Incarcerated Women’s Experiences of Staff-Perpetrated Rape: Racial Disparities and Justice Gaps in Institutional Responses

Abstract

Within correctional settings, incarcerated women have disproportionately high rates of experiencing staff-perpetrated sexual victimization. In addition, only a small proportion of incarcerated women formally report their victimization experiences to correctional staff and even fewer reports are fully investigated by internal investigators and found to be substantiated. Given the multiple steps in this process, incarcerated women face several possible justice gaps in receiving preventive and intervention-focused responses from correctional staff. Racial differences among incarcerated women’s experiences of these steps have not been explored. This study used a structural intersectional framework to examine racial differences in these areas: incarcerated women’s experiences of staff-perpetrated rape, reporting decisions, and correctional staff’s investigation decisions. With a sample of 180 incarcerated women, this study included analysis of archival data (i.e., settlement claim forms and internal investigation files) from a class action lawsuit involving incarcerated women who had experienced staff sexual misconduct. Black women represented over half of the incarcerated women who experienced staff-perpetrated rape. There were no statistical differences between Black and White women with regard to the characteristics of their victimization experiences, and they had similar rates of reporting their victimization to institutional staff. However, significant differences were found between women with regard to prison staff’s responses to their reports; Black women were less likely to have their reports investigated by staff and were more likely to have their investigated reports found to be unsubstantiated. A detailed analysis of 100 specific incidents showed similar findings. Thus, while justice gaps existed for all women, gaps in institutional responses were exacerbated for Black women. Centering incarcerated Black women’s experiences is pivotal for guiding efforts to transform correctional settings, to prevent and address staff-perpetrated sexual victimization, and to build safety for incarcerated women.

Keywords

female offenders sexual assault reporting/disclosure women offenders

Within correctional settings in the United States, incarcerated women disproportionately experience staff-on-inmate sexual victimization. Whereas women comprise only 7% of prison inmates, 33% of victims of staff-perpetrated sexual victimization in prisons are women (Beck, Rantala, & Rexroat, 2014). Of additional concern, only 8% of women’s experiences of staff-perpetrated sexual victimization are estimated to be formally reported (Kubiak, Brenner, Bybee, Campbell, & Fedock, 2018). According to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards in the United States, all reports of staff sexual misconduct should be investigated by prison staff (e.g., internal investigation staff) and determined through the investigation process to be unfounded, unsubstantiated, or substantiated. These investigation determinations are reported annually in the Survey of Sexual Victimization by the Bureau of Justice as part of the PREA activities. Thus, internal investigation determinations shape national prevalence rates and guide efforts to understand, address, and prevent staff sexual misconduct. While community-based research has examined decision-making processes by criminal-legal actors (e.g., Spohn & Tellis, 2018), criminal justice processes within prisons, particularly staff’s decisions regarding internal investigations of staff sexual misconduct, are in need of examination and scrutiny.

In addition to the disproportionately high rates of staff sexual misconduct for women, racial disparities exist and are exacerbated within U.S. women’s prisons, with racial dynamics replicating and intensifying forms of exclusion, loss, and harm found in women’s preprison communities (Owen, Wells, & Pollock, 2017). These racial disparities are commonly described as manifestations of the systemic racism embedded within the criminal justice system that are facilitated by criminal–legal actors’ implicit racial bias, including White favoritism, and overt racist attitudes and actions (Richardson, 2016; Richie, 2012; Smith, Levinson, & Robinson, 2014). While staff sexual misconduct has been described by legal scholars as racialized gender-based violence by the state (Giller, 2003; Smith, 2005), there is a dire need for research with a structural intersectional analytical framework, empirically examining incarcerated women’s experiences with power dynamics within the criminal justice system and identifying racialized patterns of institutional exclusion (Potter, 2013). Existing research has not explored racial differences among incarcerated women in terms of their experiences of staff sexual misconduct and investigation decisions by prison staff in response to their experiences. A major barrier is the lack of access to prison-based data, such as internal investigation data. The current study included women’s formal reports of staff-perpetrated rape and internal investigation materials obtained as part of a class action lawsuit involving incarcerated women who experienced staff-perpetrated sexual victimization. In addition, we examined differences in Black and White incarcerated women’s experiences of victimization, reporting, and internal investigation responses. We conclude with implications for efforts for eradicating staff sexual misconduct.

Background

In the United States, any sexual contact between staff and prisoners is prohibited by most states’ criminal laws and correctional facilities’ policies, with all acts considered nonconsensual due to the power differential (Beck, Berzofsky, Caspar, & Krebs, 2013). However, staff sexual misconduct accounts for more than half of all sexual victimization incidents experienced by adults in correctional settings (Rantala, 2018). Staff sexual misconduct encompasses a range of sexual acts, including oral, anal, or vaginal penetration and inappropriate touching, as well as privacy violations, indecent exposure, sexual harassment, inappropriate and invasive prisoner pat-downs or touching, and other sexual acts (Beck et al., 2013). These forms of staff sexual misconduct occur with a “continuum of coercion” (Owen, Wells, Pollock, Muscat, & Torres, 2008, p. 46), which includes staff tactics of presenting romantic interest, exchanging sexual acts for resources, and using physical violence. Although prohibitive laws and policies exist, staff sexual misconduct persists within women’s prisons and has not decreased over time (Beck et al., 2014).

Staff sexual misconduct has been ignored and even accepted within correctional institutions due to a variety of factors, including the conceptualization of it as an inevitable aspect of punishment and correctional deprivation, practices and conditions that dehumanize incarcerated populations, an incorporation of rape myths into correctional processes, and the insidious embedment of racialized and gendered disparities into daily practices (Brenner, Darcy, Fedock, & Kubiak, 2016; Buchanan, 2007; Giller, 2003; Labelle, 2008; Man & Cronan, 2001). Scholars have advocated for using an intersectionality framework for examining and understanding criminal justice processes and sexual violence (Chesney-Lind, 2006; Crenshaw, 2012). Intersectionality is a framework that guides analyses of the power dynamics related to the intersections of identity factors, including gender and race, and structural intersectionality refers to the ways in which institutions harm and disadvantage those with multiple marginalized identities, particularly women of color (Crenshaw, 1991; Parker & Hefner, 2015). Crenshaw (2012) identified how racial minority women involved in the criminal justice system are “over-policed and under-protected” (p. 1419), and this characterization may extend to women within correctional settings experiencing staff sexual misconduct. Structural intersectionality as a framework suggests that incarcerated Black women may experience higher rates of institutional violence within prisons due to their race and gender social identities and particularly may face barriers and exclusion to institutional responses to their experiences of sexual victimization (Crenshaw, 1991). Using structural intersectionality theory as a foundation, this study centers race and gender and focuses on how these factors are associated with power dynamics within correctional settings and may affect women’s experiences of staff sexual misconduct.

Race, Gender, and Staff Sexual Misconduct

Race and gender are key factors for understanding the prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of staff sexual misconduct for incarcerated women (Buchanan, 2007; Human Rights Watch, 1996). As correctional facilities operate as gendered organizations (Zaitzow & Thomas, 2003), women also experience gendered forms of harassment and victimization (e.g., derogatory language such as “bitch” and justifications of abuse based on label of “whore”) that are amplified by unequal power dynamics between men and women and the within-prison statuses of inmate and officer (Buchanan, 2007). Institutional tolerance and system disregard for women’s experiences of staff sexual misconduct have conveyed an acceptance of degrading treatment for this population, furthering gendered stereotypes and myths about women deserving of such abuse (Human Rights Watch, 1996). These dynamics are exacerbated for incarcerated Black women and situated within the context of a legacy of state(-sanctioned) ownership and objectification of Black women’s bodies (Haley, 2016). Historically and currently, Black women have experienced rape and sexual violence by police officers, correctional officers, and other criminal–legal actors as forms of state violence without adequate protection from state actors after reporting this violence (Haley, 2016; Ritchie, 2017). Thus, research regarding staff sexual misconduct requires intersectional analyses to capture the institutional power dynamics linked to sexism and racism.

In terms of prevalence, disproportionately higher representation has been found for incarcerated women, compared with incarcerated men, in national data for staff sexual misconduct. Approximately, one in three victims of sexually abusive contact in prisons and jails is a woman, despite women comprising less than 15% of the incarceration population (Beck et al., 2014). Similarly, racial minority prisoners also have a higher rate of staff-perpetrated sexual victimization. Analysis of data from the National Survey of Inmates (2011-2012) estimated the proportions of Black, Hispanic, and multiracial prisoners who experienced staff sexual misconduct were up to 2.4 times greater than the proportion of non-Hispanic White prisoners who had been victimized (Beck et al., 2013). However, these national reports provide estimates of staff sexual misconduct by gender, race, and age separately, with limited information regarding prevalence across overlapping identities, such as comparisons of women by race (Beck et al., 2013; Beck et al., 2014).

Race, Gender, and Reporting

Incarcerated adults have to formally report their experiences of staff-perpetrated sexual victimization to receive intervention from prison staff to prevent the abuse from reoccurring (Kubiak, Brenner, Bybee, Campbell, & Fedock, 2018; National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report, 2009). Multiple factors influence decisions to formally report staff sexual misconduct (Kubiak, Brenner, Bybee, Campbell, Cummings, Darcy, Fedock, & Goodman-Williams, 2017). Correctional facilities are unique, specific contexts that function as total institutions (e.g., confined spaces that operate with their own sets of norms, rules, and regulations), with a heightened risk for violence and abuse as a form of control (Goffman, 1961; Hearn & Parkin, 2001). Incarcerated adults within jails, prisons, and special correctional facilities are restricted in their reporting practices, given that they have to rely on internal correctional staff to report sexual victimization, including for staff sexual misconduct; in other words, incarcerated adults have to report to correctional staff regarding staff-perpetrated rape. One common form of formal reporting within correctional settings is filing a grievance, and the exact policies for formal reporting vary across facilities, regarding factors such as time limitations (e.g., within 48 hr of the incident), required actions, method, and content (Kubiak et al., 2018; Owen et al., 2008). Of concern, only an estimated 8% of incidents of sexual victimization are formally reported to correctional staff (Rantala, Rexroat, & Beck, 2014).

Given the unequal power dynamics between incarcerated adults and correctional staff, specific factors may influence this low rate of reporting. Women in prison who have reported staff sexual misconduct have described extensive retaliation from correctional officers, such as loss of jobs, placement in segregation, and physical violence (Culley, 2012; Human Rights Watch, 1998; Kubiak, Hanna, & Balton, 2005). In addition, threats of staff retaliation have prevented them from reporting staff sexual misconduct (Culley, 2012; Human Rights Watch, 1998; Kubiak et al., 2005; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2002). Existing research has explored hypothetical reporting practices for incarcerated adults (i.e., what they think they would do if they experienced staff sexual misconduct) and has found racial differences; Black incarcerated adults have expressed more willingness to report a prison rape than White incarcerated adults (Fowler, Blackburn, Marquart, & Mullings, 2010; Garland & Wilson, 2013). However, existing research has not examined racial differences among incarcerated women in terms of actual reporting decisions for experiences of staff sexual misconduct.

Race, Gender, and Correctional Responses to Reports

Once an incident of staff sexual misconduct is reported within a prison, correctional staff decide if a reported allegation is credible enough to investigate and whether to proceed through subsequent investigative and administrative steps. Staff decisions to investigate include a “window of discretion” with the potential for disparities, especially related to race and gender, in institutional responses to arise (Engen, Gainey, Crutchfield, & Weis, 2003). Correctional staff’s discretion in decisions to investigate claims is explained in PREA training materials as influenced by the culture of the institution, agency ethics, the “code of silence” between employees, and other institutional dynamics aspects (Thigpen et al., 2010). For example, correctional staff have denied incarcerated adults grievance forms, have failed to file their reports, and have not adequately investigated reports (Buchanan, 2007). While racial disparities permeate the criminal justice system’s processes, an examination of racial differences among incarcerated women’s experiences of institutional decisions for investigations of staff sexual misconduct is still missing.

If an investigation occurs, internal investigators determine whether the reported incident did not occur (i.e., unfounded), whether there is not enough information to determine whether it occurred or not (i.e., unsubstantiated), or whether evidence exists to show that it did occur (i.e., substantiated). Based on national reports, in 2011, only 12.4% of reports of staff sexual misconduct in prisons were substantiated, 55.1% were unsubstantiated, and 32.5% were unfounded (Beck et al., 2014). Substantiated cases drive measures to increase safety within the institution, such as disciplinary or legal action against staff. While the number of reports has significantly increased, this rate of substantiated cases has not changed since 2005 (Beck et al., 2014). The unfounded finding does not equate to a false report according to PREA standards (PREA, 2012).

Decades of research have spotlighted “justice gaps” that contribute to sexual assault cases being underreported and underinvestigated within the community and, ultimately, resulting in poor outcomes such as a lack of arrest (Lonsway & Archambault, 2012). These justice gaps often serve to reinforce existing inequalities based on race and gender (Frohmann, 1991; Sandefur, 2008). For example, victims of sexual assault in community settings who are Black are more likely to be blamed for their victimization by police, experience fewer investigative actions, and receive an arrest and/or referral outcome than White victims (Shaw, Campbell, & Cain, 2016). These findings illuminate how the criminal justice system is a “hierarchy-enhancing institution [that responds] in a way that maintains the status quo” (Shaw et al., 2016, p. 459). However, no existing research has investigated racial differences in institutional responses to incarcerated women’s reports of staff sexual misconduct, which are aspects of gaining correctional-based justice.

Current Study

With a structural intersectionality framework, this current study investigated racial differences among incarcerated women’s experiences of staff sexual misconduct. Racial differences are understood as representations of structural inequalities (Cho, Crenshaw, & McCall, 2013). This study incorporated data from a class action lawsuit involving more than 800 incarcerated women who experienced staff sexual misconduct and included details of women’s experiences, reporting decisions, and institutional investigation files for their reports. This investigation examined discrepancies between Black and White incarcerated women’s experiences to identify justice gaps and disparities in responses by correctional staff. The following research question guided this study:

Research Question 1: Are there differences between White and Black incarcerated women’s experiences of staff-perpetrated rape, reporting decisions, and institutional responses to their reports?

Method

This study used data from the class action litigation, Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). This lawsuit included 809 women within Michigan prisons who experienced sexual misconduct by male correctional staff from 1996 until 2009 and resulted in a settlement of US$100 million to the class members from the state. Information about the lawsuit, including the formation of the class, is detailed in existing publications (Culley, 2012; Kubiak et al., 2017; Kubiak et al., 2018). The archival data were provided by the attorneys who litigated the case to the researchers. Women were notified by the lead attorney that their legal files would be subject to research and were provided an option to have their case file removed. All of the methods for this study were reviewed and approved by a university-based institutional review board.

Sample

This study focused on a subsample of women who participated in the class action lawsuit and who experienced vaginal, oral, anal, and/or digital penetration by male staff. This victimization was categorized by the attorneys as the most severe victimization experienced by women (n = 191, 24% of the overall class). Their victimization experiences were viewed as incidents of rape that could not be misinterpreted as actions within the domain of a correctional officer’s legitimate duties (e.g., body pat-down). Of the 191 women considered for inclusion, we were able to extract data for 180 women; the data for the remaining women were missing or the women had opted out of the research study. The women’s racial identities were based on categories used within the Department of Corrections (i.e., “White” and “Black”). The experiences of these 180 women were examined to investigate differences among White and Black incarcerated women’s experiences of staff sexual misconduct and their reporting decisions. To explore women’s experiences of investigation and investigation outcomes, data from only women who formally reported their experiences of staff sexual misconduct to prison staff (n = 100) were examined, and they were all identified as White or Black women.

Setting

During the class action lawsuit and litigation period, three prisons housed women within the state: a multi-security-level prison that all women were sent to upon conviction, a minimum security prison, and a prerelease minimum security prison for women prior to discharge. However, the specific institutional configurations and locations, as well as the staff operating within, changed as the department closed facilities and consolidated women into one location, a multi-security-level prison. A majority (110 out of 180, 61.1%) of women’s incidents of staff-perpetrated sexual victimization occurred within multi-security-level prisons.

Data Sources

Three different types of archival records and one public access database were used to triangulate data sources, particularly for investigation-related information: (a) settlement claim forms completed by the women, (b) internal investigation files compiled by prison staff, and (c) miscellaneous supporting documents within the litigation case files. Legal case files were reviewed by research team members from the disciplines of law, social work, and psychology. Data collection consisted of extracting and coding relevant information contained within these data sources to obtain specific information about the victimization experiences, the women’s reporting decisions, and the institutional responses regarding investigation and outcomes.

Settlement claim forms

To be a member of the class action lawsuit, each woman filled out a settlement claim form with details regarding her victimization experiences and then the legal team reviewed the form as one step of determining class membership. Each woman was mandated to complete the form herself before providing a signature attesting that the information was true to the best of her memory, and that she understood that the form would be used in a legal proceeding. The settlement claim form contained subsections on demographics, abuse experienced (e.g., dates and location of abuse, officer who perpetrated the abuse; physical injury incurred), reporting decisions (e.g., date, to whom, and how), any action that prison staff took regarding their reports, and experiences of staff retaliation. Women were asked to provide any supporting documentation if available. The form prompted women to fill out information regarding the most severe victimization that they experienced by staff. Then, women were asked to “describe each and every claim” in their own words, attaching additional sheets if necessary. For their experiences, women indicated whether they reported the incident(s) to the department of correction and if so, to detail the report, including to whom, when, and how the report was made (e.g., in writing, grievance, verbal), as well as any action they believe the department of corrections took regarding their report.

Internal investigation files

Files compiled by the department of corrections-employed internal affairs investigator (IA) were also part of the legal materials associated with the class action that were reviewed for this study. Internal affairs investigators are hired within the department of corrections to investigate criminal activities, such as assaults and substance use, through the use of interviews, gathering evidence, and surveillance. These files contained all the evidence gathered by the IA related to the investigation, including transcriptions of interviews with the victim, alleged perpetrator, and any witnesses, physical evidence (such as log books, letters, and DNA testing results), polygraph results, and grievances or misconduct tickets related to the victimization. Internal investigators provided a final report, which summarized the evidence gathered, assessment of the weight of evidence, and justification for the ultimate finding.

Supporting documents within litigation case files

The legal case files included any additional documentation that provided evidence to support a claim and assist in settlement award allocation (e.g., copies of prison paperwork, photos, letters, and depositions). Some files contained documentation of correspondence with the woman over the phone, letters to the law office, or law office summaries of verbal interviews.

Variables

Demographics

Several demographics were included: race, age at time of victimization, presence of a life sentence, and number of years served. Women provided their correctional identification number on the settlement form, and the research team looked up women’s racial identities within the department of corrections’ publicly available administrative database. The database had limited racial identity categories, and for this study, a majority of women identified as White or Black; 42.2% (n = 76) were White women and 57.8% (n = 104) were Black women. Women’s age at the time of assault was calculated from women’s birthdates and dates of each assault/victimization. Life sentence was coded dichotomously with 0 indicating no life sentence and 1 indicating serving a life sentence. Number of years served for each woman was calculated by subtracting the date of the assault from the date the woman entered prison.

Victimization characteristics

Several variables were collected from the Settlement Claim Form and/or Litigation Case Files that characterized women’s victimization experiences. First, if women experienced staff sexual misconduct multiple times by one perpetrator, a code of “1” was given for a variable of “occurred multiple times.” Second, physical injury was coded as yes (1) or no (0) if a woman reported experiencing an injury (e.g., bruising, broken bones, sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy) as a result of any assault. Third, for each victimization experience for every woman, the type of “continuum of coercion” (Owen et al., 2008) dynamic was coded. The codes for the dynamics were four categories in alignment with women’s descriptions and with typologies depicted in prior studies (Owen et al., 2008; Smith, 2005). These typologies included (a) romantic relationship (victimization described as occurring within a relationship with mutual feelings even though the power dynamics did not allow for consent), (b) coercive control (i.e., an officer threatened negative consequence, such as job loss for not complying with the abuse), (c) resource dependency (i.e., an officer exchanged some item, such as money or food, for sex), and (d) an absence of a specific dynamic, often occurring with physical violence. These categories were transformed into dichotomous variables to capture if a woman ever experienced a penetrative victimization with this dynamic.

Retaliation by staff

On the settlement form, women indicated if they ever experienced retaliation from staff due to their reactions to the victimization, potential reporting actions, and/or decisions to report the victimization. Retaliation experiences were included within the lawsuit as patterns of retaliation were found across women’s experiences and, as documented by human rights organizations and scholars, the perception of the threat of or actual practices of staff retaliation has been a pivotal component to the ongoing nature of staff sexual abuse (e.g., Buchanan, 2007; Human Rights Watch, 1998; Kubiak et al., 2005). Thus, women’s experiences of retaliation were coded as “0” for no experiences and “1” for experiences of retaliation. Also, women were asked whether they experienced specific forms of retaliation, such as receiving a misconduct ticket or loss of parole, and each of these forms was coded as “1” for yes and “0” for no experience.

Reporting decisions

In the settlement form, women answered whether they formally reported the victimization to prison staff. Any instance of reporting to any staff member (irrespective of staff role) and using any method (i.e., oral, written letter, or formal grievance) was operationalized as the presence of formal reporting. Women could also describe if they reported multiple times for the same victimization experience.

Internal affairs investigation decisions

Two stages of internal investigation processes were examined through the Settlement Forms and the Internal Affairs investigation files. First, after women formally reported an experience of victimization, the IA staff then had to determine whether they would investigate the report. Based on both types of data, we coded “investigation” as “0” indicating no investigation occurred after a formal report, and “1” as indicating that an investigation occurred after a woman reported. Second, we included the IA’s findings based on the investigation. Investigation outcomes included unfounded (i.e., evidence that it did not occur), unsubstantiated (i.e., not enough evidence to determine whether it occurred or not), and substantiated (i.e., evidence that occurred). Dichotomous variables were created for each outcome.

Analysis

SPSS (IBM, Version 23) was used for the multiphase analysis process to understand differences between White and Black incarcerated women’s experiences. First, the data were examined by looking at all women (n = 180) and their experiences of victimization. Independent-samples t tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for dichotomous variables were conducted to examine racial differences among women. This first phase allowed for examining differences among women’s experiences overall, particularly in terms of investigating aspects that they had ever experienced staff sexual misconduct, and included women who had and had not reported their victimization experiences. For the second phase, the data were restricted to only women who reported their victimization experiences (n = 100 women) to correctional staff; this phase examined differences in women’s cumulative reporting experiences with staff sexual misconduct and internal investigation.

The third phase entailed analysis of women’s experiences surrounding specific incidents of sexual misconduct. For the women who had reported multiple incidents, one was randomly selected, resulting in a sample of 100 specific incidents that had been reported—one per a woman. Chi-square tests for categorical variables were conducted to examine racial differences in the internal investigation decisions and outcomes of these incidents. A standardized residual method was used for post hoc analysis of multicategory chi-square analyses found to be significant (Beasley & Schumacker, 1995). Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess which victimization and reporting characteristics were associated with the decision for prison staff to conduct an investigation. Finally, multivariate logistic regression models were performed with the selected victimization and reporting characteristics that should, according to the PREA, result in the decision to investigate each of the 100 incidents. Likewise, these factors, such as physical injury and reporting to a health professional, potentially could mitigate the prison-based rape myths associated with incarcerated women’s reporting, theoretically increasing the likelihood of internal investigation (Brenner, Darcy, Fedock, & Kubiak, 2016). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.

Results

Racial Differences Among Women’s Experiences of Staff Victimization

In comparing all women’s experiences (n = 180), no significant differences were found in comparing women’s demographics, victimization and retaliation experiences, and reporting decisions, as shown in Table 1. While all women had served, on average, a short period of time in prison, almost 90% of women had experienced victimization multiple times from a single correctional staff member, White women 87.7% versus Black women 86.9%; χ²(1, N = 180) = 0.02, p = .88, and some form of retaliation by staff, White women 86.8% versus Black women 81.4%; χ²(1, N = 180) = 0.96, p = .33. There were no significant differences in rates of physical injury, White women 28% versus Black women 26%; χ²(1, N = 180) = 0.09, p = .77, and reporting rates between women, with half of women reporting their victimization to prison staff, White women 53.9% versus Black women 56.7%; χ²(1, N = 180) = 0.14, p = .71.

Table 1.

Demographics, Victimization Characteristics, Retaliation Experiences, and Reporting Decisions by Race (N = 180).

	White Women (n = 76)	Black Women (n = 104)	p Value
	M (SD)/%	M (SD)/%	p Value
Demographics
Average age at time of abuse	30.72 (7.21)	30.61 (7.33)	.92
Average number of years served	2.80 (2.95)	2.92 (2.89)	.78
Average number of years left	16.54 (13.21)	16.79 (14.56)	.91
Serving a life sentence	14.5%	11.7%	.58
Victimization characteristics^a
Penetrative abuse	100%	100%
Occurred multiple times	87.7%	86.9%	.88
Physical injury	28.0%	26.0%	.77
Described as romantic	22.4%	18.4%	.54
Coercive control dynamic	32.8%	20.7%	.09
Resource dependency dynamic	20.9%	28.7%	.27
No relational element	39.2%	41.2%	.79
Retaliation experienced^b
Received misconduct ticket	45.5%	51.8%	.44
Placement in segregation	22.7%	27.7%	.49
Lost parole date/good time	18.2%	21.7%	.60
Lost work position	28.8%	18.1%	.12
Lost privileges	16.7%	18.1%	.82
Threatened harm	57.6%	62.7%	.53
Experienced any retaliation	86.8%	81.4%	.33
Reporting decisions
Reported to prison staff	53.9%	56.7%	.71
Reported outside of the prison	8.1%	6.9%	.77

These characteristics were present for at least one penetrative incident of staff sexual misconduct experienced by each woman.

These retaliation experiences occurred during at least one experience of staff sexual misconduct.

Racial Differences Among Women’s Experiences of Investigation Outcomes

Racial differences were examined in how women reported their experiences of staff sexual misconduct. No significant differences were found in the methods of reporting that women had used or to whom women had reported, as shown in Table 2. However, a significant difference was found between women in terms of prison staff deciding to investigate their reports; over half (65.9%) of White women had at least one of their reports investigated, versus only 42.4% of Black women, χ²(1, N = 180) = 5.34, p = .02. In addition, based on the subsample of 52 women who had one or more of their reports investigated, a significantly higher proportion of Black women had received an outcome of unsubstantiated from prison staff than White women, 60.0% of Black women versus 30.8% of White women; χ²(1, N = 180) = 4.40, p = .04.

Table 2.

Racial Differences in Women’s Reporting Methods and Internal Investigation Decisions (n = 100 Women, Cumulative Experiences).

	White Women (n = 41)	Black Women (n = 59)	p Value
Reporting method^a
Filed grievance	38.9%	35.2%	.72
Verbal reporting	43.9%	46.1%	.80
Reported to correctional officer	17.1%	20.3%	.68
Reported to administrator	82.9%	74.6%	.32
Reported to health professional	9.8%	8.5%	.83
Reported multiple times	34.1%	52.5%	.07
Investigation decisions by staff^b
Investigated by internal affairs	65.9%	42.4%	.02
Investigation outcomes^c
Unfounded	19.2%	12.0%	.48
Unsubstantiated	30.8%	60.0%	.04
Substantiated	42.3%	20.0%	.09

These reporting methods refer to methods a woman ever used in reporting staff sexual misconduct.

This investigation decision refers to whether at least one report was investigated by staff.

A subsample of 52 women had their reports investigated by prison staff. Of these reports, 51.9% (n = 27) were for White women and 48.1% (n = 25) were for Black women. These are the rates of women ever receiving each type of outcome.

The Role of Race in Investigation Decisions

With the specific sample of 100 incidents, one per a woman, analyses were conducted to examine whether race was significantly associated with a report being investigated. First, racial differences in victimization characteristics were examined for these specific incidents. As reported in Table 3, only two significant differences were found between women; Black women had served more time in prison at the time of the victimization than White women (M = 3.51, SD = 3.55 vs. M = 2.25, SD = 2.28), t(94) = −2.12, p = .04. In addition, a higher proportion of White women lost their work position as a form of staff retaliation than Black women, 40.5% versus 16.7%, χ²(1, N = 100) = 6.45; p = .01. (It was unknown how many women had a job at the time of victimization.) Similar to the findings in racial differences among women based on a composite of all of their experiences, for these 100 specific incidents, a higher proportion of White women had their reports investigated by prison staff than Black women, 63.4% versus 39.0%, χ²(1, N = 100) = 5.78; p = .02. In addition, of the 48 women who had a report investigated, the chi-square analysis was found to be significant for race and the three possible outcomes, χ²(2, N = 48) = 6.76; p = .03. A post hoc analysis further found the relationship between race and a substantiated outcome to be significant (p < .05, Bonferroni-adjusted for three comparisons). Specifically, a higher proportion of White women received an institutional finding of substantiated than Black women (27.0% vs. 7.3%).

Table 3.

Racial Differences for Women’s Reporting and Internal Investigation Decisions for a Random Sample of Incidents (n = 100 Incidents, 1 Per Woman).

	White Women (n = 41)	Black Women (n = 59)	p Value
Demographics
Age at time of abuse	28.98 (6.07)	30.21 (7.29)	.38
Average number of years served	2.25 (2.28)	3.51 (3.55)	.04
Average number of years left	15.30 (12.95)	18.65 (17.41)	.30
Serving a life sentence	14.6%	13.6%	.70
Victimization characteristics
Occurred multiple times	83.8%	82.5%	.87
Physical injury	35.0%	28.1%	.47
Retaliation experienced
Received misconduct ticket	51.4%	59.3%	.46
Placement in segregation	21.6%	29.6%	.39
Lost parole date/good time	24.3%	20.4%	.66
Lost work position	40.5%	16.7%	.01
Lost privileges	16.7%	18.1%	.82
Officer threatened harm	49.5%	61.1%	.15
Experienced any retaliation	92.5%	91.5%	.86
Reporting method
Filed grievance	34.1%	30.5%	.70
Reported to correctional officer	17.1%	18.6%	.84
Reported to administrator	80.5%	74.6%	.49
Reported to health professional	9.8%	6.8%	.59
Reported 2 times or more	34.1%	49.2%	.14
Investigation decisions by staff
Investigated by internal affairs	63.4%	39.0%	.02
Investigation outcomes^a
Unfounded	56.8%	74.5%	.03
Unsubstantiated	16.2%	18.2%
Substantiated	27.0%*	7.3%*

A total of 49 women had their reports investigated. As one outcome was missing, these reflect the outcomes for 48 women; 26 were White women and 23 were Black women.

This paired comparison was significant at p < .05, Bonferroni-adjusted for three post hoc comparisons (i.e., p < .017 for each comparison).

Second, bivariate analyses were conducted to assess for relationships between victimization characteristics and the outcomes of internal investigations. The retaliation variables were not used in these analyses because the timing of the retaliation, that is, whether it occurred before or after reporting, was unclear. As shown in Table 4, only two variables were significantly associated with internal investigation. Black women were significantly less likely to have their cases selected for internal investigation than White women (AOR = 0.37; 95% CIs = [0.16, 0.84]). Having a physical injury had a positive statistically significant relationship with a report being internally investigated by prison staff (AOR = 2.41; 95% CIs = [1.00, 5.84]). Table 5 displays the results of the multivariate regression models. Across models, race was the only variable that was significantly related to investigation; being a Black woman was negatively, statistically, and significantly associated with a report being investigated (AOR = 0.39; 95% CIs = [0.16, 0.92]), whereas having a physical injury, filing a report through a formal grievance procedure (which should, according to PREA policy, require an investigation), and reporting through a health professional showed no statistically significant relationships.

Table 4.

Bivariate Relationships Between Women’s Experiences and the Prison Staff’s Decision to Investigate (n = 100 Reported Incidents for 100 Women).

	Coefficient	OR (CI)	p Value
Demographics
Race (1 = Black)	−1.00	0.37 [0.16, 0.84]	.02
Age at time of abuse	−0.003	0.98 [0.94, 1.06]	.92
Average number of years served	0.04	1.04 [0.92, 1.19]	.54
Average number of years left	−0.008	0.99 [0.97, 1.02]	.56
Serving a life sentence	−0.31	0.73 [0.23, 2.29]	.59
Victimization characteristics
Occurred multiple times	0.56	1.75 [0.58, 5.30]	.32
Physical injury	0.88	2.41 [1.00, 5.84]	.05
Described as romantic	1.03	2.79 [0.88, 8.79]	.80
Coercive control dynamic	0.39	1.47 [0.50, 4.33]	.48
Resource dependency dynamic	−0.45	0.64 [0.19, 2.20]	.48
No relational element	−0.67	0.51 [0.21, 1.22]	.13
Reporting method
Filed grievance	0.62	1.85 [0.79, 4.34]	.16
Reported to correctional officer	0.60	1.82 [0.64, 5.16]	.26
Reported to administrator	−0.17	0.85 [0.33, 2.15]	.73
Reported to health professional	1.23	3.42 [0.66, 17.83]	.15
Reported 2 times or more	0.15	1.16 [0.53, 2.57]	.71

Note. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Table 5.

Multivariate Relationships With Decision to Conduct an Internal Investigation (n = 100 Reported Incidents for 100 Women).

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
	Exp(B) (95% CI)	Exp(B) (95% CI)	Exp(B) (95% CI)	Exp(B) (95% CI)
Race (1 = Black)	0.38 [0.16, 0.87]*	0.39 [0.17, 0.90]*	0.36 [0.15, 0.88]*	0.39 [0.16, 0.92]*
Physical injury		2.34 [0.94, 5.81]	2.65 [0.99, 7.04]	2.25 [0.88, 5.73]
Grievance filed			1.98 [0.80, 4.87]	2.23 [0.89,5.62]
Reported to health professional				3.82 [0.66, 22.07]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05.

Discussion

Using institutional investigation files and incarcerated women’s descriptions, this study investigated differences in Black and White incarcerated women’s experiences of staff sexual victimization, particularly rape, and in prison staff’s responses to women’s reports of this victimization. Although no racial differences were found among women’s experiences of staff-perpetrated rape, Black women have a significantly lower rate of investigation of reports by staff and a lower rate of receiving a substantiated outcome. Justice gaps were present for both groups of women in terms of low rates of investigation by staff; however, these gaps were exacerbated for Black women, indicating racial disparities in the prison’s responses to their reports of victimization. Because of these stark differences in institutional responses, a structural intersectional framework is needed to highlight and ultimately address the institutional bias embedded in correctional processes, especially with regard to staff sexual misconduct. While this study focused on experiences for women within one state’s prison system within the United States, this study has multiple implications for policy, practice, and future research.

Statistically, women did not differ in their experiences of staff sexual misconduct by race, and their experiences showcase that this abuse was often repeated and ongoing, complex in dynamics, constrained within multiple forms of retaliation, and underreported to prison staff.

The institutional response to women’s reports was the striking point of racial disparities. Not only were Black women less likely to have their report investigated, but also they were less likely to receive a finding of substantiated, meaning that most of their allegations did not have sufficient evidence to support them or that prison staff chose not to properly investigate a disproportionate amount of reports made by Black women. The declaration of an unsubstantiated or unfounded finding corresponds to how prison staff define evidence, the inordinate staff discretion in investigative actions, and the lack of access that incarcerated women have to resources that could provide evidence—for example, incarcerated women cannot have access to recording devices, or if a woman keeps a letter for an officer, her cell could be searched and all possessions taken at the whim of correctional staff. It is entirely in the discretion of the investigator what types of evidence to pursue, how to assess the credibility of witnesses, and how to weigh the evidence. This finding for our study suggests that internal investigations rarely have a substantiated finding across all women, and Black women’s reports, particularly, may not be taken as seriously for the decision to investigate and the process of investigation. Within community settings, Black women have faced barriers to being viewed as credible and legitimate victims that are based on racialized stereotypes and conceptualization of Black women’s selfhood and sexuality (Donovan, 2007; Tillman, Bryant-Davis, Smith, & Marks, 2010). Historically and currently, Black women’s bodies have been sites of racialized social control, invalidation, and violence by state actors, particularly within the correctional system, and the institutional patterns of dismissal of Black women’s reports may fit into this legacy of invalidation, racialized justified violence, and punitive system responses (Crenshaw, 2012; Haley, 2016; Ritchie, 2017).

As a direct implication, this study points to a stage in the justice gaps—the investigation decisions by staff—as an area in need of consistency, accountability, and transparency. Although PREA standards specify that internal investigators should investigate every allegation of abuse (PREA, 2012, 28 C.F.R. Part 115), states are not mandated to follow these standards nor are the data for these decisions easily available for researchers and noninstitutional staff, limiting the ability to monitor this decision-making. Of additional concern, correctional staff may use nonrecorded actions (e.g., not giving the correct forms or rejecting grievances for spelling errors), which may contribute to these justice gaps (Buchanan, 2007). Future research may explore how these justice gaps are created and maintained to improve policies and practices related to the reporting and investigation of staff sexual misconduct.

Given the historical and continued phenomenon of racialized gender-based violence against Black women in the United States by criminal–legal actors (also conceptualized as state violence and state-sanctioned violence), understanding Black women’s experiences of racism at each stage of criminal justice involvement is essential for addressing and preventing further abuse within jails and prisons (Haley, 2016; Ritchie, 2017). Thus, staff sexual misconduct cannot be considered interpersonal violence solely, but rather requires a structural intersectional perspective to examine the roles of institutional culture, state actors, and macro dynamics related to power. Centering Black incarcerated women’s experiences is pivotal for guiding efforts to transform the culture of correctional settings and build safety for incarcerated women.

At the very least, prevalence rates and other descriptive statistics about sexual victimization in correctional settings in the United States should consider intersecting identities, including simultaneously examining gender, race, sexual orientation, gender expression, disability, and age, in a multitude of ways, and provide more information about subpopulations. An intersectional framework may illuminate subpopulations who may be particularly marginalized, oppressed, and harmed within institutions (Crenshaw, 2012), thus moving beyond an understanding of knowing who the victims are to understanding the power dynamics that facilitate and amplify staff sexual misconduct. PREA data reports have dominated the field of research for staff sexual misconduct in the past decade, providing necessary but insufficiently reported national data, and shape how staff sexual misconduct is framed and understood, the foundation for any policy and practice actions. Future research is needed, which is not driven and controlled solely by governmental actors, to form new research questions, standards, and actions for addressing staff sexual misconduct, especially in relation to experiences of Black women.

Staff sexual misconduct has persisted within correctional settings as the extremely imbalanced power dynamics create, facilitate, and legitimatize staff abuses (Brenner et al., 2016). Given the high rates for incarcerated women and, in particular, the harmful conditions for Black women, policies and practices are needed that address and lessen these extreme forms of power imbalances. Centering Black women’s experiences may especially encourage the envisioning of new systems, policies, and practices for addressing issues of crime, justice, race, gender, and other identities. Indeed, existing analyses of the criminal justice system that focus on Black women have examined the heterogeneity within women’s experiences, as well as the macro-level systems of understanding race, gender, and other identities (Richie, 2012). Furthermore, as a limitation, this study only included women who identified as Black or White women, which reflects the nature of the racial categories used by this correctional system. Future research should include and examine differences across women’s experiences with a range of racial and ethnic identities.

Using the variable of race quantitatively has been critiqued by scholars as often a proxy for inadequately understanding how racism, White favoritism, and other forms of privilege and oppression operate; without contextualizing the meaning of race and the role of systemic racism, problems such as rape may be framed as solely individual problems instead of also understanding them as social problems (Nuru-Jeter et al., 2018). For example, Black men in prison have described staff sexual misconduct as caused by racism (Wolff, Shi, & Blitz, 2008), and future research may elicit Black women’s perspectives of why rape and other staff abuses are perpetuated, as well as elicit prison staff’s perspectives, decision-making process, and forms of discretion in understanding and addressing staff sexual misconduct. Future research may examine the prison-based rape myths held by correctional staff and give attention to how these rape myths are racialized and acted upon within the investigation process.

Future research should consider addressing the limitations of this study. First, this study relied on institutional documents that were collected for a class action lawsuit, and ongoing work is needed to examine the investigative processes within prisons, as PREA standards continue to evolve. However, as previously stated, access to institutional materials is crucial for transforming the culture of corrections. Research and advocacy efforts are needed to create transparency in processes, such as investigations. The lawsuit occurred over a 15-year period; it is unknown to what extent the status of the lawsuit affected internal investigation decisions. The generalizability of these findings is limited, given the context of the class action lawsuit. Future research within and outside of the United States may explore successful strategies for obtaining institutional data and access to restricted documents and processes. Also, as this study had a limited sample size, mixed-methods research incorporating larger samples of incarcerated women, rich qualitative data from women, and institutional data may allow for a more complex understanding of how racial differences and disparities are facilitated and perpetuated within correction settings.

Conclusion

Incarcerated women disproportionately experience staff sexual misconduct and, in seeking institutional responses to address and prevent this abuse, Black women are less likely to receive an investigation and substantiated responses to their reports. Racial differences exist among incarcerated women with regard to the institutional responses and treatment of their victimization experiences. Further attention needs to be given to structural intersectional analyses of women’s experiences and from these analyses, new directions in policies, practices, and research may emerge to address multiple forms of harm occurring within correctional institutions.

Footnotes

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. The opinions or points of view expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the National Science Foundation.

ORCID iD

Gina Fedock

Author Biographies

Gina Fedock, PhD, LMSW, is an assistant professor in the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago. Her scholarship focuses on improving women’s mental health by expanding theory; investigating the intersections of race, gender, and justice; and testing interventions to improve the quality of women’s mental health.

Cristy Cummings’s (PhD, MSW) research focuses on victims’ interface with health, criminal justice, and social service organizations, and help-seeking behaviors, especially of victims of sexual violence. Her research aims to understand and reduce disparities and to work toward communities in which victimization is neither gendered nor blamed on the victim.

Sheryl Kubiak, PhD, is the dean of and a professor in the Wayne State University School of Social Work. She is also the director of the Center for Behavioral Health and Justice. Her extensive scholarship and practice focus on the intersections between criminal/legal systems and behavioral health, including examining substance abuse treatment within prisons, mental health courts, and integrated substance abuse and mental health treatment for those involved in the legal system.

Deborah Bybee, PhD, is professor of ecological/community psychology who specializes in research design and statistical methodology. Her work focuses on the application of multivariate techniques to understand complex, real-world phenomena, especially those that involve change over time. Her substantive interests include violence against women, trauma, and mental health.

Rebecca Campbell, PhD, is a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. For the past 25 years, she has been conducting community-based research on violence against women and children, with an emphasis on sexual assault. Her research examines how contact with the legal and medical systems affects adult, adolescent, and pediatric victims’ psychological and physical health.

Kathleen Darcy, JD, is a doctoral student in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Her research interests include intersections of gender-based violence, the law, civil rights, and institutions. She is passionate about interdisciplinary work and examining how the law affects those affected by gender-based violence.

References

Beasley

T. M.

Schumacker

R. E.

(1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 79-93.

Beck

A. J.

Berzofsky

Caspar

Krebs

(2013). Sexual victimization in prisons and jails reported by inmates, 2011-2012. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Beck

A. J.

Rantala

R. R.

Rexroat

(2014). Sexual victimization reported by correctional authorities, 2009-2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Brenner

Darcy

Fedock

Kubiak

(2016). Bars to justice: The impact of rape myths on women in prison. Georgetown Journal of Gender & Law, 17, 521-574.

Buchanan

K. S.

(2007). Impunity: Sexual abuse in women’s prisons. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42, 45-87.

Chesney-Lind

(2006). Patriarchy, crime, and justice: Feminist criminology in an era of backlash. Feminist Criminology, 1, 6-26.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785-810.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

Crenshaw

(2012). From private violence to mass incarceration: Thinking critically about women, race and social control. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1428-1472.

10.

Culley

(2012). “The judge didn’t sentence me to be raped”: Tracy Neal v. Michigan Department of Corrections: A 15-year battle against the sexual abuse of women inmates in Michigan. Women & Criminal Justice, 22, 206-225.

11.

Donovan

R. A.

(2007). To blame or not to blame: Influences of target race and observer sex on rape blame attribution. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 722-736.

12.

Engen

R. L.

Gainey

R. R.

Crutchfield

R. D.

Weis

J. G.

(2003). Discretion and disparity under sentencing guidelines: The role of departures and structured sentencing alternatives. Criminology, 41, 99-130.

13.

Fowler

S. K.

Blackburn

A. G.

Marquart

J. W.

Mullings

J. L.

(2010). Would they officially report an in-prison sexual assault? An examination of inmate perceptions. The Prison Journal, 90, 220-243.

14.

Frohmann

(1991). Discrediting victims’ allegations of sexual assault: Prosecutorial accounts of case rejections. Social Problems, 38, 213-226.

15.

Garland

Wilson

(2013). Prison inmates’ views of whether reporting rape is the same as snitching: An exploratory study and research agenda. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1201-1222.

16.

Giller

(2003). Patriarchy on lockdown: Deliberate indifference and male prison rape. Cardozo Women’s Law Journal, 10, 659-689.

17.

Goffman

(1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Oxford, UK: Penguin.

18.

Haley

(2016). No mercy here: Gender, punishment, and the making of Jim Crow modernity. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

19.

Hearn

Parkin

(2001). Gender, sexuality and violence in organizations: The unspoken forces of organization violations. New York, NY: Sage.

20.

Human Rights Watch. (1996). All too familiar: Sexual abuse of women in U.S. state prisons. New York, NY: Author.

21.

Human Rights Watch. (1998). Nowhere to hide: Retaliation against women in Michigan state prisons. New York, NY: Author.

22.

Kubiak

S. P.

Brenner

H. J.

Bybee

Campbell

Cummings

C. E.

Darcy

K. M.

. . . Goodman-Williams

(2017). Sexual misconduct in prison: What factors affect whether incarcerated women will report abuses committed by prison staff? Law and Human Behavior, 41(4), 361-374.

23.

Kubiak

S. P.

Brenner

Bybee

Campbell

Fedock

(2018). Reporting sexual victimization during incarceration: Using ecological theory as a framework to inform and guide future research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 19(1), 94-106.

24.

Kubiak

S. P.

Hanna

Balton

(2005). “I came to prison to do my time—Not to get raped”: Coping within the institutional setting. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis, 8, 157-178.

25.

Labelle

(2008). Bringing human rights home to the world of detention. Columbia Human Rights Legal Review, 40, 79-133.

26.

Lonsway

K. A.

Archambault

(2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145-168.

27.

Man

C. D.

Cronan

J. P.

(2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for deliberate indifference. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92, 127-186.

28.

National Prison Rape Elimination Commission Report. (2009, June 23). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf

29.

Nuru-Jeter

A. M.

Michaels

E. K.

Thomas

M. D.

Reeves

A. N.

Thorpe

R. J.

LaVeist

T. A.

(2018). Relative roles of race versus socioeconomic position in studies of health inequalities: A matter of interpretation. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 169-188.

30.

Owen

B. A.

Wells

Pollock

(2017). In search of safety: Confronting inequality in women’s imprisonment (Vol. 3). Oakland: University of California Press.

31.

Owen

B. A.

Wells

Pollock

Muscat

Torres

(2008). Gendered violence and safety: A contextual approach to improving security in women’s facilities. Fresno: California State University, Fresno.

32.

Parker

K. F.

Hefner

M. K.

(2015). Intersections of race, gender, disadvantage, and violence: Applying intersectionality to the macro-level study of female homicide. Justice Quarterly, 32, 223-254.

33.

Potter

(2013). Intersectional criminology: Interrogating identity and power in criminological research and theory. Critical Criminology, 21, 305-318.

34.

Prison Rape Elimination Act, 28 C.F.R. Part 115 (2012).

35.

Rantala

R. R.

(2018). Sexual victimization reported by adult correctional authorities, 2012-15. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

36.

Rantala

R. R.

Rexroat

Beck

A. J.

(2014). Survey of sexual violence in adult correctional facilities, 2009–11. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

37.

Richardson

L. S.

(2016). Systemic triage: Implicit racial bias in the criminal courtroom. Yale Law Journal, 126, 862-885.

38.

Richie

(2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. New York: New York University Press.

39.

Ritchie

A. J.

(2017). Invisible no more: Police violence against Black women and women of color. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

40.

Sandefur

R. L.

(2008). Access to civil justice and race, class, and gender inequality. Annual. Review of Sociology, 34, 339-358.

41.

Shaw

Campbell

Cain

(2016). The view from inside the system: How police explain their response to sexual assault. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58, 446-462.

42.

Smith

B. V.

(2005). Sexual abuse of women in United States prisons: A modern corollary of slavery. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33, 571-595.

43.

Smith

R. J.

Levinson

J. D.

Robinson

(2014). Implicit white favoritism in the criminal justice system. Alabama Law Review, 66, 871-894.

44.

Spohn

Tellis

(2018). Sexual assault case outcomes: Disentangling the overlapping decisions of police and prosecutors. Justice Quarterly, 1-29.

45.

Struckman-Johnson

(2002). Sexual coercion reported by women in three Midwestern prisons. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 217-227.

46.

Thigpen

M. L.

Beauclair

Halley

Smith

B. V.

Yarussi

J. M.

Morgan

(2010). Investigating allegations of staff sexual misconduct with offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

47.

Tillman

Bryant-Davis

Smith

Marks

(2010). Shattering silence: Exploring barriers to disclosure for African American sexual assault survivors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11, 59-70.

48.

Wolff

Shi

Blitz

C. L.

(2008). Racial and ethnic disparities in types and sources of victimization inside prison. The Prison Journal, 88, 451-472.

49.

Zaitzow

B. H.

Thomas

(Eds.). (2003). Women in prison: Gender and social control. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers.