Impediments of Labor Contracts on Prison Administrators’ Response to Staff–Inmate Sexual Misconduct

• Author: Gaylene S. Armstrong,Dennis Longmire,Doug J. Dretke,Kevin Steinmetz
• Published date: 01 May 2014
• Date: 01 May 2014
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403412469542
• Subject Matter: Articles

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2014, Vol. 25(3) 325 –346

© 2013 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403412469542

cjp.sagepub.com

469542CJP25310.1177/0887403412469542Cr

iminal Justice Policy ReviewArmstrong et al.

1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:

Gaylene S. Armstrong, Sam Houston State University, PO Box 2296, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA.

Email: garmstrong@shsu.edu

Impediments of Labor

Contracts on Prison

Administrators’ Response

to Staff–Inmate Sexual

Misconduct

Gaylene S. Armstrong1, Dennis Longmire1,

Doug J. Dretke1, and Kevin Steinmetz1

Abstract

Sexual violence in adult correctional facilities led to the enactment of the 2003 Prison

Rape Elimination Act as one approach to reducing this form of institutional violence.

The current study examined collective bargaining agreements governing correctional

agencies to identify impediments that may impact administrators’ responses to sexual

violence, specifically in instances of allegations of staff–inmate sexual misconduct. In

addition, structured interviews and focus groups with correctional administrators

and labor representatives were used to develop policy recommendations. Contract

language and interview participants demonstrated that a myriad of cultural and

structural characteristics of prisons as well as pragmatic considerations may serve to

inhibit the implementation of some policy changes. Interview participants identified

several insights about contemporary prison settings and modifications that may aid in

reducing some forms of institutional violence.

Keywords

correctional staff, correctional policy, inmate assaults, prison rape

Introduction

Prior to the 1990s, sexual violence in correctional institutions failed to attract attention

from either the public or the media; however, researchers have been keenly aware of

Article

326 Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(3)

this ongoing concern finding wide-ranging reports of the prevalence of inmate sexual

victimization and numerous methodological challenges in studying this phenomena.

In 1968, Davis investigated some of the earliest allegations of sexual violence in the

Philadelphia jail system concluding that sexual assaults were “epidemic” in the sys-

tem emphasizing the “raw, ugly, and chilling” nature of the assaults that were occur-

ring (Davis, 1968). Many of his conclusions, however, were based on his extrapolations

from interviews beyond the officially documented 2.9% prevalence rate of sexual

victimization in the jail population. Based on his investigative efforts, Davis estimated

the rate was substantially higher but that inmates failed to cooperate in his investiga-

tion or report incidents because they feared retaliation or other repercussions.

In the 40 years following Davis’s (1968) study, numerous scholars have attempted

to determine accurate rates of sexual victimization in prisons. Studies have docu-

mented prevalence rates ranging from 2.4% to 27% or higher of inmates who experi-

enced sexual victimization including sexual threats and forced sexual acts (Blackburn,

Mullings, & Marquart, 2008; Fuller & Orsagh, 1977; Hensley, Koscheski, &

Tewksbury, 2003, 2005; Gaes & Goldberg, 2004; Hensley & Tewksbury, 2005;

Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2002; Tewksbury, 1989). According to

Gaes and Goldberg (2004), the significant variation in rates of reported sexual vio-

lence between these studies can be attributed in part to the definition of sexual vio-

lence employed, small sample sizes, and variation in research methodology. Moreover,

most of the previous literature on the topic of sexual victimization is limited to a par-

ticular jurisdiction, rather than a larger stratified sample of inmates throughout the

United States. In addition to the weaknesses in the literature summarized by Gaes and

Goldberg, it is notable that much of the prior literature focuses on that sexual violence

committed by other inmates and ignores correctional staff as a potential source of

unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact.

The focus on sexual violence in prisons expanded significantly when the issue of

sexual misconduct by correctional staff came to the forefront in the 1990s. Stemming

from the development of inmate lawsuits alleging sexual misconduct, an increase in

state laws prohibiting sexual relations between staff and inmates, and numerous stud-

ies conducted by academic researchers, the federal government and human rights

organizations, the interest and concern of policymakers was acquired. In response to

the increased awareness and in an effort to define prison rape as a social issue, in 2003

President Bush signed into law the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). PREA spec-

ified a zero-tolerance policy for rape and sexual assault in prison, bringing to the

forefront one of the most sensitive issues in the correctional environment. The Act

applies to all federal, state, and local prisons, jails, police lock-ups, private facilities,

and community settings such as residential facilities and is the first federal law ever to

acknowledge prison rape. The swift and nearly uncontested passage of the Act indi-

cated that prison rape was recognized as a pressing issue for correctional administra-

tors, their employees, and lawmakers. As a result of this action, prison rape, which

according to the courts is a form of “cruel and unusual punishment,” was redefined as

a civil rights violation for inmates and juvenile wards.