As of April 1999, however, according to an update to a 1998 National Women’s Law Center report:
In addition to the federal government, 41 states and the District of Columbia had laws specifically criminalizing certain types of sexual misconduct in prisons. The four correctional jurisdictions we studied have or were in the process of developing staff sexual misconduct policies. Staff Sexual Misconduct Occurs, Although the Full Extent Is Unknown

Available data provided to us by the four jurisdictions we studied indicate that staff sexual misconduct in women’s prisons is not a hypothetical issue, i.e., such misconduct does occur. That is, the allegations resulted in staff resignations, employment terminations, or other administrative sanctions. Each of the four jurisdictions was involved in at least two civil lawsuits related to staff sexual misconduct. These jurisdictions either did not have or could not readily compile data on allegations involving other types of sexual misconduct, such as verbal harassment and inappropriate visual surveillance. At Least 92 Allegations of Staff Sexual Misconduct Were Sustained in the Three Largest U.S. Correctional Systems During 1995 to 1998

According to data provided to us by BOP, California, and Texas officials, female inmates in these three jurisdictions collectively made a total of at least 506 allegations of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct during calendar years 1995 to 1998. Rather, according to an official from the District’s Office of the Corporation Counsel, for the period December 1995 to June 1998, female inmates in the District made 111 allegations of staff sexual misconduct, of which 12 (or 11 percent) were sustained. The official could not readily provide information on the nature or outcome of the allegations but noted that sustained allegations resulted in either staff resignations or disciplinary actions ranging from suspensions to employment terminations. Officials in the four jurisdictions we studied cited lack of evidence as the primary reason why the number of sustained allegations was relatively small compared to the total number of reported allegations. However, only BOP reported having any criminal prosecutions with convictions under applicable laws during calendar years 1995 to 1998. None of the four jurisdictions we studied had readily available, comprehensive data or reports on the number, nature, and outcomes of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct allegations. The systemic absence of such data or reports makes it difficult for lawmakers, correctional system managers, relevant federal and state officials, inmate advocacy groups, academicians, and others to effectively address staff sexual misconduct issues. Laws, Policies, and Procedures Related to Staff-on-Inmate Sexual Misconduct in Four U.S. Correctional Jurisdictions

This appendix presents information about staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct laws, policies, and procedures regarding women’s prisons in four correctional jurisdictions—the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the California Department of Corrections, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the District of Columbia Department of Corrections.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct in women's prisons, focusing on the: (1) applicable laws, policies, and procedures for addressing such misconduct; and (2) number, nature, and outcome of allegations that have been made in recent years.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) during the 1990s, most U.S. correctional jurisdictions have recognized that staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct is a problem that should not be tolerated; (2) as of April 1999, the federal government, 41 states, and the District of Columbia had passed laws criminalizing certain types of staff sexual misconduct in prisons; (3) most U.S. correctional systems have participated in training to help them develop and implement applicable policies and procedures to address such misconduct; (4) the four correctional systems GAO studied have or were in the process of developing specific policies that prohibit staff sexual misconduct; (5) while laws and policies could help minimize staff sexual misconduct, GAO's work in four jurisdictions indicates that such misconduct still occurs; (6) according to data provided by the 3 largest jurisdictions, during calendar years 1995 to 1998, female inmates in these jurisdictions collectively made a total of 506 allegations of staff sexual misconduct, of which 92 were sustained; (7) most of the sustained allegations resulted in staff resignations or employment terminations; (8) the full extent of staff sexual misconduct is unknown since two of the three jurisdictions did not provide data on all types of allegations; (9) the District of Columbia provided data for December 1995 to June 1998, during which 12 of 111 female-inmate allegations were sustained and resulted in staff resignations or disciplinary actions ranging from suspensions to employment terminations; (10) of the four jurisdictions studied, only Bureau of Prisons (BOP) reported having any criminal prosecutions with convictions under sexual misconduct laws during 1995 to 1998; (11) all four jurisdictions were involved in at least two civil lawsuits related to staff sexual misconduct during this period; (12) officials in the four jurisdictions cited lack of evidence as the primary reason why more allegations were not sustained; (13) the officials told GAO that most allegations involved verbal harassment, improper visual surveillance, improper touching, or consensual sex; (14) the officials noted that allegations involving rape and other types of forced sexual assault were relatively rare; (15) however, none of the four jurisdictions GAO studied had readily available, comprehensive data or reports on the number, nature, and outcomes of staff-on-inmate sexual misconduct allegations; and (16) the absence of such systemic data or reports makes it difficult for lawmakers, corrections management, and others to effectively address staff sexual misconduct issues.