Staff Sexual Misconduct

• Author: Allen J. Beck
• Published date: 01 June 2015
• DOI: 10.1177/1525107115580785
• Date: 01 June 2015
• Subject Matter: Policy Essay

Policy Essay

Staff Sexual Misconduct:

Implications of PREA

for Women Working

in Corrections

Allen J. Beck

1

Abstract

This is a study of female staff sexual misconduct, drawing on reports of victims

identified in large-scale national surveys of adults in prison and jails and youth in

juvenile facilities. Past research has often emphasized the inmate roles and staff

member vulnerabilities. More recent scholarship has moved beyond the traditional

conception of sexual abuse by female correctional workers as the consequence of

manipulative and predatory actions by male inmates and placed greater responsibility

on the women for their actions. Although the surveys conducted by the Bureau of

Justice Statistics over the last decade in response to the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination

Act are unable to speak to the motivations of the victims or the perpetrators, they

provide an assessment of the magnitude of the problem and offer extensive detail on

the circumstances surrounding female staff sexual misconduct. The findings indicate

that female staff members are overrepresented among perpetrators of staff sexual

misconduct in prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities. The data reveal a high level of staff

misconduct, involving abuse of power, trading in favors, offers of special privileges and

protection, and offers of alcohol and drugs, which co-occurs with female staff sexual

misconduct.

Keywords

female staff, sexual misconduct, corrections

1

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Allen J. Beck, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 810 Seventh St., N.W., Washington, DC 20531, USA.

Email: allen.beck@usdoj.gov

Justice Research and Policy

2015, Vol. 16(1) 8-36

ªThe Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1525107115580785

jrx.sagepub.com

When Congress unanimously passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (P.L.

108-79; PREA), there were little systematic data on the extent or nature of sexual

assault in the nation’s correctional facilities. Among the findings listed in the Act,

there was no mention of staff sexual misconduct. However, after more than a decade

of data collection by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), there is strong evidence not

only that staff sexual misconduct is extensive but that female staff members are dis-

proportionately involved.

This is a study of female staff sexual misconduct, drawing on reports of victims

identified in large-scale national surveys of adults in prisons and jails and youth in

state-operated facilities. The study also draws on administrative records that federal,

state, and local correctional authorities have provided to BJS in annual surveys con-

ducted since 2004. The study examines the type of incidents that occur, the extent of

coercion, characteristics of the victims and staff involved in the sexual activity, cir-

cumstances surrounding the victimization, and current sanctions imposed on staff

involved in substantiated incidents of misconduct. It discusses the implications of

these findings for women working in corrections, including the impact of increased

awareness of the problem, the need for female staff to receive gender-specific training

and supervision, and a recognition that some staff members are involved in predatory

conduct and are not simple victims of manipulative inmates.

According to federal law and most state laws, all sexual relations between staff and

inmates are considered abuse, even if the sexual activity would have been considered

consensual had it occurred outside of a prison or jail (Government Accountability

Office, 1999). Staff and inmates are in inherently unequal positions, and inmates do

not have the same ability as staff members to consent to a sexual relationship (Office

of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). It is the power and

authority that the staff member holds over the inmate, even when the inmate may have

initiated the sexual contact, which defines the contact as abuse. Most forms of staff

sexual misconduct are illegal, while sexual harassment is typically a violation of pro-

fessional codes of conduct. In every case, such activity alters the boundary between

professional roles and personal relationships. Moreover, such activity compromises

the safety and security of the correctional facility in which it occurs.

The literature on boundary violations between inmates and staff is extensive.

Although much of this literature has focused on males in positions of authority victi-

mizing females, recent studies have noted a significant involvement of female

staff with male inmates (Baro, 1997; Blackburn, Fowler, Mullings, & Marquart,

2011; Calhoun & Coleman, 2002; Faulkner & Regehr, 2011; Jones, 2013; Marquart,

Barnhill, & Balshaw-Biddle, 2001; Struckman-Johnson, Struckman-Johnson, Rucker,

Bumby, & Donaldson, 1996; Thomas-Peter & Garrett, 2000; Worley, Marquart, &

Mullings, 2003). Boundary violations, whether committed by male or female staff,

do not always result in sexual contact; at the same time, sexual contacts between

inmates and staff do not all result from boundary violations, but instead may be pre-

datory in nature, initiated by the staff, and involving explicit force or threat of force.

Past research on boundary violations has often emphasized the inmate roles and

staff member vulnerabilities. Inmate typologies have been developed to describe the

Beck 9