were significantly more likely to have experienced childhood victimization. Correctional officers’ views of women inmates as “ignominious victims” (Dumond, 1992) who are unfit, unworthy, and deserving of sexual assault—support a desire for power, control, and domination over a powerless group of individuals (Eigenberg, 2000). Failure of correctional staff to intervene while observing or knowing that a sexual assault is in process (Redman v. County of San Diego, 1981) and failure to intervene after becoming aware of improper sexual contact between correctional staff and inmates (Trammell v. Davis, 2000) represent deliberate indifferences to inmate safety and protection. Sexual victimization, regardless of women’s lifestyles prior to incarceration, is not a part of the punishment imposed upon them by the state (Farmer v. Breenan, 1994, 511 U.S. 825). Further, the imbalance of power between correctional officials and inmates minimizes the chances of correctional staff being punished for perpetrating acts of sexual abuses. This is directly related to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) which requires that all administrative responses to such incidents be exhausted before the abuse can be challenged in federal court (Piecora, 2014).
The victim-perpetrator relationship in prison is a barrier to reporting sexual misconduct, particularly when sexual assaults are perpetrated by correctional staff. The sexual victimization of incarcerated women by correctional staff involves continuous “boundary violations” (Marquart et al., 2001) that “blur, minimize, or disrupt the professional distance between professionals and persons within the population they serve” (p. 878). These violations occur within the context of power and control, often leading to feelings of fear and helplessness in an environment in which female inmates have limited control over their bodies (Greeson et al., 2014). Sexual exploitation of women inmates has been characterized by coercive sex rings; the “selling” of female inmates to male inmates (Meyers, 1997); and sexual assault that leads to unwanted pregnancies and prostitution (Baro, 1997). Further, sexual relations between correctional staff and women inmates have been categorized as “sex trading,” “love relationship,” and sexual contact in the “line of duty” (see Calhoun & Coleman, 2002, p. 107). Boundary violations that include sexual victimization erode the legitimacy of correctional officers’ authority status in highly sexualized prisons that are indifferent to PREA guidelines (Alpert & Hicks, 1977). Even when women inmates perceive the sexual relations between them and correctional officers as consensual, implied pressure, or based on inequality, it is a constant reminder of the power difference between inmates and correctional officers. While sexual contact with inmates by correctional staff is a criminal offense in many states (Baro, 1997), some reports of sexual victimization of imprisoned women have been ignored, unsubstantiated, or investigated without informing the victim of the outcome (Beck et al., 2007). This can lead sexually victimized female inmates to doubt the legitimacy of the reporting process. Boundary violations of human decency that involve sexual misconduct undermine the legitimacy of correctional officers (Marquart et al., 2001). Undoubtedly, a lack of trust that the reporting and investigation process will be conducted appropriately, without the victim experiencing repercussion, impacts the number of reported cases of sexual victimization.
The current study builds on existing research that focuses on inmates’ reporting of sexual victimization. Here, the emphasis is on how incarcerated women, a vulnerable and difficult-to-access population, perceive sexual misconduct review and reporting processes prior to and after local and national investigations. Research on women’s experiences with and perceptions of barriers to reporting sexual victimization will be indispensable to correctional administrators’ efforts to create effective policies that govern sexual misconduct reporting, investigation, and prevention. The rarity of gaining access to an inmate population’s first-hand accounts of sexual exploitation and experiences in reporting sexual victimization can bring to light barriers to such reporting and improved methods of investigation and abuse prevention.
A Sexualized Prison Environment
An investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ), empowered by the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, was conducted at a southern women’s maximum security prison in 2013 in response to allegations of correctional staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. Prior to the DOJ investigation, the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), a non-profit local organization, and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) investigated reported sexual abuse at the women’s prison. EJI’s probe was initiated after women inmates disclosed the sexual victimization to families and friends. The DOJ (2014) investigation concluded that the correctional staff at the women’s correctional institution violated the incarcerated women’s Eighth Amendment rights for at least two decades. Especially noteworthy was that incidents of sexual victimization were “grossly underreported due to insufficient staffing and supervision, inadequate policies and procedures, a heightened fear of retaliation, and an inadequate investigative process” (p. 1). The narratives of the women’s lived experiences within a sexualized prison environment were consistent with investigative reports conducted by the EJI, NIC, and DOJ.
Methodology
Research Questions
The research is based on in-depth face-to-face interviews with 40 incarcerated women in a minimum security facility. The women, prior to the interviews, served time in a women’s maximum security prison before their custody level was downgraded to minimum custody. The following research questions were explored:
What were incarcerated women’s knowledge of and experiences with sexual victimization?
What barriers did women inmates encounter in reporting sexual victimization?
What are women inmates’ knowledge of and experiences with the implementation of PREA modifications during the post-DOJ investigative period?
Data Collection Procedures
Qualitative research involving in-depth interviews with a small and vulnerable population justifies the use of small sample sizes (Hensley et al., 2003). The face-to-face interviews were conducted in 2017 in a private room of the women’s minimum security facility. All interviews were audiotaped and conducted by one researcher to minimize interviewer bias. In accordance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), a PREA representative was available for participants to contact and a mental health representative was on site during the data collection period. However, none of the participants experienced distress during the interviews.
The audiotapes were transcribed and narratives presented verbatim to capture the women’s original spoken words detailing the reporting and investigation of inappropriate sexual behaviors. To increase the validity and integrity of the data, themes from the transcriptions were developed independently by two coders. In the comparison of the codes for consistency and patterns, the researchers refined the codes using a thematic coding process (Crabtree & Miller, 1999) to capture congruent themes (Boyatzis, 1998).
Findings
Sample Characteristics
Of the forty participants, 62.5% self-identified as white; 27.5% self-identified as black; and 10% self-identified as mixed-race. The racial characteristics of the 40 women were representative of the minimum security facility (64% white and 36% African-American). The majority (65%) was unmarried and had a GED or higher educational level (77%). The average age of the participants was 43, with ages ranging from 22 to 74. Most of the women inmates (55%) had no prior incarceration experiences. Almost half of the women were incarcerated for murder and manslaughter; 17% were incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses (e.g., possession or trafficking); and 15% were serving time for theft or robbery, usually related to their impoverished status or drug addiction. Forty percent had been sentenced to over 20 years, with some serving life sentences; the other 60% were incarcerated for 20 years or less. The majority of the women inmates had been incarcerated long enough to have knowledge about the on-going correctional staff-to-inmate sexual victimization dating back two decades in their state correctional system (DOJ, 2014).
Women Inmates’ Awareness of and Experiences with Sexual Victimization
The first research question asked: “What were women inmates’ knowledge of and experiences with sexual victimization?” Sexual victimization includes rape; sexual assault (i.e., fondling, forced performance of sexual acts, unwanted touching); and sexual harassment (e.g., repeated sexualized language, sexualized observations). The majority (52%) reported that they knew of incidents of sexual victimization that were reported. Only two incarcerated women admitted to being sexually assaulted and going through the reporting process. Sixty percent of the participants disclosed that during their incarceration period, they knew of someone who had been sexually victimized. The majority of the women who reported no sexual victimization experience believed their pertinacious efforts (e.g., avoiding blind spots, having another inmate present when approaching a correctional officer, de-feminizing themselves to avert attention) protected them from abuse.
The majority of the women interviewed thought that PREA had only been passed in 2014 after the state DOC implemented PREA changes mandated by the DOJ investigation. Therefore, they shared their perceptions of and experiences with sexual victimization that had taken place before the federal government came to a settlement agreement with the state DOC. When asked what she knew about sexual victimization at the women’s maximum security prison, Marsha, a 59-year-old white and Native American inmate who has served 19 years’ life sentence for a DUI murder, spoke of her early years of incarceration: “You know, I was here when it [the Prison Rape Elimination Act] was talked about a few years ago. When I first came to prison some almost 20 years ago, there was a lot of um, prison rapes and sexual violations and stuff that was just swept under the rug.”
During the on-site investigations by NIC (2012) and DOJ (2014), several correctional officers admitted to using sexualized and offensive language, engaging in sexual harassment and sexually inappropriate touching, forcibly kissing women inmates, writing sexually explicit notes to inmates, and lingering in bathroom areas when women were showering. While the NIC (2012) investigation noted that the warden of the women’s maximum security prison reported a “knock and announce” policy in use before male staff could enter the bathroom areas, NIC staff, during their on-site visit, observed male correctional officers entering bathroom areas without announcing their presence. The women inmates expressed feelings of fear and anxiety for both physical and non-physical sexual contact. They described a prison environment that was particularly bothersome when male correctional officers appeared in their living quarters and bathrooms. Olivia, a 54-year old white inmate serving a 25-year sentence for domestic murder, explained how women inmates felt they were sexually violated by correctional officers even when there was no physical contact: “they [correctional officers] openly watched us take showers and do our business in the bathrooms even when they were not on bathroom watch duty. They just stared at us like we were on display.”
The women who had been incarcerated at the women’s maximum security prison before the DOJ investigation spoke about correctional officers openly propositioning women for sexual favors in exchange for contrabands, privileges, or/and basic hygiene products. Correctional staff, according to the interviewees, provided women with cell phones, make-up, fresh fruit, toiletries, and other illegal goods to get them to comply with their sexual advances. Their actions in choosing some of the women as “favorites” led to jealousy and social ostracism among the inmate population. Some inmates perceived reporting sexual abuse as “rocking the boat” and, therefore, harassed or became hostile to other inmates who reported acts of sexual misconduct. The manipulation and control of scarce but often desired privileges and contraband items made some women compete for the status of being “favorites” and to engage in what some erroneously interpreted as consensual sexual relationships. “Inconsistent application of facility rules and disciplinary sanctions caused many of the women prisoners to believe that acceding to staff sexual abuse will engender improved treatment” (DOJ, 2014, p. 3). Some women inmates, however, did not fully understand that inmates cannot consent to sexual relationships as denoted by Marsha, “A lot of it [sexual victimization] was overwhelming because in all reality, they were really having consensual relationships with the officer.”
The most well-known cases of abuse were the highly publicized cases that resulted in prosecutorial indictments. DOJ’s (2014) investigation identified 36 of the 99 correctional employees employed at the maximum security prison as having sexual relations with the women inmates (p. 8), resulting in six convictions (two jail sentences and four probation sentences) (Kelsey, 2014; Toney, 2014). Many of the women felt that punitive measures imposed on correctional officers who were indicted on sexual misconduct charges were at best minimum and, in some cases, nonexistent for staff who were reassigned to other correctional facilities. Institutional failure to investigate reported cases of sexual victimization created feelings of uncertainty and intensified women’s fear of retaliation when they continued to be supervised by correctional staff members who sexually violated them. Carrie Anne, a 30-year old white inmate serving a 20 split 5-year sentence for trafficking marijuana, expressed her concern: “Yes, and there’s always the possibility that the investigation um, doesn’t result in the removal of the aggressor, depending on how the cards fall and what’s said, and it’s your word against their word at the end of the day, and then you’re left in this facility living with an aggressor that you don’t have any sort of protection from. And that’s a pretty reasonable concern for us cause we can’t get out.”
The abuse disclosed in the interviews ranged from correctional officers’ watching inmates shower to rape that led to a pregnancy and a covered-up abortion. The DOJ (2014) report detailed how a woman inmate was raped by an officer and gave birth to his child (p. 10). Further, between 2007 and 2011, EJI reported that they “received numerous complaints from women who became pregnant after being raped by male correctional staff” (p. 1). Consequently, DOJ acknowledged that rape statistics compiled by the prison were likely to be underreported because of the nature and amount of sexual misconduct that occurred. One of the six correctional officers who, “raped and got a woman pregnant should have done more time for what he did to her,” as expressed by Patty, a 48-year old white inmate who has been incarcerated for 21 years on a 40-year murder conviction. Further, Patty recalls how correctional officers took advantage of the young inmate who was on antipsychotic medications by raping her, with the rape resulted in a pregnancy. Upon learning that the young inmate was pregnant, according to Patty, the correctional staff took her to the hospital to perform an abortion under the false pretense of removing a tumor. Patty openly expressed her dismay with the sexual assault of the young inmate: “[T]hat made me feel some kind of way, um, about what they did to her, knowing she wasn’t really in her right mind, mentally. And she accepted what they did, um, either out of fear, her mental state, or just ignorance, not realizing what they were really doing. Because they kept her medicated a lot and that bothered me for a long time because that to me is inhumane. The sad thing about it, it wasn’t just one officer involved who raped her. Those other officers who was there pretended they didn’t know nothing. To play with someone’s life like that.”
Barriers to Reporting Sexual Victimization
The second research question was, “What barriers did the women inmates encounter in reporting incidents of sexual misconduct?” Although 52% of them revealed knowledge of incidents of sexual victimization that were reported, prior to the PREA guidelines implementation and as a consequence of the DOJ investigation, there were notable barriers to reporting. The study participants identified three key barriers to reporting incidents of sexual victimization to prison authorities: (1) stigma and gossip; (2) officer camaraderie; and (3) fear of retaliation.
Stigma and gossip
Prison gossip was a key concern for all 40 women inmates; there were no secrets in prison. Incidents of sexual victimization were gossiped about by both inmates and correctional officers, often outside of the hearing space of the women directly involved. This level of gossip impacted many women’s comfort levels in reporting sexual victimization. As expressed by the women inmates, sexual victimization incidents were sometimes openly discussed by correctional staff members. Gretchen described the level of gossip she experienced when she was involved in a sexual relationship with a correctional officer: “The thing that happened was that the correctional officer I was involved with was involved with another inmate, his, uh, lover, girlfriend, was also there. When he was fired, two officers started harassing me and making threats and telling other inmates what had happened.”
Gretchen’s narrative was substantiated by the DOJ (2014) investigative report when DOJ found that the repeated harassment and stigma label imposed on Gretchen came from two correctional officers who blamed her for the termination of the correctional officer who sexually victimized her. This led Gretchen to “suffer a panic attack and fear for her safety” (p. 18).
The stigma that surrounds sexual assault is pervasive in prison, and some of the women said they would not have reported abuse in the past due to the drama it would have caused. As Abigail, a 26-year old white inmate who was serving a 16-split-3 year sentence for robbery, observes, “It’s your circle of friends that always understand, but outside your friends, women throw comments your way and say things behind your back stirring up trouble. Just one thing can put you as an outcast in here your whole prison time.” According to the women inmates, oppression, overcrowded conditions, boredom, and jealousy were identified as contributory factors to prison gossip. Carrie-Anne described her perception of stigma surrounding reporting: “I am not sure stigma related to reporting will ever be fully removed, because we live in such a crowded environment where everybody knows everybody’s business.” The absence of confidentiality in reporting sexual victimization damages one’s reputation, leading to years of stigma in an oppressed environment.
Officer camaraderie
Correctional officers’ brotherhood helped mask the sexual victimization within the maximum security prison. Correctional officers, both those who were directly involved in the incidents of sexual victimization and those who were not, were aware of the sexualized environment. However, the adherence to a culture of brotherhood facilitated a cover-up of sexual abuse for over two decades. Therefore, when sexual victimization was reported, the reports were not taken seriously; correctional officers did not believe the inmates, or the reports were ignored. Sheri, a white inmate who is serving a 25-year sentence for robbery, expressed concern that sexual victimization reports were not taken seriously: “you know, some correctional officers did not believe us when we reported what was going on. You know, back then, [before the PREA changes], they [correctional officers] would just be like, Well, you know we know how you girls roll. We know that you probably allowed it. Now that you feel uncomfortable about a certain situation, you want to say it’s assault.” JoAnn, a 56-year old white and Native American inmate who has served 15 years of a 20-year sentence for theft of property, described the uncertainty of reporting behaviors because the women may have to report to the officer who perpetrated or helped facilitate acts of sexual abuse: “It was a hell hole. There’s so much crap that goes on in that facility you could not believe. Um, they need to shut it down and re-do the whole thing because, there’s stuff that goes on that’s not reported. It’s like when you report the abuse, you are reporting the abuse to the same officer that did it to you because the other officer you report to is going to tell the officer that assaulted you in the first place. It was a no win situation.”
Women inmates who had been incarcerated in the maximum-security prison during the heightened time period of the abuse and the beginning of the external investigations remembered the tense prison atmosphere as many correctional officers began to disclose information on each other, fearing the sanctions for being aware of sexual misconduct incidents but not taking procedural actions to initiate an investigation. In contrast, correctional officers who were not directly involved in acts of sexual misconduct found themselves inadvertently facing collateral damage which often involved reassignment to another correctional facility. Marsha recalls a sexual assault investigation that occurred while she was at another women’s minimum security facility, involving a correctional officer transfer: “a lot of inmates were mad because a couple of officers were good officers, but they knew about it [sexual assaults], so they [correctional administrators] did the tests [polygraph tests] to show that they knew about it, so they were removed as well.”
While the prison environment was characterized as being “toxic and highly sexualized,” by the women’s own admission not all correctional officers engaged in sexual misconduct. Some of the women inmates expressed gratitude for correctional officers who treated them with humanity. Kendra, a 27-year old white inmate serving a 16-year sentence for chemical endangerment of a child noted that, “I trust the officers. I’m pretty close with some of them, so I trust them. I would go talk to them about anything that was going on, even if it didn’t concern me and it was somebody else I saw being abused.” Some women evaluated trust in the context of correctional officers’ being consistent and fair in their interactions with women inmates. This point was expressed by Marisol, a 54-year old inmate who has served 17 years on a life sentence for murder when she stated, “you do build trust with certain officers. Like, especially the officers that are the same day in and day out. Those that say what they mean and they mean what they say.”
Fear of retaliation
Another major hurdle the women inmates faced was retaliation after reporting sexual misconduct. Retaliation ranged from denial of basic necessities to placement in administrative segregation. Gretchen explained her experience with reprisal after she reported a sexual assault to prison authorities in the maximum-security prison: “The thing that happened was that the correctional officer I was involved with was involved with another inmate, his, uh, lover, girlfriend, was also there. When he was fired, two officers started harassing me and making threats and telling other inmates what had happened. All my evidence [of the sexual assault] was just turned over to the grand jury. I don’t know when and I don’t know if they threw it out, I don’t know anything about the outcome. They said that he has a right to privacy, but at the same time, I don’t have any privacy. Everybody knows what he did to me because the officers and the inmates talked about the situation. They need to get better at telling us what happened to this person in his job as well as criminally.”
The majority (67%) of the respondents, however, expressed disappointment in victimized women not being informed by correctional administrators about the outcome of the reported incidents of sexual misconduct. The EJI (2012) investigative report substantiated this perception with the finding that, “women who are sexually abused by correctional officers are not informed of the results of investigations conducted by the DOC, even when the claims of sexual abuse are substantiated and formal action is taken to terminate the officer” (p. 2). Gretchen wrote several letters to the state DOC asking to be informed about the outcome of her case before she was told by the correctional administration that the correctional officer who sexually assaulted her had been fired. Further, Gretchen recalls the institutional retaliation she suffered for reporting her victimization and “stirring up trouble” as perceived by some correctional officers. She requested protective custody placement, but her request was denied and she was detained in the dormitory where one of the officers who had threatened her remained on duty. Fearing retaliation, “this prisoner, [Gretchen], who has a history of self-injurious behavior, cut her arm because of the stress and was transferred to suicide watch. The matter was not investigated further” (DOJ, 2014, p. 18). Gretchen recalls how the correctional officers at the facility learned about her sexual assault investigation and, consequently, harassed her and withheld personal hygiene supplies and her medically-approved eyeglasses for 5 days.
The women inmates also disclosed that those who were placed in administrative segregation after reporting sexual assaults were further punished by not having access to programs and privileges normally available in the general inmate population. Most importantly, women placed in segregation sometimes experienced further abuse by correctional officers who had access to them behind windowless, solid doors that housed the segregation units. The placement of women in segregation was substantiated by the DOJ (2014) investigations revealing that, “Prison officials discourage prisoner reporting of sexual abuse due to actual and perceived retaliation against individuals who make allegations. Immediately after making allegations, women inmates were often placed in segregation and given lie detector tests” (p. 4). “While in segregation, these women are treated no differently from women held there for punitive reasons; they are deprived of telephone, mail, and visit privileges and have no access to recreation, programs, or work assignments” (EJI, 2012, p. 2).
The inherent power differentiation between correctional staff and inmates creates a sense of powerless and fear of retaliation for reporting or complaining about acts of sexual victimization. The practice of placing in segregation women who reported sexual victimization only served to further exacerbate their feelings of powerlessness and to silence them.
Tina, a 41-year-old white inmate who has served 7 years of a 20-year sentence for drug trafficking experienced inappropriate sexual advances by a correctional officer. She recalls a threatening exchange she had with a sergeant: “[A] Sergeant came to me with the officer that I had the problem with that was harassing me and touching me and saying things to me. The officer was like, ‘I don’t even talk to that lady,’ and the sergeant was like ‘well, you know what’s going to happen. We’re going to put you in seg for God knows how long, and you’re going to have to sit there’ and I’m like [throws hands up] thinking about going home, and I’m like being threatened to be locked up for reporting something. So I said ‘you know what, its fine, forget I said anything and I just turned around and walked off.’ The officer still stayed there for awhile after being reported several times by other inmates but I eventually stopped seeing him so I guess he’s at a men’s camp now. I don’t know how he’s still has a job but the sergeant got caught actually, in the process of having sex with an inmate and was fired. This is the same sergeant that came and confronted me, I guess they were buddies and had a thing going on to protect each other.”
The placement of women in administrative segregation was not the only form of perceived retaliation narrated by the women and supported by investigative reports. For some, the reporting of abuse placed them on a trajectory to transfer to another but unfamiliar women’s facility. Before the DOJ settlement agreement, it was commonplace for the inmate who reported the abuse to be transferred to another women’s facility while the perpetrator remained at the facility in which the sexual assault took place. Many women perceived this administrative action as an additional punishment for reporting the abuse and a way to silence them. The stress of deciding whether or not to report an incident of sexual assault is still present for many women. Some affirmed that the drama caused by an investigation and the stigma that still surrounds sexual assault are not worth the risk of reporting. One participant indicated that if she was assaulted, she would just “chalk it up to the game” and move on for fear of retaliation. These women felt that they had no legal recourse within the prison because correctional officers were going to support each other and, after all, as some of the inmates declared, “we are just inmates.”
Women Inmates’ Experiences with PREA Modifications
The third research question was, “What are incarcerated women’s perceptions of and experiences with the post-DOJ mandated PREA changes?” After the DOJ settlement agreement, the DOC began to implement mandated PREA guidelines. In explaining how far women’s facilities have progressed in protecting women inmates from sexual victimization, Diana stated, “at this facility we are able to build a trusting relationship with certain officers, especially the officers who do their job by the book. Those the officers you learn to trust.” The most noted areas of changes identified that increased women inmates’ trust in the reporting system and correction staff were: (1) institutional physical changes and (2) correctional staff attitudinal changes.
Physical changes
The physical changes made to the prison and minimum security facilities as mandated by the DOJ settlement agreement were substantial (see United States of American, Plaintiff, v. The State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections, 2015). The installation of shower curtains, bathroom stall partitions, operable cameras, and PREA phones; the strategic posting of PREA flyers around the women’s facilities; the requirement that male correctional officers announce themselves before walking into women’s living quarters; and the visibility of an institutional PREA officer were changes mandated by the settlement agreement. The cameras provided a safety-net for many women who wanted to come forward about the abuse, but were afraid that correctional officers would not believe them. Many women expressed gratitude that the installation of stalls and shower curtains in bathrooms reduced their anxiety level when performing bodily functions. Further, all 40 women expressed relief that inmates who reported incidents of sexual misconduct were no longer placed in segregation.
Attitudinal changes
The physical changes were only part of the positive impact women observed after the DOC implemented the mandated PREA changes in all women’s facilities in the state. All expressed feelings of liberation that PREA guidelines were now being taken seriously and correctional staff was more empathetic to investigating sexual assault reports. One of the ponderous changes implemented was the introduction of PREA training for both inmates and staff. While the women inmates’ accounts of the thoroughness of the PREA training varied, most women indicated that the PREA video was incorporated in orientation. The women noted a great difference in the calmness of the environment as well as the professionalism of the correctional officers who interacted with them daily. Many women praised the current warden of the facility; they recognized him as being the moving force of PREA changes that were implemented and the persistence with which correctional staff followed the PREA guidelines. Kendra voiced her feelings about trusting correctional staff when she stated: “I feel like I can trust the officers and the warden at this facility [facility where the interviews took place]. The warden exhibits the behavior that he wants his inmates to have and this warden, I can trust him. He’s followed his word, he’s by the book, so I can trust him. And that shows throughout his staff; he runs his facility well.”
Further, many women claim that the minimum security facility in which the research was conducted was “like heaven” compared to the other women’s facilities in the state. The women praised the Institutional PREA Officer for her sensitivity, professionalism, and the impartial approach she takes in following through on any reports made against staff or inmates in a timely manner. Lindsay, a 36-year-old white inmate who has served 5 years on a 10-yaear sentence for manufacturing drugs says, “Our Sarge [Institutional PREA Officer] that’s in charge, she’s very down to earth, she’s not very judgmental, she lets you know she cares. She wants you to know reporting abuse is important, and that she will follow through on grievances and reported incidents of abuse. We now feel that we have a voice.” These changes, as stated by the majority of the women inmates, solidified their trust in correctional officers (at the current minimum-security facility) to investigate incidents of sexual victimization in congruence with PREA guidelines.
Discussion
Research on the sexual victimization of women inmates by correctional staff is limited despite measurable documentation that sexual assault occurs in carceral settings. When correctional staff perpetrates acts of sexual misconduct, the reporting process can become complicated and retaliatory. Women’s empowerment to report incidents of sexual victimization at the risk of retaliation lead them to reach beyond the prison walls to disclose the widespread abuse to families and friends. However, it is the lack of confidentiality in reporting incidents of sexual assaults in prison that impacts the degree to which acts of sexual victimization are reported. Consistent with other scholarship (Dumond, 2000; Fedock et al., 2016; Hensley et al., 2003; Man & Cronan, 2001), the women inmates in the present study perceived the placement of alleged victims of sexual misconduct into protective custody as a form of retaliation and a violation of confidentiality. As an alternative policy, perhaps correctional administrations could create a safe-keeping space for alleged victims, one that does not attach the punitive measures of deprivation or re-victimization. It is evident that deprivation and isolation will, for some alleged victims, intensify emotional and mental distress.
Institutional policies against prison rape and sexual assault represent important steps toward rape prevention and improving the effectiveness of correctional officers’ supervision (Moster & Jeglic, 2009). As well, the provision of a safe environment (Hensley, 2002) and hiring more and effectively trained correctional staff (Struckman-Johnson et al., 2013) have also been documented as administrative changes that reduce sexual victimization. Careful correctional staff screening procedures are vital to hiring staff who are committed to fairness, legitimacy, human decency, and the enforcement of institutional rules that suppress toxic and sexualized prison environments (Kubiak et al., 2017). Gender sensitivity education, trauma-informed training, and gender-specific classification systems (Najavits, 2002) that capture pre-prison traumatic experiences are also important steps in altering the prison’s culture and climate and staff-to-inmate interactions. As noted by other scholars (Najavits, 2002; Wolff et al., 2009) and investigative reports (DOJ, 2014; NIC, 2012), it is critical for correctional administrators to mandate on-going sexual awareness training to correctional officers and inmates, especially when male correctional officers make up almost one-half of the correctional staff in female prisons (Piecora, 2014). Sexual assault education, inclusive of PREA guidelines, should be an essential part of prison orientation for newly admitted inmates. Even involving inmates as peer-leaders in peer-directed educational awareness of sexual misconduct and what constitutes sexual misconduct may disrupt and prevent the sexual exploitation of inmates by correctional staff (Fowler et al., 2010; Sisco & Becker, 2007).
In the absence of force, coercion, threats, or intimidation, correctional staff and inmates may define the sexual relations as consensual. As pointed out by Gaes and Goldberg (2004), “any kind of social activity inside of prison, other than sanctioned conjugal visits, violates prison rules” (pp. 51–52). It is critical for correctional staff to understand that consent is not a defense for correctional officers who engage in sexual relations with inmates (United States Department of Justice, 2005). Although the findings bring to light the continued problem of sexual victimization in prison in spite of PREA guidelines, the study is not without limitations. One limitation is the small sample size which limits the generalizability of the findings. Larger samples may capture a broader range of sexual assault and reporting experiences. Another potential limitation is that some inmates may have been reluctant to openly admit to being sexually victimized. It is not uncommon for inmates to be hesitant to disclose sexual victimization (Gaes & Goldberg, 2004; Miller, 2010) in survey research and, perhaps, some inmates may be even less likely to indicate victimization in face-to-face interviews. It is possible that the women inmates who revealed that they knew someone who had been sexually victimized were victimized themselves, but failed to disclose their victimization. Understandably, some of the women participants may have felt uncomfortable or fearful of disclosing their victimization to an unknown researcher (Eigenberg, 2000), especially for those who have years to serve in prison.
Conclusion
External investigations by national and local organizations in this state’s correctional system brought abuse behind prison walls to the forefront. Mandated PREA changes to address and prevent sexual victimization were introduced supporting the introduction of an effective reporting and investigation system. Further research is needed to ascertain the longevity of the implemented, mandated changes from injunctive relief. While the women inmates were satisfied with the mandated PREA changes implemented in the minimum-security facility where they were currently housed, on-going monitoring of the prison environment is necessary to ensure that correctional staff-to-inmate sexual misconduct does not resurface as a natural part of the prison environment.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Alabama Department of Corrections for the opportunity to conduct the research study. We express gratitude to the Warden, DOC administrators, and administrative staff for organization support. Special thanks to the women who shared their stories with the researchers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.