... the people behind the Urban Institute research. In traditional interview format, our experts talk about the nature of their work, offer insights on what they've learned, and describe the personal goals that keep them going.

Janine M. Zweig, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, is an author of "Addressing Sexual Violence in Prisons: A National Snapshot of Approaches and Highlights of Innovative Strategies."

Five Questions Archives

1. How prevalent is sexual violence in prisons?

We don't know. It is hard to estimate the extent of the problem. We do know that one incident is unacceptable. And the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act takes a zero-tolerance stance on this issue and indicates that any such incident is intolerable.

The legislation also forced a clearer definition of this violence. It's inmate-against-inmate and staff-against-inmate. All gender combinations-even female staff against male inmates. Some of this sexual activity might be considered "romantic." Still, it's always illegal for prison staff to be sexually involved with an inmate since inmates are considered unable to consent.

Studies on the prevalence of sexual violence in prisons are all flawed in some way. For instance, a series of studies showing a 20 percent to 25 percent sexual coercion rate, including both rapes and other types of sexually victimizing experiences, were based on self-reports through anonymous surveys by inmates. But only a low number of inmates actually filled out the surveys.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has examined administrative records from prisons, jails, and juvenile facilities to report on prevalence rates-where an inmate has come forward to report that something happened. So they show a much lower rate than the other research-only 2.8 per 1,000 inmates. The report authors acknowledge that the culture of correctional facilities might discourage people from reporting.

Prison sexual violence must be stopped because, first and foremost, these inmates are human beings. Any type of victimization, especially sexual victimization, disrupts psychological adjustment both in communities and in prisons. The experience of being incarcerated and unable to get away from this violation - whether from a staff person or another inmate - may lead to more dramatic consequences.

Nearly all inmates wind up back in communities. Rape or other negative experiences while incarcerated could lead to substance abuse issues, acting out, and perhaps perpetrating violence themselves as a result of the trauma.

Serious public safety and public health concerns may result once someone is released. If a prisoner contracted communicable disease through the violation, the disease could spread outside of prison.

2. What does your 2004-2005 survey show is being done to prevent sexual violence?

Many new things are being tried. State departments of corrections have focused on stopping general violence. But now emphasis has redoubled on activities and strategies to prevent sexual violence. This multi-tiered work helps prevent and respond to incidents.

Inmate classification scales are being used in some states to identify potential predatory behavior or potential vulnerabilities that might lead to that person being victimized. Prison officials are trying to identify those acts and traits and then house the inmates to separate potential predators from potential victims.

Increased surveillance inside prisons helps prison officials identify locations or times of day that create opportunity for sexual violence. The results might lead to different kinds of staffing patterns and different electronic surveillance tools that could prevent or catch the crime.

States are trying strategies to knock down the false concept that an inmate can't be a victim. Our survey shows that states specifically train around sexual violence. It's no longer enough to incorporate the issue into ethical training or education on general violence.

New [federal] legislation has pushed for states to offer specialized training around this issue so that staff can identify coercion between inmates and between staff and inmates. Basically, it's creating a better understanding that, though inmates are in prison for a reason, being victimized while in prison is not all right. It is cruel and unusual punishment and should be responded to rather than turning a blind eye.

A number of states show videos about sexual violence to inmates at check-in, discuss it, and say 'here's what might be happening.' Dynamics are discussed among the inmates since not all of the violence is rape. Sexual coercion may also be happening-sex for protection or sex for privilege. Inmates are taught what to look out for. And, if it happens, to report it.

States are trying to create more of a feeling among the inmates that they can report this incident. Services are being put in place to address the problem after it happens. Some states have hot lines for inmates that are connected to different agencies - whether an internal investigation unit, or, in one case, to state troopers. Greater investigation and more frequent prosecution of perpetrators are also occurring in some states.

3. Has the 2003 Prison Rape Elimination Act made a difference?

Our survey shows that there's a much greater focus on this issue by departments of corrections across the country, whether they agree with the legislation or not. Some people charged with prison safety believe there are more pressing issues, but that doesn't mean these officials aren't complying.

States do have more prevention measures and staff training in place that focus on sexual violence specifically. In 2001, Human Rights Watch released a report on male prisons. It found that only 23 departments maintained any statistical records and only a small number of states provided specialized training. Our survey-taken November 2004 though September 2005-shows that 36 of the 45 responding states have special training focused on the dynamics of sexual violence. And 44 states are keeping statistical records about incidents.

There seems to be much more action, so I would say the legislation has made a difference.

4.What kinds of violence-prevention models are states developing?

A handful of states developed comprehensive models to change the culture on prison sexual violence. Rather than choosing a single strategy, they're doing staff training and inmate education and creating opportunities to report incidents.

Some states are really pushing to prosecute these crimes and to work with district attorneys-no mean feat since many district attorneys are more concerned about their community issues and consider an inmate issue far less pressing.

A couple states are also following a "continuum of care" into the community. That means training parole officers to identify victim issues outside the prisons and to help people get services. Victims might be more willing to report an incident after their release from prison.

Some more comprehensive state programs bring in the outside advocates working on sexual assault. These state coalitions and crisis center providers are available to help inmates make a report or to go to the hospital with them to talk when needed.

Advocates are being brought into many state activities - like developing or reviewing staff-training materials. That's an incredibly helpful strategy because the departments of correction aren't experts in sexual violence. They have to be experts in so many things to house individuals-to incarcerate people and to protect them and to provide care for them is a balancing act. Bringing in outside experts is very innovative.

5. What else could be done?

We really need to home in on some of these state innovations and figure out what really works and what doesn't. That has to be done very carefully. Success can be deceptive. Evaluate a sexual violence prevention program and suddenly the reports of sexual violence go through the roof. Ironically, the intervention may be a success, and so victims are now willing for the first time to report crimes. So it's tricky characterizing these evaluations.

That said, we really need to determine whether these state programs are working. Once innovative practices are tagged as effective and "best practices" identified, we can encourage practitioners to adopt them. But that's down the road.

Energy for issues can wane after a few years. I would hate to see that happen before we know whether these programs are effective. We also don't want to adopt practices that might not work under some circumstances or have unintended consequences. So that's a concern.