U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Bureau of Justice Statistics

SPECIAL REPORT
January 2010, NCJ 228416

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities
Reported by Youth, 2008-09
Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., Paige M. Harrison,
and Paul Guerino, BJS Statisticians

T

he Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
(P.L. 108-79) (PREA) requires the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS) to carry out a
comprehensive statistical review and analysis of
the incidents and effects of prison rape for each
calendar year. This report fulfills the requirement under Sec. 4(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act to provide a list of juvenile correctional facilities
according to the prevalence of sexual victimization.

Between June 2008 and April 2009, BJS completed the first National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) of 166 state-owned or operated
facilities and 29 locally or privately operated
facilities. The survey, conducted by Westat
(Rockville, MD), was restricted to juvenile confinement facilities that held adjudicated youth
for at least 90 days. Facilities were excluded if
fewer than 25% of the youth in the facility had
been adjudicated, the facility held fewer than 10
adjudicated youth, or if the facility was locally or
privately operated and held fewer than 105

Highlights
• This report presents findings from the first National Survey of
Youth in Custody (NSYC), representing approximately 26,550
adjudicated youth held nationwide in state operated and large
locally or privately operated juvenile facilities. Overall, 91% of
youth in these facilities were male; 9% were female.
• An estimated 12% of youth in state juvenile facilities and large
non-state facilities (representing 3,220 youth nationwide)
reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months
or since admission, if less than 12 months.
• About 2.6% of youth (700 nationwide) reported an incident
involving another youth, and 10.3% (2,730) reported an incident involving facility staff.
• About 4.3% of youth (1,150) reported having sex or other sexual contact with facility staff as a result of some type of force;
6.4% of youth (1,710) reported sexual contact with facility
staff without any force, threat, or other explicit form of coercion.
• Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008,
42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.
• Thirteen facilities were identified as “high rate” based on the
lower bound of the 95%-confidence interval of at least 35%
higher than the average rate among facilities by type of consent. Six facilities had victimization rates of 30% or more; 4

had rates between 25% and 30%; and 3 had rates between 20%
and 25%.
• Eleven facilities were identified as “low rate” based on a low
rate of youth reporting sexual victimization and a low upper
bound for the 95%-confidence interval around the rate.
Among these facilities, 5 had no reported incidents of sexual
victimization.
• Rates of reported sexual victimization varied among youth:
- 10.8% of males and 4.7% of females reported sexual
activity with facility staff.
- 9.1% of females and 2.0% of males reported unwanted
sexual activity with other youth.
- Youth with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual
reported significantly higher rates of sexual victimization
by another youth (12.5%) compared to heterosexual
youth (1.3%).
- Youth who had experienced any prior sexual assault were
more than twice as likely to report sexual victimization
in the current facility (24.1%), compared to those with
no sexual assault history (10.1%).
• Among youth victimized by another youth, 20% said they had
been physically injured; 5% reported they had sought medical
attention for their injuries. Among youth victimized by staff,
5% reported a physical injury; fewer than 1% had sought medical attention.

youth. All state facilities holding 90 or more
youth were included. State facilities with fewer
than 90 youth were sampled proportionate to the
number of adjudicated youth held, based on the
2006 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Non-state (locally or privately operated)
juvenile facilities holding 105 or more youth
were initially included, but during the course of
the survey, this criterion was increased to 150. At
least one facility in each state and the District of
Columbia was selected to participate in the survey. (See Methodology for sample description.)

Administrators in each state, county, and private
facility determined the type of consent required
for youths to be eligible for participation.
Administrators provided in loco parentis (ILP)
consent in 63 facilities. In loco parentis is when
administrators provide consent “in the place of
the parent” to contact youth. In the remaining
132 facilities, administrators required consent
from the youths’ parents or guardians (PGC).
Youth in all facilities also had to assent to participate in the interview. (See Methodology for additional details on the process of consent.)

The NSYC is part of the National Prison Rape
Statistics Program. The program collects administrative records of reported sexual violence, as
well as allegations of sexual victimization
directly from victims through surveys of adult
inmates in prisons and jails and surveys of youth
held in juvenile correctional facilities. Administrative records have been collected annually
since 2004. BJS has published two reports on
sexual victimization in juvenile facilities—Sexual
Violence Reported by Correctional Authorities,
2004 (NCJ 210333) and Sexual Violence Reported
by Juvenile Correctional Authorities, 2005-06
(NCJ 215337). BJS has also published an overview of all of its prison rape collections—PREA
Data Collection Activities, 2009 (NCJ 227377).
These reports are available online at <http://
b j s . o j p. u s d o j . g o v / i n d e x . c f m ? t y = p b d e tail&iid=1153>;<http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1218> and <http://
b j s . o j p. u s d o j . g o v / i n d e x . c f m ? t y = p b d e tail&iid=1596> (last accessed December 17,
2009).

In each sampled PGC facility, administrators
were asked 8 weeks prior to data collection to
provide a roster of all adjudicated youth assigned
a bed; in ILP facilities a roster was provided 4
weeks prior to data collection.

First national survey of youth completed to
meet PREA requirements

The NSYC collects only allegations of sexual victimization. Because participation in the survey is
anonymous and reports are confidential, the
NSYC does not permit any follow-up investigation or substantiation through review of official
records. Some allegations in the NSYC may be
untrue. At the same time, some youth may
remain silent about any sexual victimization
experience in the facility. To address concerns of
false reporting by youth, reports of victimization
were checked for consistency across survey
items. Interviews that contained response patterns considered to be extreme or highly inconsistent were excluded from the calculations of
victimization rates. (See box on page 6 for
details.)

The 2008-09 NSYC survey consisted of an audio
computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) in
which youth, using a touch-screen, interacted
with a computerized questionnaire and followed
audio instructions delivered via headphones.
The NSYC utilized self-administered procedures to ensure the confidentiality of the reporting youths and to encourage fuller reporting of
victimization. The survey made use of audio
technology to provide assistance to youth with
varying levels of literacy and language skills.
Approximately 98% of the interviews were conducted in English; 2% in Spanish.

All youth were sampled in ILP facilities and in
PGC facilities with 240 or fewer youth on the
roster. In larger PGC facilities, all females and a
random sample of males were selected. In both
PGC and ILP facilities all incoming youth were
added to the sample up to 4 weeks prior to the
survey. Youth who had been present in the facility at least 4 weeks prior to the survey and were
present at the time of the survey were considered
eligible.
The result of this process yielded a sample representing 26,551 adjudicated youth held nationwide in state operated and large locally or privately operated juvenile facilities. 1 A total of
10,263 youth participated in the survey. Of these,
1,065 received an alternative survey on drug and
alcohol use and treatment, and 9,198 youth participated in the survey of sexual victimization.

1

Adjudication is the court process that determines whether
the youth committed the offense, including delinquency and
status offenses.

2

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

About 12% of youth in state-operated
juvenile facilities and large non-state
facilities reported one or more incidents of
sexual victimization
Among the 9,198 youth participating in the
2008-09 survey, 1,199 reported experiencing one
or more incidents of sexual victimization.
Because the NSYC is a sample survey, weights
were applied for sampled facilities and youth
within facilities to produce national-level and
facility-level estimates. The estimated number of
adjudicated youth who reported experiencing
sexual violence totaled 3,220 (or 12.1% of the
26,551 estimated adjudicated youth held in stateoperated or large non-state facilities covered by
the survey) (table 1).
About 2.6% of adjudicated youth (an estimated
700 nationwide) reported an incident involving
another youth, and 10.3% reported an incident
involving facility staff. Some youth (0.8%)
reported sexual victimization by both another
youth and facility staff. Sexual acts or contacts
between youth in which there was no report of
force were excluded from all measures of sexual
victimization.
The NSYC screened for specific sexual activities
in which youth may have been involved during
the past 12 months or since admission to the
facility, if less than 12 months. Youth were asked
to report which of these activities involved
another youth and which involved staff at the
facility. Additionally, youth were asked if any of
these activities happened because they were
forced, threatened with force, pressured in
another way, or offered money, favors, special
protection or other special treatment. (See pages
20 - 22 for specific survey questions.) Reports of
unwilling youth-on-youth sexual activity were
classified as either nonconsensual acts or other
sexual contacts only.

Approximately 2.0% of youths (530 nationwide)
said they had nonconsensual sex with another
youth, including giving or receiving sexual gratification, and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.
An estimated 0.5% (140) of surveyed adjudicated
youth said they had experienced one or more
other unwilling sexual contacts only with other
youth, such as looking at private body parts,
unwanted kissing on the lips or another part of
the body, and other unwanted touching of specific body parts in a sexual way.
Reports of staff sexual misconduct with youth
were classified separately depending on whether
the misconduct involved any force, threat, pressure, or offers of special favors or privileges. An
estimated 4.3% of youth (1,150 nationwide)
reported that they had sex or other sexual contact with facility staff as a result of force. An estimated 6.4% (1,710) of youth said they had sexual
contact with facility staff without any force,
threat, or other explicit form of coercion.

Table 1.
Youth reporting sexual victimization, by type of incident, National
Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09
Sexual victimization
U.S. total
Youth-on-youthb,c
Nonconsensual sexual actsd
Other sexual contacts onlye
Staff sexual misconduct
Force reportedc,f
Excluding touchingd
Other sexual contacts onlye
No report of force
Excluding touchingd
Other sexual contacts onlye

Number
3,220
700
530
140
2,730
1,150
1,030
90
1,710
1,560
150

National estimatea
Percent
Standard error
12.1%
0.4%
2.6%
0.2%
2.0
0.2
0.5
0.2
10.3%
0.4%
4.3
0.3
3.9
0.2
0.3
0.1
6.4
0.3
5.9
0.3
0.6
0.1

Note: Detail may not sum to total because youth may have reported multiple victimizations
or due to item non-response. Youth were asked to report on any victimization involving
another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less
than 12 months.
a

Estimates based on reports from 9,198 adjudicated youth interviewed in 195 juvenile facilities and weighted to represent the number of adjudicated youth held in the nation. (See
Methodology for details.)

b

Excludes acts in which there was no report of force.

cDetail does not sum to total due to item non-response.
d

Includes contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus; contact
between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of another person's
penis or vagina by a hand.
e

Includes kissing on the lips or other part of the body, looking at private body parts, showing something sexual like pictures or a movie, and engaging in some other sexual contact
that did not involve touching.

f
Includes physical force, threat of force, other force or pressure, and other forms of coercion,
such as being given money, favors, protections, or special treatment.

January 2010

3

Thirteen facilities were identified as high
rate after taking into account statistical
variation and type of consent

survey will have greater variance around the
point estimate, making it especially important to
recognize that the survey estimates may vary.

Of the 195 juvenile facilities in the 2008-09
NSYC, 13 had an overall victimization rate that
could be identified as “high rate” (table 2).
Though other measures may be considered
when comparing facilities, the overall victimization rate is a measure of prevalence that includes
all reports of unwilling sexual activity between
youth and all reports of staff sexual misconduct,
regardless of the level of coercion and type of
sexual activity.2

A common way to express the sampling variability is to construct a 95%-confidence interval
around each survey estimate. Typically, multiplying the standard error by 1.96 and then adding
or subtracting the result from the estimate produces the confidence interval. This interval
expresses the range of values that could result
among 95% of the different samples that could
be drawn.

The NSYC is statistically unable to provide an
exact ranking for all facilities as required under
the Prison Rape Elimination Act. As with any
survey, the NSYC estimates are subject to error
associated with sampling. Facilities holding few
youth or facilities with few youth completing the
2

Facility-level rates are based on the reports of adjudicated
youth who were in the facility at least 4 weeks prior to the
time of the interview. The experiences of non-adjudicated
youth and youth held in the facility in the past 12 months,
but who were not in the facility when the interviews were
conducted, were not included in the survey.

For small samples and estimates close to 0% or
100%, as is the case with the NSYC, the use of the
standard error to construct the 95%-confidence
interval may not be reliable. An alternative
developed by Wilson has been shown to perform
better than the traditional method when constructing a confidence interval.3 When applied
to large samples, the traditional and the Wilson
confidence intervals are virtually identical.
3
See Brown, L.D., Cai, T. and DasGupta, A. (2001) Interval
Estimation for a Binomial Proportion, Statistical Science, 16
(2), 101-138, and Wilson, E.B. (1927) Probable Inference, the
Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference, Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 22, 209-212.

Table 2.
Juvenile facilities with high rates of sexual victimization, by type of consent, National Survey of Youth in
Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
All facilities
In loco parentis (ILP)
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)d
Victory Field Corr. Acad. (TX)
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)e
Shawono Ctr. (MI)
Parental/guardian consent (PGC)
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr. (NC)e
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term (VA)
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr. (TN)
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton (MD)
L.E. Rader Ctr. (OK)
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr. (VA)d
Cresson Secure Treatment Unit (PA)
New Jersey Training School (NJ)

Number of
respondentsb
9,093
4,539
127
81
61
92
22
4,554
24
50
55
11
51
40
12
71

Response ratec
54.5%
79.5%
87.7
84.1
89.7
94.8
88.0
39.8%
86.2
42.9
53.4
33.3
45.6
29.4
33.3
37.7

Youth reporting any sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
12.1%
11.3%
13.0%
14.3%
13.0%
15.6%
36.2
30.5
42.4
32.4
27.8
37.3
24.6
19.8
30.0
22.8
19.7
26.3
27.3
19.4
36.9
10.9%
9.9%
12.0%
33.3
25.5
42.3
30.0
21.5
40.1
26.0
18.8
34.6
36.4
16.5
62.3
25.0
16.2
36.5
25.0
15.3
38.2
33.3
15.0
58.6
23.3
14.7
34.8

Note: High rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the average among facilities, by type
of consent. Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
aWeighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or

since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
bNumber of adjudicated youth who participated in the sexual victimization component of the survey. Excludes 105 youth due to item non-response.
c

Response rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses.
(See Methodology for details.)

d

Facility houses both males and females.

e

Facility houses females only.

4

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Consequently, the tables in this report containing facility-level estimates provide confidence
intervals based on Wilson’s methodology (tables
2 through 6 and all appendix tables). Table 1 and
tables 7 through 12 contain national estimates
and are based on traditional standard error calculations. (See Methodology for details.)

Thirty-six facilities had no reported
incidents; 11 facilities were identified as
low-rate for sexual victimization
Thirty-six of the juvenile facilities (18%) had no
reported incidents of sexual victimization (see
appendix table 2). However, the NSYC is unable
to provide an exact identification of the facilities
with the lowest rates of sexual victimization.
Rates in each of the 36 facilities are subject to
sampling error, depending on which youth were
selected and the number of surveys actually
completed by youth within the facility. Although
in each facility the lower bound of the confidence interval was 0%, the upper bound varied
depending on the number of completed interviews.

Among the 13 high-rate facilities, 5 were ILP
facilities (in which facility administrators provided consent for the majority of the selected
youth) and 8 were PGC facilities (in which
administrators required consent from the
youths’ parents or guardians). These facilities
were identified as high because the lower bound
of the 95%-confidence interval was at least 35%
higher than the average rate among ILP facilities
(14.3%) and PGC facilities (10.9%).4

Among the 195 surveyed facilities, 11 were idenAlthough the NSYC cannot uniquely identify the tified as “low rate” facilities for sexual victimizafacility with the highest victimization rate, 6 tion based on the low percentages of youth who
facilities had rates of 30% or greater. Among ILP reported incidents and the upper bounds of the
facilities, Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facil- 95%-confidence intervals that were less than half
ity (Indiana) recorded an overall rate of 36.2% the average rate among ILP and PGC facilities
and Corsicana Residential Treatment Center (table 3). Five of these facilities had no reported
(Texas) recorded a rate of 32.4%. Among PGC incidents of sexual victimization; 6 had at least
facilities, Backbone Mountain Youth Center, one youth who reported a sexual victimization.
Swanton (Mar yland) had a rate of 36.4%;
Samarkand Youth Development Center (North Table 3.
Carolina) and Cresson Secure Treatment Unit Juvenile facilities with low rates of sexual victimization, by type of consent,
(Pennsylvania) had rates of 33.3%; and Culpeper National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09
Juvenile Correctional Center-Long Term (VirYouth reporting any sexual victimizationa
ginia) had a rate of 30.0%.
While each of the 13 facilities had high rates, Facility name
some facilities not classified as having high rates All facilities
were not statistically different from the 13 high In loco parentis (ILP)
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus (MO)
rate facilities due to sampling error.

4

The criterion of at least 35% higher than the average rate
was established to identify a small group of facilities that
would be considered as having high rates. Other criteria
reflecting variation in the estimates would have identified a
smaller or larger number of facilities.

Camp Florence (OR)
Rhode Island Training School
(RI)d
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac.,
Unit 1 (TX)
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr. (MO)
Heman G. Stark Yth. Corr. Fac.
(CA)
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Nampa (ID)d
Parental/guardian consent (PGC)
Desoto Juv. Res. Fac. (FL)
Green Hill School (WA)
Wyoming Boys School (WY)
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr. (CO)d

Number of Response
respondentsb ratec
9,093
54.5%
4,539
79.5%
20
95.2
14
93.3

Percent
12.1%
14.3%
0.0
0.0

95%-confidence interval
Lower bound Upper bound
11.3%
13.0%
13.0%
15.6%
0.0
2.4
0.0
3.3

75

74.3

1.3

0.5

3.9

78
25

92.9
73.5

2.6
0.0

1.5
0.0

4.4
5.0

113
33
4,554
55
62
27
20

79.3
97.1
39.8%
53.8
41.4
77.3
84.0

3.5
3.0
10.9%
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0

2.1
1.5
9.9%
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0

5.8
6.0
12.0%
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.6

Note: Low rate facilities are those in which the upper bound of the confidence interval is lower than 0.5
times the average among facilities by type of consent. Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
a
Weighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another
youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
b

Number of adjudicated youth who participated in the sexual victimization survey. Excludes 105 youth due
to item non-response.

c

Response rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses. (See Methodology for details.)

dFacility houses both males and females.

January 2010

5

Interviews checked for extreme and inconsistent response patterns
As with any survey, the NSYC is subject to
measurement error. To reduce this error, the
survey incorporated several design features,
inclu d ing t he u s e of an au d io - a ssiste d
questionnaire delivered via headphones to
address low levels of literacy ; the use of
“hotwords,” highlighted in a different color,
w h i ch yout h c ou l d a c c e ss i f t he y we re
uncertain about their definition; range checks
for s elec ted questions to guard against
unrealistic values; and logic checks that asked
youth to verify their responses. To assist youth
having difficulty with the inter view, the
computer flagged those who spent a long
period in particular sections of the interview
and prompted the youth to obtain assistance
from an interviewer. While these measures and
others helped to reduce error, they did not
prevent it from occurring.
O n c e t h e i nt e r v i e w s w e r e c o m p l e t e d ,
individual response patterns were assessed to
i d e nt i f y i nte r v i e w s h av i n g e x t re m e or
internally inconsistent responses. Three
response patterns were considered extreme and
indicative of an unreliable interview overall.
These patterns were—
• a youth completed the survey in less than 10
minutes. Based on internal testing, it was
determined to be extremely difficult for a
respondent to seriously complete the interview in less than 10 minutes.
• the reported number of forced sexual contacts
with other youth exceeded 1.5 incidents per
day for every day since admission to the facility.
• the reported number of forced sexual contacts
with facility staff exceeded 1.5 incidents per
day for every day since admission.
Out of 9,362 completed interviews, 89 had at
least one of the extreme response patterns.
These interviews were excluded from the
calculations of sexual victimization.

6

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

An additional list of 25 indicators was
developed to assess whether a youth showed
signs that he or she did not fully understand
the survey items, whether the youth did not
consistently report the details of events, or if
the youth provided inconsistent responses.
One indicator was if the youth provided
unrealistic dates or personal information;
another indicator was if the youth reported in a
debriefing item that questions on sexual
activity were hard to understand. Other
indicators compared responses in one section
of the survey with responses in other sections.
(See page 23 for a full listing of the indicators.)
The outcomes of these 25 indicators were
combined into a count of the total number for
each youth. While 89.6% of youth did not
record any inconsistent responses, 8.0%
reported one that was inconsistent, 1.5%
reported two, and 0.9% reported three or more.
For purposes of estimating sexual
victimization rates, an additional 75 interviews
were excluded based on a count of 3 or more
indicators of inconsistent responses.
B ecause many of the indicators rely on
checking the consistency of reports of sexual
v i c t i m i z at i o n , d e l e t i o n o f e x t re m e o r
inconsistent responses from the estimates has
the effect of lowering the overall victimization
rate. Without deleting any interviews, the
estimate for the overall sexual victimization
rate would have been 13.1%. After deleting 164
interviews with at least one extreme response
or 3 or more inconsistent responses, the rate
dropped to 12.1%. If interviews with 2 or more
inconsistent responses were deleted, then the
rate would have dropped to approximately
11.0%; had interviews with 1 or more been
deleted, the rate would have been
approximately 7.5%. The 3 or more
inconsistent response cutoff was selected in
recognition that youth could legitimately
report some inconsistent information without
invalidating their entire interview.

Fort Bellefontaine Campus (Missouri) and
Camp Florence (Oregon), with no youth reporting sexual victimization, had confidence intervals with the lowest upper bounds (2.4% and
3.3%, respectively) among ILP facilities. Desoto
Juvenile Residential Facility (Florida) and Green
Hill School (Washington) with reported sexual
victimization rates of 1.0% had confidence intervals with the lowest upper bounds (3.8% and
4.2%, respectively) among PGC facilities.

Youth in high-rate facilities reported high
rates of nonconsensual sexual activity
Among the 13 high-rate facilities, most reports
of sexual victimization involved nonconsensual
sexual acts with another youth and serious sexual acts with facility staff excluding touching
(table 4). When rates of sexual victimization
were limited to the most serious nonconsensual
acts (excluding touching only, kissing on the lips
or other body parts, and engaging in other less
serious acts), the percentages of youth reporting
one or more incidents remained high (between
20.3% and 36.4%).

Table 4.
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, by type of consent and contact, National
Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
All facilities
In loco parentis (ILP)
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)c
Victory Field Corr. Acad. (TX)
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)d
Shawono Ctr. (MI)
Parental/guardian consent (PGC)
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr. (NC)d
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term (VA)
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr. (TN)
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton (MD)
L.E. Rader Ctr. (OK)
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr. (VA)c
Cresson Secure Treatment Unit (PA)
New Jersey Training School (NJ)

Youth reporting sexual acts excluding touchinga Youth reporting other sexual contacts onlyb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
Percent
Lower bound Upper bound
10.4%
9.6%
11.3%
1.2%
0.9%
1.6%
12.5%
11.3%
13.9%
1.2%
0.9%
1.5%
34.1
28.6
40.1
1.6
0.6
4.0
25.7
21.5
30.4
5.9
3.6
9.4
21.7
17.1
27.1
1.7
0.7
3.9
20.7
17.8
23.8
2.2
1.3
3.6
27.3
19.4
36.9
0.0
0.0
3.6
9.2%
8.2%
10.3%
1.2%
0.8%
1.8%
29.2
21.7
37.9
4.2
1.7
10.0
30.0
21.5
40.1
0.0
0.0
4.5
22.9
16.1
31.4
2.1
0.6
7.8
36.4
16.5
62.3
0.0
0.0
19.5
23.1
14.5
34.8
1.9
0.7
5.0
23.1
13.7
36.2
0.0
0.0
6.6
25.0
9.8
50.7
8.3
1.7
32.4
20.3
12.5
31.3
0.8
0.2
3.7

Note: High-rate facilities are those where the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the national average, by type of consent.
Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
a

Includes contact between the penis and the vagina or the penis and the anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of
the anal or vaginal opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of another person's penis or vagina by a hand. Includes any
acts with a staff member and any forced acts with another youth.

b

Based on youth who reported other sexual contacts only. These acts include kissing on the lips or other part of the body, looking at private body parts,
showing something sexual like pictures or a movie, and engaging in some other sexual act that did not involve touching.

c

Facility houses both males and females.

d

Facility houses females only.

January 2010

7

Among the ILP facilities, Pendleton Juvenile
Correctional Facility (Indiana) had a rate of sexual victimization excluding touching only
(34.1%) and a confidence interval with a lower
bound (28.6%) that were more than double the
national average. Among the PGC facilities,
Samarkand Youth Development Center (North
Carolina) had a 29.2% sexual victimization rate
excluding touching only and a confidence interval with the highest lower bound (21.7%).

Of the 13 high-rate facilities, 4 had rates of
youth-on-youth sexual victimization that
exceeded 10% (table 5). In 4 facilities, none of
the interviewed youth reported any sexual victimization by other youth in the facility.

Table 5.
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of sexual victimization, by type of consent and incident,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
All facilities
In loco parentis (ILP)
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)c
Victory Field Corr. Acad. (TX)
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)d
Shawono Ctr. (MI)
Parental/guardian consent (PGC)
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr. (NC)d
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term (VA)
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr. (TN)
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton (MD)
L.E. Rader Ctr. (OK)
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr. (VA)c
Cresson Secure Treatment Unit (PA)
New Jersey Training School (NJ)

Youth reporting sexual victimization by
Youth reporting sexual victimization by
another youtha
facility staffb
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound Upper bound Percent Lower bound Upper bound
2.6%
2.2%
3.1%
10.3%
9.5%
11.1%
3.3%
2.7%
4.0%
12.1%
11.1%
13.2%
7.0
4.7
10.4
31.5
25.7
37.9
13.9
10.3
18.4
23.7
19.4
28.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
24.6
19.8
30.0
16.3
13.6
19.4
8.7
6.6
11.4
18.2
11.8
27.0
22.7
15.5
32.0
2.3%
1.7%
3.0%
9.2%
8.2%
10.3%
12.0
7.2
19.3
29.2
21.7
37.9
0.0
0.0
4.4
30.0
21.5
40.1
0.0
0.0
3.7
26.0
18.8
34.6
0.0
0.0
19.5
36.4
16.5
62.3
0.9
0.2
3.7
25.0
16.2
36.5
7.5
2.9
17.8
22.5
13.3
35.4
8.3
1.7
32.4
25.0
9.8
50.7
2.7
0.6
11.7
23.3
14.7
34.8

Note: High-rate facilities are those where the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the national average, by type of
consent. Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
a
Weighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth in the past 12 months or since
admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
b

Weighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving a facility staff member in the past 12 months or
since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

cFacility houses both males and females.
dFacility houses females only.

8

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

High percentages of youth reported staff sexual
misconduct in which no force, threat, or other
forms of coercion were involved. Eleven of the
13 high-rate facilities had rates of staff sexual
misconduct (with no report of force) that were

more than twice the national average (6.4%)
(table 6). Five of the 13 facilities had a confidence interval around the rate of staff sexual
misconduct (with no force) with a lower bound
that exceeded 10%.

Table 6.
Juvenile facilities with the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct, by type of consent and use of force by facility
staff, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
All facilities
In loco parentis (ILP)
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr. (TX)b
Victory Field Corr. Acad. (TX)
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac. (IN)c
Shawono Ctr. (MI)
Parental/guardian consent (PGC)
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr. (NC)c
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term (VA)
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr. (TN)
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton (MD)
L.E. Rader Ctr. (OK)
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr. (VA)b
Cresson Secure Treatment Unit (PA)
New Jersey Training School (NJ)

Youth reporting staff sexual misconduct with
forcea
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
4.3%
3.8%
4.9%
5.7%
4.9%
6.5%
18.1
13.4
24.0
8.9
6.3
12.5
11.7
8.2
16.3
6.5
4.7
9.0
13.6
8.2
21.9
3.5%
2.9%
4.2%
20.8
14.2
29.5
12.0
6.6
20.9
8.8
4.8
15.6
36.4
16.5
62.3
14.8
8.2
25.3
7.5
2.9
17.8
8.3
1.7
32.4
5.3
1.7
15.4

Youth reporting staff sexual misconduct with no
report of force
95%-confidence interval
Percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
6.4%
5.9%
7.0%
7.1%
6.3%
7.9%
16.8
12.7
21.8
18.1
14.6
22.3
18.3
14.3
23.2
2.2
1.3
3.6
13.6
8.2
21.9
6.1%
5.3%
6.9%
12.5
7.5
20.1
20.0
12.6
30.1
19.5
12.9
28.3
18.2
5.7
44.8
14.8
7.6
26.9
15.0
7.7
27.1
25.0
9.8
50.7
15.7
9.4
25.0

Note: High-rate facilities are those in which the lower bound of the confidence interval is larger than 1.35 times the average among facilities,
by type of consent. Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
a

Includes physical force, threat of force, other force or pressure, and other forms of coercion, such as being given money, favors, protections, or special
treatment.

bFacility houses both males and females.
c

Facility houses females only.

January 2010

9

Few differences in sexual victimization
rates were associated with basic facility
characteristics
An initial examination of available facility characteristics revealed few measurable differences at
the 95%-level of statistical confidence—
• Rates of staff sexual misconduct with youth
were higher in state operated facilities (10.9%)
than in non-state facilities (7.9%). Reports of
unwanted sexual activity between youth did
not differ between state (2.7%) and non-state
(2.6%) juvenile facilities (table 7).
• Female-only facilities had the highest rates of
youth-on-youth sexual victimization (11.0%);
male-only facilities had the highest rates of staff
sexual misconduct (11.3%).
• Small facilities (those holding between 10 and
25 adjudicated youth) had the lowest overall
rates of sexual victimization (6.3%), largely due
to low rates of staff sexual misconduct (2.7%).

• Facilities in which youth were held an average
of less than 5 months had the lowest rates of
sexual victimization (7.4%), compared to facilities in which youth were held for longer periods (12.7% in facilities with an average of 5 to 6
months and 14.2% in facilities with an average
of 7 to 12 months).

Rates of sexual victimization were strongly
related to specific youth characteristics
Rates of sexual victimization varied among
youth—
• Males were more likely than females to report
sexual activity with facility staff. An estimated
10.8% of males, compared to 4.7% of females,
said they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual activity with staff (table 8).
• Females were more likely than males to report
forced sexual activity with other youth. About
9.1% of females and 2.0% of males reported
forced sexual activity with another youth at the
facility.

Table 7.
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and selected facility characteristics, National
Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility characteristic
Number of youthb
Operating agency
State
21,170
Non-statec
5,380
Gender housed
Males only
20,080
Females only
1,450
Both males and females
5,020
Number of adjudicated youthd
10-25
1,390
26-50
2,500
51-100
4,140
101 or more
18,520
Average exposure in facilitye
Less than 5 months
5,730
5 - 6 months
10,940
7 - 12 months
9,890

Youth reporting any sexual Youth reporting sexual victim- Youth reporting sexual
victimizationa
ization by another youth
victimization by facility staff
Percent Standard error
Percent
Standard error
Percent Standard error
12.7%
10.0

0.5%
0.9

2.7%
2.6

0.2%
0.7

10.9%
7.9

0.4%
0.8

12.6%
14.0
9.6

0.5%
3.0
1.0

2.0%
11.0
3.0

0.2%
4.4
0.5

11.3%
5.0
7.6

0.5%
1.8
0.9

6.3%
12.3
10.7
12.9

3.0%
2.4
1.7
0.4

3.3%
2.9
3.3
2.4

2.2%
1.2
0.9
0.2

2.7%
10.5
8.1
11.3

1.6%
2.4
1.2
0.4

7.4%
12.7
14.2

1.0%
0.7
0.6

1.3%
3.0
3.1

0.4%
0.4
0.3

6.3%
10.6
12.3

1.0%
0.6
0.6

a
Weighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or
since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
b

Estimated number of adjudicated youth in facilities covered by the NSYC.

cNon-state refers to locally and privately operated juvenile facilities.
d

Based on the number of adjudicated youth reported by the facility.

e

The average exposure period for youth in the facility is based on reports from all interviewed youth. Exposure time is based on the number of
months each youth in the sexual victimization survey was in the facility during the 12 months prior to the survey or since admission, if less than 12
months. (See Methodology for details.)

10

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

• White youth (4.4%) were more likely than
black youth (2.1%) and Hispanic youth (0.9%)
to report sexual victimization by another
youth.

• Youth with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual reported significantly higher rates of
sexual victimization by another youth (12.5%)
compared to heterosexual youth (1.3%).

• Black youth (11.9%) reported slightly higher
rates of sexual victimization by facility staff
than white youth (9.7%) and Hispanic youth
(8.1%).

• Youth who had experienced any prior sexual
assault were at least twice as likely to report
sexual victimization in the current facility
(24.1%), compared to those with no sexual
assault history (10.1%).

• Reports of staff-on-youth sexual victimization
increased with the length of time a youth had
been in the facility. An estimated 14.6% of
youth who had been in the facility 12 months
or more, compared to 8.3% of youth who had
been in the facility for less than 6 months, said
they had sexual contact with facility staff.

• Among youth who had been previously sexually assaulted at another correctional facility,
two-thirds (65.0%) reported having been victimized at the current facility within the last 12
months or since admission, if less than 12
months.

Table 8.
Prevalence of sexual victimization, by type of incident and selected youth victim characteristics, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Youth victim characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Age
15 or younger
16
17
18 or older
Race/Hispanic origin
Whitec
Blackc
Hispanic
Other, non-Hispanicc,d
Two or more racesc
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual
Othere
Time in facility
Less than 6 months
6-11 months
12 months or more
Prior sexual assault
Yes
No
Sexually assaulted at another facility
Yes
No

Youth reporting any sexual
Youth reporting sexual victim- Youth reporting sexual
victimizationa
ization by another youth
victimization by facility staff
Percent
Standard error
Percent
Standard error
Percent
Standard error
Number of youthb
24,200
2,350

12.1%
12.1

0.4%
1.6

2.0%
9.1

0.2%
2.2

10.8%
4.7

0.4%
1.2

4,920
6,150
7,410
8,080

10.7%
12.9
11.5
13.0

0.9%
0.9
0.9
0.8

3.1%
2.5
2.1
2.9

0.6%
0.4
0.3
0.5

8.7%
11.2
10.4
10.5

0.9%
0.9
0.8
0.7

9,100
11,280
5,020
730
420

12.9%
13.2
8.5
8.3
12.8

0.8%
0.8
0.8
2.1
2.7

4.4%
2.1
0.9
2.2
2.7

0.4%
0.4
0.3
1.1
2.3

9.7%
11.9
8.1
6.1
10.0

0.6%
0.7
0.8
2.1
2.5

23,340
3,210

11.1%
20.4

0.4%
1.6

1.3%
12.5

0.1%
1.5

10.2%
11.2

0.4%
1.1

14,370
6,910
5,260

9.8%
13.5
16.8

0.6%
0.7
1.0

2.0%
3.2
3.7

0.4%
0.4
0.5

8.3%
11.3
14.6

0.5%
0.7
1.0

3,830
22,720

24.1%
10.1

1.5%
0.4

9.5%
1.4

1.1%
0.2

17.3%
9.1

1.2%
0.4

550
26,000

65.0%
10.9

4.0%
0.4

28.8%
2.0

3.3%
0.2

50.5%
9.5

4.7%
0.4

aWeighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in

the past 12 months or since

admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.
b
c

Estimated number of adjudicated youth, nationwide, in facilities covered by the NSYC.

Excludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

dIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.
eIncludes youth who identify as mostly straight but also attracted to people of the same sex; equally attracted to males and females (bisexual); mostly gay,
but also attracted to people of the opposite sex; and totally gay (homosexual).

January 2010

11

Most youth-on-youth victims (81%)
reported more than one incident; 43%
reported more than one perpetrator
In the NSYC victims were also asked to provide
information about the circumstances surrounding their victimization, including the number of
times it had happened, characteristics of the perpetrators, the type of pressure or physical force,
when and where the incidents had occurred, and
whether or not they had been injured.
Data provided by youth who reported sexual victimization by another youth revealed that—
• About 81% had been victimized more than
once; 32% had been victimized more than 10
times (table 9).
• An estimated 43% of youth-on-youth victims
had been victimized by more than one perpetrator.

• More than half (59%) of the victims said that
they had been victimized by another youth
who was white; 75% said they had been victimized by a youth who was black; 39% of victims
said they had been victimized by another youth
who was Hispanic/Latino. (In comparison,
34% of all adjudicated youth held in the sampled facilities were white, 42% were black, and
19% were Hispanic.)
• Almost two-thirds of the victims (63%) said
they had been victimized at least once by a
youth known to be in a gang.
• Nearly half of the victims (46%) reported they
had experienced physical force or threat of
force, 30% had been offered favors or protection, and 17% had been given drugs or alcohol
to engage in the sexual act or other sexual contact (table 10).

Youth-on-youth sexual victimizations
occurred in areas throughout the facilities

Table 9.
Experiences of youth-on-youth victims of sexual victimization, National
Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09
Experiences
Number of incidents
1
2
3-5
6-10
11 or more
Victimized by more than one perpetrator
Yes
No
Race of perpetratorb
White
Black
Otherc
Hispanic/Latino origin of perpetrator
Yes
No
Any of the perpetrators in a gang
Yes
No
a

Victims of sexual victimization by another youtha
Percent
Standard error
18.6%
17.2
15.8
16.4
32.0

3.4%
5.3
2.4
4.7
4.8

43.4%
56.6

6.5%
6.5

58.7%
74.9
21.1

5.7%
3.8
3.4

38.7%
61.3

4.3%
4.3

63.3%
36.7

5.0%
5.0

Based on an estimated 700 youth sexually victimized by another youth.

b

Detail sums to more than 100% because some youth reported more than one victimization and/or
more than one perpetrator.

cIncludes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.

12

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Among youth who reported unwanted sexual
activity with another youth, 43% said they had
been victimized at least once in their room or
sleeping area, and 33% said they had been victimized at least once in the room or sleeping area
of another youth. Additionally, 45% reported at
least one incident had occurred in a shower or
bathroom, and 34% said they had been victimized in a recreation area. Nearly two-thirds of the
victims (65%) said at least one incident had
occurred in another common area, such as a
classroom, library, kitchen, office, closet, or supply room.
Youth-on-youth sexual victimization was more
common in the evening (between 6 p.m. and
midnight) than at any other time. An estimated
60% of the youth who reported unwanted sexual
activity with another youth said at least one of
the incidents occurred during those hours.

Most youth victimized by another youth (80%)
said they had not been physically injured. Of
those injured, approximately 5% reported being
knocked unconscious, 9% reported being
stabbed or cut, 5% reported broken bones, 7%
reported internal injuries, and 5% reported that
teeth had been chipped or knocked out. Additionally, 17% reported minor injuries, such as
bruises, a black eye, cuts, scratches, swelling, or
welts. (Not shown in table.)
Among all youth victimized by another youth,
6% said they had received two or more serious
injuries. Approximately 5% reported they had
sought medical attention for their injuries.

Most perpetrators of staff sexual
misconduct were female
Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff
sexual misconduct said they had been victimized
by female facility staff (table 11). Among the estimated 2,730 adjudicated youths who had been
victimized, 92% were males reporting sexual
activity with female staff; an additional 2.5%
were males reporting sexual activity with both
female and male staff. In comparison, 91% of all
adjudicated youth held in the sampled facilities
were male. In 2008, 42% of staff in juvenile facilities under state jurisdiction were female. (Staff
data for only sampled facilities were not available).
Physical force, threat of force, and other forms of
pressure and coercion by facility staff were
reported by an estimated 1,150 youths. Among
these victims, 14% reported a male staff member
as the perpetrator (including those victimized by
both male and female staff).
Male staff members made up a smaller percentage of perpetrators among youth reporting staff
sexual misconduct that did not involve any force.
Among the estimated 1,710 youths who experienced staff sexual misconduct without force,
nearly 4% reported the involvement of a male
staff member.

Table 10.
Circumstances surrounding youth-on-youth sexual victimization,
National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09
Circumstance
Type of pressure or forceb
Force/threat of force
Gave victim drugs/alcohol
Offered protection
None
Victim injured
Yes
No
Where occurredb
In victim's room/sleeping area
In room/sleeping area of another youth
Elsewhere in the facility
Shower/bathroom
Recreation area
Other common areac
Off facility grounds
Time of dayb
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 a.m.

Victims of sexual victimization by another youtha
Percent
Standard error
45.9%
17.2
29.9
37.8

4.2%
3.4
3.7
4.4

19.6%
80.4

2.9%
2.9

42.8%
33.3
78.9
44.8
34.1
64.8
11.8

4.2%
3.8
3.1
3.8
4.0
4.3
3.0

38.4%
47.5
60.0
28.2

3.9%
4.3
4.0
3.9

aBased on an estimated 700 youth sexually victimized by another youth.
bDetail sums to more than 100% because some youth reported more than one victimization and/or

more than one location.
c

Includes classroom, library, workshop, kitchen or other workplace, office, someone else’s room or
sleeping area, closet, and supply room.

Table 11.
Victims of staff sexual misconduct, by gender of youth and staff and use
of force, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

All victims
Male victim
Male staff
Female staff
Both male and female staff
Female victim
Male staff
Female staff
Both male and female staff
Estimated number of victims*

Victims of staff sexual misconduct
All victims
Force reported
No report of force
100%
100%
100%
1.7%
92.0
2.5

3.1%
86.1
4.7

0.5%
96.3
0.7

3.0%
0.0
0.8
2,730

4.5%
0.1
1.4
1,150

1.9%
0
0.5
1,710

Note: In facilities covered by the NYSC, an estimated 91% of adjudicated youth were male. Based on
available data from 43 states and the District of Columbia, 42% of staff in juvenile facilities under
state jurisdiction on October 22, 2008, were female. (See CJCA Yearbook 2009: A National Perspective of Juvenile Corrections, Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, 2009.)
*Detail sums to more than total because some youth reported more than one victimization.

January 2010

13

Data provided by youth who had been sexually
victimized by facility staff revealed that–
• An estimated 88% had been victimized more
than once by the staff; 27% had been victimized
more than 10 times (table 12).
• A third (33%) said they had been victimized by
more than one staff member.

Table 12.
Circumstances surrounding incidents of staff sexual
misconduct, National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09
Circumstance
Number of incidents
1
2
3-5
6-10
11 or more
Victimized by more than one staff
member
Yes
No
Type of pressure or forceb
Force/threat of force
Gave victim drugs/alcohol
Offered protection
None
Victim injured
Yes
No
Where occurredb
In victim's room/sleeping area
Elsewhere in the facility
Shower/bathroom
Recreation area
Other common areac
Off facility grounds
Time of dayb
6 a.m. to noon
Noon to 6 p.m.
6 p.m. to midnight
Midnight to 6 a.m.
a

Victims of staff sexual misconducta
Percent
Standard error
11.7%
15.6
26.7
19.4
26.6

1.3%
1.4
1.9
1.3
1.6

32.9%
67.1

1.4%
1.4

14.0%
18.0
11.0
68.7

1.3%
1.4
1.1
1.6

5.1%
94.9

1.0%
1.0

53.9%
84.2
51.4
17.9
79.9
11.8

2.2%
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.4

43.4%
47.3
59.0
47.1

2.2%
1.6
1.4
1.7

Based on an estimated 2,670 youth sexually victimized by facility staff.

b

Detail sums to more than 100% because some youth reported more than one victimization and/or more than one location.

c

Includes classroom, library, workshop, kitchen or other workplace, office, someone
else’s room or sleeping area, closet, and supply room.

14

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

• One in 7 (14%) reported they had experienced
physical force or threat of force, 11% had been
offered favors or protection, and 18% had been
given drugs or alcohol to engage in the sexual
act or other sexual contact.
• Most youth victimized by staff (95%) said they
had not been physically injured. An estimated
2% reported 2 or more serious injuries; fewer
than 1% said they sought medical attention
(not shown in table).
• Nearly 80% of the victims said at least one incident had occurred in a common area, such as a
classroom, library, kitchen, office, closet, or
supply room. Half (51%) of the victims said at
least one incident had occurred in a shower or
bathroom; half (54%) also said they had been
victimized by staff in the youth’s room or sleeping area.
• Reports of staff sexual misconduct were more
common between 6 p.m. and midnight (59%)
than any other time.

Methodology
The National Sur vey of Youth in Custody
(NSYC) was conducted in all 50 states and the
District of Columbia, by Westat (Rockville, MD),
under a cooperative agreement with the Bureau
of Justice Statistics (BJS). Data collection was
conducted in 195 juvenile facilities between June
2008 and April 2009.
Interviewing juveniles in residential facilities on
such sensitive topics required extensive preparations with agency and facility administrators
prior to the interview. These preparations ranged
from methods to obtain consent, procedures to
file mandatory reports of child abuse or neglect,
arrangements for counseling in case a youth
became upset, and logistical support to actually
carry out the interviewing. The specific procedures that had to be negotiated with state and
local authorities were:
• Consent to interview minors—two options for
consent were available: in loco parentis consent
provided by the state agency acting as the
guardian or active consent by parents/guardians. Twenty states and the District of Columbia provided consent in loco parentis. In 10
states either verbal or written parent/guardian
consent was permitted. Written parent/guardian consent was required in 18 states. Two
states required a mixture of in loco parentis and
written parental consent.
• Mandatory reporting of abuse or neglect—all
survey staff who had direct contact with youths
had to comply with state and local reporting
requirements when a youth made a verbal
statement suggesting abuse or neglect. Jurisdictions provided contact information and
instructions for submitting reports to an
agency outside of the facility (e.g., local Child
Protective Services).
• Counseling services—jurisdictions were asked
to identify both facility-based and external
resources for counseling services in the event a
youth would become emotionally upset during
the interview or make a specific request to the
interviewer for such services.

The NSYC comprised two questionnaires – a
survey of sexual victimization and a survey of
past drug and alcohol use and abuse. Youth were
randomly assigned one of the questionnaires so
that, at the time of the interview, the content of
the survey remained unknown to facility staff
and the survey interviewers. The interviews
averaged about 30 minutes in length and used
automated collection methods. Youth interacted
with the computer-administered questionnaires
using a touch-screen and synchronized audio
instructions delivered through headphones.
Youth could choose to take the interview in
either English or Spanish. Youth completed the
inter view in private, with the inter viewer
remaining in the room but in a position that did
not offer a view of the computer screen. Approximately 10,400 youth completed one of the two
NSYC questionnaires.
Sampling of facilities
The universe for the survey was all adjudicated
youth residing in state operated facilities or large
non-state facilities, locally or privately operated.
The universe was restricted to facilities that
house youth for at least 90 days. This restriction
was imposed to allow sufficient time to obtain
parental consent.
A multistage stratified sample design was used.
At the first stage of selection, a total of 284 facilities was selected from the over 500 eligible facilities in the United States. Eligible juvenile facilities included state-owned or operated juvenile
facilities and non-state facilities with 105 or
more adjudicated youth.
Selection of facilities was completed using the
2006 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP), conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Based
on a complete enumeration, 548 facilities were
determined to be eligible for selection. A small
number of facilities were later determined to be
out-of-scope. Facilities were out-of-scope if the
sampled facility 1) had closed, 2) was a non-state
facility housing fewer than 105 youth, or 3) did
not house youth for more than 90 days. The
facility sampling rates ranged from a low of
about 1 in 10 for the smallest facilities to certainty among the largest facilities.

January 2010

15

For sample selection purposes, a measure of size
equal to the number of adjudicated youth
(according to the 2006 CJRP) was assigned to
each facility in the frame. Two hundred-and-one
facilities were included in the sample with certainty. These certainty facilities were state facilities with at least 90 youth or non-state facilities
with at least 105 youth.
Next, one state facility was randomly selected
from a designated substratum within each of the
9 states that did not contain a certainty facility.
The designated substratum consisted of the largest facilities in the state. Within each of the designated substrata, one facility was selected with
probability proportionate to the size of facility.
An additional 74 state facilities were selected for
the study from the remaining facilities. Facilities
were assigned to strata defined by gender of
youths held in the facility, percent of youths who
were female, facility size, region, and state.
Within each stratum, between 2 and 5 facilities
were selected with probabilities proportionate to
size of facility.
In the interest of completing data collection
activities by April 2009, the size criterion for the
non-state facilities was increased to 150. This
eliminated 32 facilities from the original sample.
Of the 252 selected juvenile facilities—
• 26 were determined to be ineligible due to an
average length of stay of less than 90 days or
some other constraint that precluded obtaining
consent of parent or guardian.
• 18 had closed.
• 6 housed pre-adjudicated youth only or too few
adjudicated youth to permit interviewing.
• 2 had merged with another participating facility.
• 2 participated but yielded no usable interviews
from the sexual victimization survey.
Of the remaining 198 eligible juvenile facilities, 3
privately operated facilities refused to participate
in the survey:
• Glen Mills School, Glen Mills, PA
• Northwestern Academy, Coal Township, PA
• Gulf Coast Trade Center, New Waverly, TX

16

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Selection of youth
Rosters of adjudicated youth were provided by
facilities granting in loco parentis (ILP) 4 weeks
prior to data collection and by facilities requiring
parental/guardian consent (PGC) 8 weeks prior
to data collection. All youth were sampled in ILP
facilities and in PGC facilities that had 240 or
fewer youth on the roster. In PGC facilities that
exceeded 240 youth, an initial sample of 240 was
selected. Additionally, all females among those
not selected were included with certainty.
The initial sample was supplemented by youth
who were admitted to the facility between the 8th
and 4 th weeks prior to data collection. In ILP
facilities and PGC facilities with at least 240
adjudicated youth, everyone was selected. In
PGC facilities with more than 240, incoming
youth were selected at the same rate as the initial
sample.
Prior to the start of data collection, interviewing
capacity at each facility was assessed based on
the number of available days, interviewing
rooms, and interviewers. In facilities in which
the NSYC team had the capacity to complete all
of the interviews, all youths for whom consent
had been given were selected. In other facilities,
youth were randomly sub-sampled so the number of youth did not exceed interviewing capacity.
A total of 25,939 youth were selected. Among
these individuals, 7,175 left prior to the interviewing team arriving at the facility. After
restricting the sample to those assigned to the
sexual assault interview, 54% of the youth
responded to the interview. Approximately 33%
of the youth did not participate because parental/guardian consent could not be obtained; 6%
refused to complete the interview; and 7% were
non-respondents for other reasons (e.g., they did
not complete the entire interview, they were not
at the facility at the time of visit, the facility
denied access, or they were excluded due to
extreme or inconsistent response patterns).

As a result of sampling and consent protocols,
youth who completed the NSYC were somewhat
older and had committed more serious offenses
than other youth in residential placement.
Nearly twice as many youth in the NSYC were
age 18 or older (26%), compared to adjudicated
and non-adjudicated youth who had been enumerated in the 2006 CJRP (14%). Considerably
more youth in the NSYC had been placed
because of a violent offense (46%) than all youth
in residential placement (34%).
Weighting and non-response adjustments
The survey data were weighted to provide facility-level and national-level estimates. To generate facility estimates, an initial weight was
assigned to each youth corresponding to the
inverse of the probability of selection within each
facility. A series of adjustments were applied to
the initial weight to compensate for nonresponse. These adjustments were completed in
three steps:
1.

Adjustment cells were constructed based on
the number of locked doors the youth had to
go through to leave the facility, offense, race/
Hispanic origin, age, gender, and the number of days the youth had been in facility.

2.

An adjustment required a minimum nonresponse cell size of 10 responding youth. In
many facilities, this resulted in no nonresponse adjustment, as either the facility
had too few interviews (less than 20) to create multiple cells or the differences between
respondents and non-respondents were not
significant. In facilities where significant differences were observed, 2 to 4 non-response
cells were created.

3.

After an initial non-response adjustment,
the weights within a facility were examined.
If the highest weight was 4 times greater
than the lowest weight in the facility, the
highest weights were trimmed and the difference in weighted counts distributed to the
remaining youth, so that after trimming the
high-to-low ratio in the final weight would
be equal to 4.

To generate national estimates, the facility
weights were adjusted to reflect each facility’s
probability of selection into the sample and then
were adjusted for facility non-response. The
steps in creating the national weight adjustments
were the same as those described for facilitylevel weights.

Calculating facility-level response rates
Within each facility a base weight was created for
each youth in the sexual victimization survey by
taking the inverse of each youth’s probability of
selection. In most facilities youth selection probabilities were the same. However, in some sampled facilities (e.g. where females were oversampled and where rosters contained duplicate
records) selection probabilities varied.
An initial facility response rate was calculated by
summing the base weights for all youth completing the sexual victimization survey and dividing
it by the sum of the base weights for all sampled
youth (minus ineligible youth) in each facility.
A final response rate was calculated to account
for the deletion of interviews containing extreme
or inconsistent responses. (See discussion on
page 6.) This was achieved by multiplying the
initial facility response rate by an adjustment
ratio. In each facility this ratio represented the
sum of final weights for all interviewed youth
excluding those with extreme or inconsistent
responses divided by the sum of final weights for
all interviewed youth including those with
extreme or inconsistent responses. This final
adjusted response rate was then multiplied by
100.
Calculations for Mt. Meigs Campus (Alabama)
illustrate the calculation of these weighted facility-level response rates. The facility listed 278
youth on its roster. Of these listed, 193 were subsampled. Thirteen of the sampled youth were
roster errors (and were excluded from the sample). Of the remaining 180 sampled youth, 32
were discharged prior to the visit, leaving 132
sampled for the sexual victimization survey and
16 for supplemental survey. Of the 132 eligible
youth, 121 completed the NSYC survey. After
adjusting for the probability of selection for each
youth, the 121 youth who completed the sexual
victimization survey represented 208 youth (or
91.7% of the 227 eligible youth in the facility).
Three of the youth provided extreme or 3 or
more inconsistent responses and were excluded.
After adjusting for the probability of selection
for each youth, a ratio adjustment of.974 was
applied to the initial response rate, resulting in
an overall facility response rate of 89.3% (.974
times.917 times 100%).

January 2010

17

Standard errors and confidence intervals
Survey estimates are subject to sampling error
arising from the fact that the estimates are based
on a sample rather than a complete enumeration.
Within each facility, the estimated sampling
error varies by the size of the estimate, the number of completed interviews, and the size of the
facility. Because of the relatively small samples
within many of the selected facilities, it is especially important to consider the possibility of
sampling error when interpreting the survey
results.
Estimates of the standard errors for selected
measures of sexual victimization are presented in
tables that provide national-level estimates.
These estimates may be used to construct confidence intervals around the survey estimates (e.g.,
numbers, percents, and rates), as well as to test
for significant differences between the estimates.
For example, the 95%-confidence interval
around the percent of male youth reporting sexual victimizations by another youth is approximately 2.0% plus or minus 1.96 times 0.2% (or
1.6% to 2.4%). Based on similarly conducted
samples, 95% of the intervals would be expected
to contain the true (but unknown) percentage.
The standard errors may also be used to construct confidence intervals around differences in
the estimates. The 95%-confidence interval comparing the percent of male youths (2.0%) and
female youths (9.1%) reporting sexual victimization may be calculated. The confidence interval
around the difference of 7.1% is approximately
plus or minus 1.96 times 2.2% (the square root of
the pooled variance estimate, 4.9%). The pooled
variance estimate is calculated by taking the
square root of the sum of each standard error
squared, e.g., the square root of (0.2)2 plus (2.2)2.
Since the interval (2.8% to 11.4%) does not
include zero, the difference between male youth
and female youth is considered statistically significant.
To express the possible variation due to sampling
associated with facility-level estimates, tables in
this report provide lower and upper bounds of
the related 95%-confidence intervals. Because
many facility samples are small and the estimates
are close to 0%, confidence intervals were constructed using an alternative method developed
by Wilson. Computationally, this method produces an asymmetrical confidence interval

18

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

around the facility estimates, in which the lower
bound is constrained to be greater than or equal
to 0% and the upper bound is less than or equal
to 100%. It also provides confidence intervals for
facilities in which the survey estimates are zero
(but other similarly conducted surveys could
yield non-zero estimates).
Exposure period
For purposes of calculating comparative rates of
sexual victimization, the facility provided the
most recent date of admission to the current
facility. If the date of admission was at least 12
months prior to the date of the survey, youth
were asked questions related to their experiences
during the last 12 months. If the admission date
was less than 12 months prior to the interview,
youth were asked about their experiences since
they arrived at the facility.
The average exposure period for sexual victimization among sampled youth was 6.9 months in
ILP facilities and 6.0 months in PGC facilities.
Overall, the average exposure period was 6.3
months. Ten of the 13 high rate facilities had longer average exposure periods (ranging from 6.9
months to 10.6 months). Three of the 11 low rate
facilities had average exposure periods shorter
than 6.3 months (not shown in tables).
Measuring sexual victimization
The NSYC relied on the reporting of direct experience of each youth, rather than youth reporting
on the experience of other youth. The strategy
was to first ask if the youth had engaged in any
type of sexual activity at the facility within the
last 12 months or since they entered the facility,
if they had been in the facility for less than 12
months. These questions were not specific to the
perpetrator or whether the sexual activity was
coerced.
The initial series of questions differed by the age
of the youth. Youth ages 15 or older were administered questions related to the touching of body
parts in a sexual way, involving oral, anal, or vaginal sex. Youth ages 14 or younger, were asked
less detailed questions about sexual activity.
Rather than referring to explicit body parts and
acts, the items had less explicit language (i.e.,
“private parts”). This was done to avoid exposing
younger respondents to explicit sexual references. (See pages 20-21 for specific survey
items.)

Youth who reported sexual activity were then
asked if the activities occurred with other youth
or with staff. They were next asked questions
about the presence and nature of coercion
(including use of physical force or threat of physical force; other type of force or pressure; or
return for money, favors, protection, or other
special treatment) associated with the youth-onyouth activities. A separate but identical set of
questions was asked about coercion associated
with staff-on-youth activities. (See page 22 for
specific survey items.)
If the respondent did not report any sexual contact in the initial screening items, the ACASI
survey administered a series of questions that
asked if the youth had been coerced to engage in
sexual activity. If a youth answered affirmatively,
he/she was asked if the event occurred with
another youth or with a staff member. Follow-up
questions, comparable to the initial screener
questions, were asked of those who reported victimization.
The ACASI survey presented additional questions related to both youth-on-youth and staffon-youth sexual victimization. These questions
collected further information on the characteristics of the victimization, such as time and location, number, race/Hispanic origin, and gender
of perpetrators; injuries sustained and medical
care received by the youth as a result of the
assault; and reporting of the assault to authorities
and action taken by them after the assault.
The entire ACASI questionnaires (listed as
National Survey of Youth in Custody) are available on t he BJS web site at <http://
bjs.ojp.us doj.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=321> (last accessed December 22,
2009).

Definition of terms
Sexual victimization—includes any forced sexual activity with another youth (nonconsensual
sexual acts and other sexual contacts) and all
sexual activity with facility staff (staff sexual
misconduct and staff sexual misconduct excluding touching).
Nonconsensual sexual acts—includes forced
sexual acts with another youth and all sexual acts
with facility staff involving contact with the
penis and the vagina or penis and the anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vagina, or
anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening
of another person by a hand, finger, or other
object; and rubbing of another person's penis or
vagina by a hand.
Other sexual contacts only—includes kissing on
the lips or other part of the body, looking at private body parts, being shown something sexual
like pictures or a movie, and engaging in some
other sexual act that did not involve touching.
Staff sexual misconduct—includes all sexual
activity with facility staff including contact with
the penis and the vagina or the penis and the
anus; contact between the mouth and the penis,
vagina, or anus; penetration of the anal or vaginal opening of another person by a hand, finger,
or other object; rubbing of another person's
penis or vagina by a hand; kissing on the lips or
other part of the body; looking at private body
parts; being shown something sexual like pictures or a movie; and engaging in some other
sexual act that did not involve touching.
Staff sexual misconduct excluding touching—
includes sexual activity with facility staff involving contact with the penis and the vagina or the
penis and the anus; contact between the mouth
and the penis, vagina, or anus; penetration of the
anal or vaginal opening of another person by a
hand, finger, or other object; and rubbing of
another person's penis or vagina by a hand.
Forced sexual activity—includes sexual activity
between youth and facility staff as a result of
physical force or threat of physical force; force or
pressure of some other type (e.g. threatening
with harm, threatening to get the youth in trouble, pressuring the youth, or forcing or pressuring in some other way); and in return for money,
favors, protection, or other special treatment.

January 2010

19

Survey items measuring sexual activity within the facility during the past 12 months or since entering the
facility if less 12 months
Males, ages 15 and older

Females, ages 15 and older

C11. During the past 12 months, have you rubbed
another person’s penis with your hand or has someone
rubbed your penis with their hand?

C18. During the past 12 months, have you rubbed
another person’s penis with your hand?

C12. During the past 12 months, have you rubbed
another person’s vagina with your hand?
C13. During the past 12 months, have you put your
mouth on another person’s penis or has someone put
their mouth on your penis?

C19. During the past 12 months, have you rubbed
someone else’s vagina with your hand or has someone
else rubbed your vagina with their hand?
C20. During the past 12 months, have you put your
mouth on another person’s penis?

C14. During the past 12 months, have you put your
mouth on someone’s vagina?

C21. During the past 12 months, have you put your
mouth on someone else’s vagina, or has someone put
their mouth on your vagina?

C15. During the past 12 months, have you put your
penis, finger, or something else inside someone else’s rear
end or has someone put their penis, finger, or something
else inside your rear end?

C22. During the past 12 months, have you put your
finger or something else inside someone else’s rear end or
has someone put their penis, finger, or something else
inside your rear end?

C16. During the past 12 months, have you put your
penis, finger, or something else inside someone’s vagina?

C23. During the past 12 months, have you put your
finger or something else inside someone else’s vagina or
has someone put their penis, finger, or something else
inside your vagina?

C17. During the past 12 months, have you had any other
kind of sexual contact with someone at this facility?
C17a.What kind of sexual contact was that? CHECK
ALL THAT APPLY.
Kissing on the lips………………………….….…....1
Kissing other parts of the body …….……………...2
Looking at private parts………….…..…….….…....3

C24. During the past 12 months, have you had any other
kind of sexual contact with someone at this facility?
C24a.What kind of sexual contact was that? CHECK
ALL THAT APPLY.
Kissing on the lips………………………….…..….1
Kissing other parts of the body …….…………….2

S h ow i n g s o m e t h i n g s e x u a l , l i k e p i c t u r e s o r a
movie…….…………………………………….…....4

Looking at private parts………….….…….…..…. 3

Something else that did not involve touching ….…5

S h ow i n g s o m e t h i n g s e x u a l , l i k e p i c t u re s o r a
movie…….……………………………………..….4

Something else that did involve touching……….....6

Something else that did not involve touching …...5
Something else that did involve touching………..6

20

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Survey items measuring sexual activity within the facility during the past 12 months or since entering the facility
if less 12 months (cont.)
All youth ages 14 or younger

Kissing other parts of the body …….…………......2

C1. The next questions are about sexual contacts that
happen in this facility.

Looking at private parts………….…..…….…….. 3

Sexual contacts are when someone touches your private
parts or you touch someone else’s private parts in a sexual
way.
By private parts, we mean any part of the body that would
be covered by a bathing suit.
C11. During the past 12 months, have you rubbed
anyone’s private parts with your hand or has anyone
rubbed your private parts with their hand?
C12. During the past 12 months, have you put your mouth
on anyone’s private parts or has anyone put their mouth
on your private parts?
C13. During the past 12 months, have you put any part of
your body inside anyone else’s private parts?
C13a. During the past 12 months, has anyone put part of
their body inside your private parts?
C14. During the past 12 months, have you had any other
kind of sexual contact with someone at this facility?
C14a.What kind of sexual contact was that? CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY.

Showing something sexual, like pictures or a
movie…….…………………………………….…..4
Something else that did not involve touching …. .5
Something else that did involve touching…….….6
Survey items measuring with whom the sexual activity
occurred
C25. You’ve said that since you have been at this facility,
you [list of specific activities]
C26. Did (this/any of these) happen with a youth at this
facility?
C27. During the past 12 months, which ones happened
with a youth at this facility? [list of specific activities]
C28. You’ve said that since you have been at this facility,
you [list of specific activities]
Did (this/any of these) happen with a member of the
facility staff?
C30. During the past 12 months, which ones happened
with a youth at this facility? [list of specific activities]

Kissing on the lips………………………….….…..1

January 2010

21

Survey items measuring pressure or nature of coercion

22

For incidents with youth

For incidents with staff

C31. During the past 12 months, did (this/any of these)
ever happen because a youth at this facility used physical
force or threat of physical force?

C45. During the past 12 months, did (this/any of these)
ever happen because a staff member used physical force
or threat of physical force?

C34. During the past 12 months, did (this/any of these)
ever happen because a youth at this facility forced or
pressured you in some other way to do it?

C48. During the past 12 months, did (this/any of these)
ever happen because a staff member forced or pressured
you in some other way to do it?

C34a. How were you forced or pressured in some other
way? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.

C48a. How were you forced or pressured in some other
way? CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.

Another youth threatened you with harm……..……..1

A staff member threatened you with harm…….….…..1

Another youth threatened to get you in trouble with other
youth……………………………………………. ... . . .2

A staff member threatened to get you in trouble with
other youth………..……………………………………2

Another youth threatened to get you trouble with the staff
……………………………………………..…….. . . . .3

A staff member threatened to get you trouble with the
staff..……………………………………………....……3

Another youth kept asking you to do it ……….….…4

A staff member kept asking you to do it ………..….…4

Another youth forced or pressured you in some other way
…………………………………………….…..............5

A staff member forced or pressured you in some other
way ………….………………………………….……...5

C36. During the past 12 months, did (this/any of these)
ever happen with a youth at this facility in return for
money, favors, protection, or other special treatment?

C50. During the past 12 months, did (this/any of these)
ever happen with a staff member in return for money,
favors, protection, or other special treatment?

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Items checked for extreme and inconsistent response patterns
Items unrelated to reports of sexual victimization
1. Reported one of the following:
• being admitted to the facility before turning 8 years old;
• being admitted to the facility in the future;
• being 8 feet tall or taller;
• weighing 500 pounds or more; or

13. Reports of injury resulting from sexual assault by
youth were not consistently reported in different sections
of the questionnaire.
14. Responses about reporting a sexual assault by staff to
the facility administrators were not consistent across
different questions of the questionnaire.
15. Responses about reporting a sexual assault by a youth
to the facility administrators were not consistent across
different questions of the questionnaire.

• having a Body Mass Index of either less than 15 or 50 or
greater.

16. Youth reported forced sexual contact by staff in one
section but did not report specific types of coercion in
another section of the questionnaire.

2. Youth “strongly agreed” with the statement “that some
of the questions about sexual activity were hard to
understand”.

17. Youth reported forced sexual contact by youth in one
section but did not report specific types of coercion in
another section of the questionnaire.

3. Youth reported being sexual assaulted prior to
admission to the facility but when asked “how many
times” reported “0”.

18. Youth reported having sexual contact with staff but
did not provide the specific type of activity that occurred.

4. Youth reported being physically assaulted by staff more
than 3 times per day.

19. Youth reported having forced sexual contact with a
youth but did not provide the specific type of activity that
occurred.

5. Youth reported being physically assaulted by youth
more than 3 times per day.

20. Youth did not provide details about a report of injury
resulting from forced sexual contact with staff.

6. Youth reported being physically assaulted by staff but
when asked “how many times” responded with “0”.

21. Youth did not provide details about a report of injury
resulting from forced sexual contact with youth.

7. Youth reported being physically assaulted by youth but
when asked “how many times” responded with “0”.

22. Youth reported sexual penetration by staff in one
section of the questionnaire but not in another section.

8. Youth reported being injured by staff but when asked
“how many times” responded with “0”.

23. Youth reported sexual penetration by another youth
in one section of the questionnaire but not in another
section.

9. Youth reported being injured by youth but when asked
“how many times” responded with “0”.
Items related to reports of sexual victimization
10. Youth reported sexual contact with a staff member,
but the type of activity was not consistent with the gender
of the perpetrator reported during the interview.

24. Youth reported having sexual contact with staff but
when asked “how many times” responded with “0”.
25. Youth reported having sexual contact with a youth
but when asked “how many times” responded with “0”.

11. Youth reported sexual assault by another youth, but
the type of activity was not consistent with the gender of
the perpetrator reported during the interview.
12. Reports of injury resulting from sexual assault by staff
were not consistently reported in different sections of the
questionnaire.

January 2010

23

Appendix Table 1.
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Total
Alabamad
Chalkville Campuse
Mt. Meigs Campusf
Vacca Campus
Alaskad
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr.g
Arizona
Adobe Mtn. Schoolf
Catalina Mtn. School
Southwest Reg. Juv. Complex, Eagle Point
Arkansasd
Arkansas Juv. Assess. and Trtmt. Ctr.g,h
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.h
California
Barry J. Nidorf Juv. Hallg,i
Central Juv. Hallg,i
Central Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.g,i
East Mesa Juv. Det. Fac.i
Fresno Co. Juv. Justice Campusd,g,i
Heman G. Stark Yth. Corr. Fac.d
Juv. Ranch Fac.i
Los Padrinos Juv. Hallg,i
N.A. Chaderjian Yth. Corr. Fac.d,f
O.H. Close Yth. Corr. Fac.d,f
Orange Co. Juv. Hallg,i
Preston Yth. Corr. Fac.d,f
San Mateo Co. Yth. Services Ctr.g,i
Santa Clara Co. Juv. Hallg,i
Southern Yth. Corr. Reception Ctr. and
Clinicd,f
Ventura Co. Juv. Fac.f,g,i
Ventura Yth. Corr. Fac.d,g
West Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.g,i
Colorado
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.g
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.g
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.g
Ridge View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.f,h
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.g
Connecticut
Connecticut Juv. Training School
Delawared
Ferris School for Boys
District of Columbiad
Oak Hill Yth. Ctr.

24

Number of youth
sampled
25,896

Number of ineligible All completed
youthb
NSYC interviews
7,162
10,263

Number of respondentsa
Sexual victimization
survey
Response ratec
9,198
54.5%

40
180
74

6
32
8

30
133
52

26
118
46

86.7%
89.3
76.7

78

8

60

53

84.1%

276
98
162

30
10
27

42
23
20

36
21
18

16.3%
26.3
14.8

84
39

14
7

63
32

57
29

90.5%
100.0

734
475
191
314
140
209
198
386
176
164
284
182
69
223

608
225
154
209
38
48
155
335
21
4
182
35
38
125

7
7
23
40
91
128
5
4
94
136
28
106
5
31

7
6
20
36
82
115
5
3
83
122
26
94
5
28

6.1%
2.6
60.6
38.3
89.1
79.3
13.2
6.7
59.7
84.7
28.5
70.7
17.9
31.5

187
341
184
184

27
195
24
145

127
31
121
13

116
28
107
12

80.6
21.4
74.2
34.3

60
175
118
77
242
69

32
23
73
38
34
36

24
76
13
22
116
19

21
68
11
20
106
18

84.0%
48.9
28.2
57.1
56.6
60.0

128

21

14

14

14.6%

80

10

62

56

88.9%

76

10

21

18

30.0%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 1. (cont.)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Florida
Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys
Avon Park Yth. Acad.h
Bristol Yth. Acad.h
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.h
Desoto Dual Diagnosis Corr. Fac.
Desoto High-Risk Female Corr. Fac.e
Desoto Juv. Res. Fac.
Duval Halfway House
Falkenburg Acad.
Hastings Yth. Acad., Moderate Riskh
Jackson Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.h
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.h
Pensacola Boys Base
Riverside Acad.h
Georgiad
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Bill Ireland Yth. Dev. Campusf
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campusf
Macon Yth. Dev. Campuse
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaiid
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.g
Idahod
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Lewistong
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Nampag
Juv. Corr. Ctr., St. Anthonyg
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Harrisburgf
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Murphysboro
Illinois Yth. Ctr., St. Charlesf
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Warrenvillee
Indianad
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac.e
North Central Juv. Corr. Fac.
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.f
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowad
Boys State Training School
Woodward Acad.h
Kansasd
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complex
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.g
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Bluegrass Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. and Reg. Juv.
Det.

Number of youth
sampled

Number of ineligible All completed
NSYC interviews
youthb

Number of respondentsa
Sexual victimization
survey
Response ratec

161
173
66
104
77
80
149
18
110
172
126
48
97
29
177

36
19
13
14
8
11
34
7
28
41
46
12
11
7
29

72
74
21
37
35
36
62
7
48
33
33
13
56
16
57

65
64
19
32
31
33
55
6
43
29
30
12
51
15
50

58.0%
46.9
39.6
38.2
49.2
52.9
53.8
66.7
58.1
24.6
41.1
36.4
65.7
78.9
37.6

131
184
175
184
149

35
25
15
85
13

79
124
121
83
100

71
110
108
75
89

82.8%
76.9
75.0
84.4
73.0

63

9

41

36

73.9%

37
60
144

6
22
8

31
36
133

29
33
119

100.0%
97.1
97.5

79
252
302
227
94
361
76

38
88
79
27
35
191
15

19
86
132
129
28
81
31

17
76
118
117
26
74
28

45.9%
51.4
59.1
65.1
48.1
48.7
51.6

77
123
143
193
123

7
16
22
31
25

61
101
119
143
87

55
92
106
128
78

88.7%
94.8
98.1
87.7
88.5

166
161

16
21

141
133

129
119

95.6%
94.4

192
110

32
10

110
92

97
82

67.4%
91.1

60
50
35
49

12
12
5
14

11
19
9
15

9
17
8
13

20.9%
50.0
28.6
40.6

46

15

13

12

41.4

January 2010

25

Appendix table 1. (cont.)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Louisiana
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Mained
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.g
Maryland
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton
Cheltenham Yth. Fac.
Thomas J. S. Waxter Children's Ctr.e
Massachusetts
Connelly Transitional Unit
Fay A. Rotenberg Schoole,h
Metro Trtmt. Ctr.h
Michigan
Maxey Training Schoold
Oakland Co. Children's Villageg,i
Pioneer Work and Learn Ctr.h
Shawono Ctr.d
Starr Commonwealth, Albionh
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Red Wing
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Togo
Mississippi
Oakley Training School, Units 1 and 2g
Missourid
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campg
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Genevae
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Kearney
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.g
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
Rite of Passage, Silverstate Acad.h
Summit View Yth. Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
John H. Sununu Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.g
New Jersey
Camden Res. Community Home
Green Res. Community Home
Juv. Medium Security Fac., Males
Juv. Reception and Assess. Ctr.
New Jersey Training Schoolf
Voorhees Res. Community Home
New Mexico
New Mexico Yth. Diagnostic Dev. Ctr.g

26

Number of youth
sampled

Number of ineligible All completed
NSYC interviews
youthb

Number of respondentsa
Sexual victimization
survey
Response ratec

69
249

13
40

29
121

25
108

50.0%
57.3

91

8

68

61

81.3%

53
58
18

17
29
11

12
2
3

11
2
3

33.3%
7.4
50.0

17
18
20

5
5
2

2
5
3

1
5
3

10.0%
41.7
18.8

63
161
222
30
150

4
27
49
2
35

52
52
73
25
53

47
46
66
22
47

88.7%
38.0
42.6
88.0
45.2

111
32

2
7

54
6

49
5

50.3%
21.7

168

94

31

28

42.4%

26
32
41
22
63

3
6
3
3
8

22
23
28
19
35

20
21
25
17
31

95.2%
87.5
73.5
100.0
62.0

79

19

30

27

50.0%

80
168

11
44

31
50

28
47

44.4%
42.0

109
122
210
44

24
23
31
9

35
32
57
15

31
30
51
13

40.3%
34.4
31.9
41.9

95

36

11

9

17.0%

26
22
119
233
286
22

10
10
38
184
72
5

8
7
28
6
78
8

7
7
25
4
71
7

46.7%
63.6
33.8
9.1
37.7
43.8

141

38

74

66

70.3%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 1. (cont.)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09
Facility name
New York
Allen Res. Ctr.
Berkshire Farm Ctr. and Srvcs.h
Brentwood Res. Ctr.e
Brookwood Secure Ctr.
Highland Res. Ctr.
Industry Limited Secure Ctr.
Louis Gossett Jr. Res. Ctr.
Middletown Res. Ctr.g
Sgt. Henry Johnson Yth. Leadership Acad.
Tryon Boys Res. Ctr.
Tryon Girls Res. Ctr.e
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Dobbs Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr.e
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Swannanoa Valley Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.g
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.f
Hillcrest Training Schooli
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.f
Juv. Res. Ctr. of Northwest Ohioi
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.
Mohican Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ohio River Valley Juv. Corr. Fac.f
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.g
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma Juv. Ctr.g
L.E. Rader Ctr.
Oregond
Camp Florence
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.f
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.f
Pennsylvania
Abraxas Ih
Cresson Secure Trtmt. Unith
George Jr. Republicf,h
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unitg
Pennsylvania Clinical School, Keystoneh
St. Gabriel's Hallh
Summit Acad.f,h
Rhode Islandd
Rhode Island Training Schoolg
South Carolinad
Broad River Rd. Complex, Birchwood
Broad River Rd. Complex, John G. Richards
South Dakota
Patrick Henry Brady Acad.f

Number of youth
sampled

Number of ineligible All completed
NSYC interviews
youthb

Number of respondentsa
Sexual victimization
survey
Response ratec

51
102
31
149
159
85
170
27
44
107
59

19
18
18
5
28
28
86
8
11
21
7

17
10
3
63
34
10
22
3
10
12
12

16
9
2
57
31
8
20
2
9
11
12

57.1%
11.8
16.7
43.1
26.1
15.7
26.7
11.8
30.0
14.1
26.1

113
68
50
106
51

13
31
18
10
3

39
29
28
57
18

34
26
25
51
17

37.8%
78.8
86.2
59.3
39.5

72

25

33

30

71.4%

139
285
112
329
42
159
136
282
194

17
66
20
69
4
21
23
44
151

74
101
12
102
31
52
58
83
7

66
90
11
90
28
47
52
74
5

60.5%
45.5
13.3
38.4
80.0
36.7
51.5
34.7
13.2

104
137

10
14

28
54

24
51

28.6%
45.6

21
100
181
88

5
10
21
8

15
66
138
76

14
57
124
68

93.3%
70.4
86.1
94.4

182
56
283
125
156
121
87
201
242

34
15
61
32
17
15
11
30
22

85
14
87
54
60
49
34
77
83

78
12
77
49
53
45
32
69
73

58.6%
33.3
38.6
58.3
42.9
47.4
46.4
44.7
36.7

146

34

83

75

74.3%

66
117

6
13

57
76

51
70

96.2%
74.5

64

26

21

19

61.1%

January 2010

27

Appendix table 1. (cont.)
Characteristics of juvenile facilities participating in the National Survey of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texasd
Al Price State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.g
Cottrell House
Crockett State Schoolf
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State Schoolf
Giddings State Schoolf
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 1
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 2f
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Ctr. Unit Ie
Schaeffer House
Victory Field Corr. Acad.
West Texas State School
Utah
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.g
Vermontd
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.g
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.g
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term
Hanover Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Echo Glen Children's Ctr.g
Green Hill School
Maple Lane School
Naselle Yth. Campg
Twin Rivers Community Fac.
West Virginiad
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.g
Wisconsin
Ethan Allen Schoolf
Lincoln Hills School
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys School

Number of youth
sampled

Number of respondentsa
Number of ineligible All completed
Sexual victimization
youthb
NSYC interviews survey
Response ratec

125
137
132
142

18
30
34
28

55
65
63
61

49
58
56
55

50.5%
60.1
63.3
53.4

187
111
24
184
164
190
170
224
174
138
19
86
94

27
5
3
25
22
28
12
131
9
19
6
10
17

140
90
15
133
83
135
143
87
146
101
9
69
67

126
81
13
119
74
120
131
78
132
89
7
61
60

87.6%
84.1
68.4
83.2
57.7
82.8
91.6
92.9
89.3
84.0
63.6
89.7
85.7

38

5

16

14

46.7%

14

2

11

9

90.0%

236
186
145
147

43
34
12
18

83
45
58
29

74
40
51
27

42.5%
29.4
42.9
23.3

147
173
206
131
14

34
9
49
55
3

36
68
80
28
7

32
62
71
25
6

31.7%
41.4
50.7
37.0
66.7

174

19

128

115

82.7%

262
249

68
55

100
82

90
72

51.4%
41.4

74

25

38

34

77.3%

Note: A total of 10,263 youth participated in NSYC. Approximately 10% (1,065) were randomly assigned to an alternative survey on drug use and treatment. Two
facilities in which there were no useable interviews due to extreme or inconsistent response were excluded. Facilities house males only unless otherwise notes.
a

Number of adjudicated youth who participated in the survey. Includes 105 youth with incomplete information on sexual victimization items.

b

Youth were considered ineligible if they were mentally or physically incapacitated, admitted to the facility within 4 weeks prior to the data collection period,
transferred or released after sample selection but before the data collection period, or identified as pre-adjudicated. (See Methodology for details.)

c
Response rate accounts for different probabilities of selection among youth and the exclusion of interviews with extreme or inconsistent responses. (See Methodology for details.)
dState/facility granted consent in loco parentis. (See Methodology for details.)
e

Facility houses females only.

f

Youth sub-sampled after initial sample selected.

g

Facility houses both males and females.

h
i

Private facility. Some private facilities may be state owned or under state jurisdiction.

County facility.

28

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix Table 2.
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Total
Alabamab
Chalkville Campusc
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaskab
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr.d
Arizona
Adobe Mtn. School
Catalina Mtn. School
Southwest Reg. Juv. Complex, Eagle Point
Arkansasb
Arkansas Juv. Assess. and Trtmt. Ctr.d,e
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.e
California
Barry J. Nidorf Juv. Halld,f
Central Juv. Halld,f
Central Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.d,f
East Mesa Juv. Det. Fac.f
Fresno Co. Juv. Justice Campusb,d,f
Heman G. Stark Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Juv. Ranch Fac.f
Los Padrinos Juv. Halld,f
N.A. Chaderjian Yth. Corr. Fac.b
O.H. Close Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Orange Co. Juv. Halld,f
Preston Yth. Corr. Fac.b
San Mateo Co. Yth. Services Ctr.d,f
Santa Clara Co. Juv. Halld,f
Southern Yth. Corr. Reception Ctr. and Clinicb
Ventura Co. Juv. Fac.d,f
Ventura Yth. Corr. Fac.b,d
West Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.d,f
Colorado
Grand Mesa Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Mt. View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Ridge View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.e
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Connecticut
Connecticut Juv. Training School
Delawareb
Ferris School for Boys
District of Columbiab
Oak Hill Yth. Ctr.

Percent of youth reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
12.1%
11.3%
13.0%
3.8%
11.2
19.6

1.5%
8.2
14.3

9.4%
15.1
26.1

15.1%

11.1%

20.2%

16.9%
23.8
23.5

8.9%
10.0
9.3

29.5%
46.9
47.9

10.7%
13.8

7.7%
10.3

14.7%
18.3

0.0%
:
10.3
14.3
11.3
3.5
:
0.0
14.5
13.9
4.0
14.0
0.0
3.6
8.7
2.5
12.4
8.3

0.0%
:
3.8
6.3
8.6
2.1
:
0.0
9.4
10.7
0.8
9.2
0.0
1.2
5.6
0.8
8.4
1.7

34.1%
:
25.0
29.2
14.6
5.8
:
54.7
21.7
17.9
17.1
20.8
34.9
10.6
13.2
7.7
18.0
32.1

0.0%
12.2
0.0
5.3
5.4
5.6

0.0%
5.9
0.0
1.4
3.3
1.5

4.6%
23.6
20.9
17.8
8.8
18.1

0.0%

0.0%

20.4%

18.2%

14.0%

23.3%

11.1%

3.5%

30.1%

January 2010

29

Appendix Table 2. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Florida
Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys
Avon Park Yth. Acad.e
Bristol Yth. Acad.e
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Desoto Dual Diagnosis Corr. Fac.
Desoto High-Risk Female Corr. Fac.c
Desoto Juv. Res. Fac.
Duval Halfway House
Falkenburg Acad.
Hastings Yth. Acad., Moderate Riske
Jackson Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.e
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Pensacola Boys Base
Riverside Acad.e
Georgiab
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Bill Ireland Yth. Dev. Campus
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusc
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaiib
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.d
Idahob
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Lewistond
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Nampad
Juv. Corr. Ctr., St. Anthonyd
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Chicago
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Murphysboro
Illinois Yth. Ctr., St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Warrenvillec
Indianab
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac.c
North Central Juv. Corr. Fac.
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowab
Boys State Training School
Woodward Acad.e
Kansasb
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complex
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Adair Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Bluegrass Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Lincoln Village Yth. Dev. Ctr. and Reg. Juv. Det.

30

Percent of youth reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
11.3%
10.9
5.3
12.1
16.1
3.6
1.0
0.0
7.0
13.8
11.1
0.0
16.4
0.0
18.5

6.9%
6.0
1.2
6.8
8.7
1.4
0.3
0.0
3.3
5.4
3.8
0.0
10.7
0.0
9.7

17.9%
19.0
20.5
20.7
27.9
9.3
3.8
22.5
14.3
30.6
28.4
18.9
24.3
7.5
32.3

21.3%
17.4
19.4
14.0
23.6

16.6%
13.0
13.5
10.2
18.7

26.9%
23.0
27.2
18.8
29.3

10.7%

6.0%

18.3%

25.0%
3.0
7.6

13.8%
1.5
6.1

41.1%
6.0
9.3

0.0%
11.8
13.9
9.8
0.0
10.2
11.4

0.0%
6.8
10.0
6.9
0.0
4.5
4.8

11.7%
19.8
18.9
13.8
7.6
21.3
24.7

9.1%
22.8
11.3
36.2
8.2

6.2%
19.7
9.4
30.5
5.8

13.2%
26.3
13.6
42.4
11.4

9.3%
11.8

7.4%
9.9

11.7%
14.0

14.6%
15.9

10.2%
12.5

20.4%
19.9

0.0%
11.8
/
7.7
0.0

0.0%
4.2
/
1.7
0.0

30.8%
29.0
/
28.5
16.4

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 2. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Louisiana
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Maineb
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Maryland
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton
Cheltenham Yth. Fac.
Thomas J. S. Waxter Children's Ctr.c
Massachusetts
Connelly Transitional Unit
Fay A. Rotenberg Schoolc,e
Metro Trtmt. Ctr.e
Michigan
Maxey Training Schoolb
Oakland Co. Children's Villaged,f
Pioneer Work and Learn Ctr.e
Shawono Ctr.b
Starr Commonwealth, Albione
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Red Wing
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Togo
Mississippi
Oakley Training School, Units 1 and 2d
Missourib
Ft. Bellefontaine Campus
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Montgomery City Yth. Ctr.
Rich Hill Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campd
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Genevac
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Kearney
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.d
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
Rite of Passage, Silverstate Acad.e
Summit View Yth. Corr. Ctr.
New Hampshire
John H. Sununu Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
New Jersey
Camden Res. Community Home
Green Res. Community Home
Juv. Medium Security Fac., Males
Juv. Reception and Assess. Ctr.
New Jersey Training School
Voorhees Res. Community Home
New Mexico
New Mexico Yth. Diagnostic Dev. Ctr.d

Percent of youth reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
8.0%
16.6

2.9%
12.1

20.1%
22.4

16.4%

11.9%

22.1%

36.4%
0.0
0.0

16.5%
0.0
0.0

62.3%
64.1
42.3

0.0%
:
:

0.0%
:
:

77.9%
:
:

23.4%
6.7
7.5
27.3
6.4

18.2%
2.1
4.0
19.4
2.8

29.5%
18.9
13.6
36.9
14.1

2.8%
0.0

1.0%
0.0

7.4%
38.1

7.1%

2.4%

19.1%

0.0%
14.3
0.0
0.0
3.2

0.0%
8.9
0.0
0.0
0.9

2.4%
22.1
5.0
6.3
10.6

18.5%

10.0%

31.6%

0.0%
2.2

0.0%
0.5

7.5%
8.8

4.3%
4.5
17.7
15.4

1.0%
1.0
9.2
5.2

17.2%
19.0
31.4
37.7

0.0%

0.0%

26.6%

/%
0.0
16.0
0.0
23.3
:

/%
0.0
7.1
0.0
14.7
:

/%
18.6
32.2
46.9
34.8
:

16.5%

11.6%

22.8%

January 2010

31

Appendix table 2. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
New York
Allen Res. Ctr.
Berkshire Farm Ctr. and Srvcs.e
Brentwood Res. Ctr.c
Brookwood Secure Ctr.
Highland Res. Ctr.
Industry Limited Secure Ctr.
Louis Gossett Jr. Res. Ctr.
Middletown Res. Ctr.d
Sgt. Henry Johnson Yth. Leadership Acad.
Tryon Boys Res. Ctr.
Tryon Girls Res. Ctr.c
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Dobbs Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Swannanoa Valley Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.d
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Hillcrest Training Schoolf
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Juv. Res. Ctr. of Northwest Ohiof
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.
Mohican Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ohio River Valley Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.d
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma Juv. Ctr.d
L.E. Rader Ctr.
Oregonb
Camp Florence
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Abraxas Ie
Cresson Secure Trtmt. Unite
George Jr. Republice
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unitd
Pennsylvania Clinical School, Keystonee
St. Gabriel's Halle
Summit Acad.e
Rhode Islandb
Rhode Island Training Schoold
South Carolinab
Broad River Rd. Complex, Birchwood
Broad River Rd. Complex, John G. Richards
South Dakota
Patrick Henry Brady Acad.

32

Percent of youth reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
25.0%
:
0.0
6.3
16.1
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
9.1
33.3

12.8%
:
0.0
2.5
7.7
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
1.6
14.4

43.0%
:
61.9
15.0
30.6
29.2
15.4
63.2
23.7
38.5
59.7

5.9%
19.2
33.3
3.9
25.0

2.0%
12.5
25.5
1.6
11.4

16.4%
28.3
42.3
9.5
46.3

3.3%

1.1%

10.0%

15.2%
6.7
0.0
7.3
4.0
16.9
9.6
14.2
:

9.9%
3.0
0.0
3.9
1.5
7.9
4.7
8.4
:

22.8%
14.2
23.5
13.3
10.3
32.6
18.8
23.1
:

16.7%
25.0

7.3%
16.2

33.7%
36.5

0.0%
8.9
12.9
11.9

0.0%
5.4
8.9
9.0

3.3%
14.5
18.3
15.8

5.8%
33.3
11.7
12.2
6.9
9.6
11.5
12.2
3.8

2.9%
15.0
6.4
6.9
3.6
4.6
5.3
7.6
1.3

11.2%
58.6
20.3
20.6
12.7
19.3
23.4
19.2
10.7

1.3%

0.5%

3.9%

17.6%
20.9

14.0%
16.2

22.0%
26.5

0.0%

0.0%

10.1%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 2. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization, by facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texasb
Al Price State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Cottrell House
Crockett State School
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 1
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 2
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Ctr. Unit Ic
Schaeffer House
Victory Field Corr. Acad.
West Texas State School
Utah
Decker Lake Yth. Ctr.d
Vermontb
Woodside Juv. Rehab. Ctr.d
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.d
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term
Hanover Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Echo Glen Children's Ctr.d
Green Hill School
Maple Lane School
Naselle Yth. Campd
Twin Rivers Community Fac.
West Virginiab
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.d
Wisconsin
Ethan Allen School
Lincoln Hills School
Wyoming
Wyoming Boys School

Percent of youth reporting sexual victimizationa
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
16.3%
17.5
14.5
26.0

10.1%
11.5
9.1
18.8

25.2%
25.7
22.4
34.6

15.1%
32.4
23.1
20.2
24.2
17.5
20.8
2.6
21.2
14.6
0.0
24.6
16.9

12.4%
27.8
11.2
17.2
17.9
12.7
15.8
1.5
16.8
11.6
0.0
19.8
12.5

18.3%
37.3
41.5
23.6
31.9
23.6
26.7
4.4
26.5
18.3
20.2
30.0
22.4

0.0%

0.0%

13.6%

0.0%

0.0%

9.6%

13.6%
25.0
30.0
22.2

7.8%
15.3
21.5
11.1

22.9%
38.2
40.1
39.5

9.4%
1.0
12.8
1.7
0.0

3.7%
0.2
7.8
0.4
0.0

21.6%
4.2
20.2
7.3
22.5

13.0%

10.5%

16.1%

8.6%
12.5

5.1%
7.8

14.2%
19.3

0.0%

0.0%

4.4%

Note: See “Definition of terms” in Methodology for measures of sexual victimization by type. Facilities house males
only unless otherwise noted.
/Not reported. Insufficient data to provide a facility rate.
:Not calculated. One or more youth victimized. Value suppressed to protect confidentiality.
a

Weighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth or facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less than 12 months.

b
c

State/facility granted consent in loco parentis. (See Methodology for details.)

Facility houses females only.

d

Facility houses both males and females.

ePrivate facility. Some private facilities may be state owned or under state jurisdiction.
fCounty facility.

January 2010

33

Appendix Table 3.
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Total
Alabamab
Chalkville Campusc
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaskab
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr.d
Arizona
Adobe Mtn. School
Catalina Mtn. School
Southwest Reg. Juv. Complex, Eagle Point
Arkansasb
Arkansas Juv. Assess. and Trtmt. Ctr.d,e
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.e
California
Central Juv. Halld,f
Central Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.d,f
East Mesa Juv. Det. Fac.f
Fresno Co. Juv. Justice Campusb,d,f
Heman G. Stark Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Juv. Ranch Fac.f
N.A. Chaderjian Yth. Corr. Fac.b
O.H. Close Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Orange Co. Juv. Halld,f
Preston Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Santa Clara Co. Juv. Halld,f
Southern Yth. Corr. Reception Ctr. and
Clinicb
Ventura Co. Juv. Fac.d,f
Ventura Yth. Corr. Fac.b,d
West Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.d,f
Colorado
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Ridge View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.e
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Delawareb
Ferris School for Boys
District of Columbiab
Oak Hill Yth. Ctr.

34

Percent of youth reporting victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound
2.6%
2.2%
3.1%
2.0%
1.6%
2.4%
3.8%
0.8
2.2

1.5%
0.2
0.8

9.4%
2.8
6.0

3.8%
0.8
2.2

1.5%
0.2
0.8

9.4%
2.8
6.0

3.8%

1.9%

7.3%

3.8%

1.9%

7.3%

5.6%
4.8
0.0

1.7%
1.0
0.0

17.3%
20.6
15.6

2.9%
4.8
0.0

0.5%
1.0
0.0

14.3%
20.6
15.6

3.6%
3.4

2.0%
1.9

6.3%
6.2

3.6%
3.4

2.0%
1.9

6.3%
6.2

:%
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
:
7.2
2.5
0.0
0.0
1.8

:%
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
:
4.0
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.4

:%
8.9
9.9
4.5
1.0
:
12.6
4.6
14.5
2.9
8.0

:%
0.0
0.0
2.5
0.0
:
7.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
1.8

:%
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
:
4.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.4

:%
8.9
9.9
4.5
1.0
:
12.6
3.5
14.5
2.9
8.0

0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0

0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0

1.5
12.2
8.6
18.1

0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0

0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0

1.5
12.2
8.6
18.1

9.2%
0.0
1.8
0.0

3.7%
0.0
0.7
0.0

21.1%
8.6
4.4
8.8

4.1%
0.0
1.2
0.0

1.0%
0.0
0.4
0.0

15.4%
8.6
3.6
8.8

1.8%

0.8%

4.2%

1.8%

0.8%

4.2%

0.0%

0.0%

13.4%

0.0%

0.0%

13.4%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 3. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Florida
Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys
Avon Park Yth. Acad.e
Bristol Yth. Acad.e
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Desoto Dual Diagnosis Corr. Fac.
Desoto High-Risk Female Corr. Fac.c
Desoto Juv. Res. Fac.
Falkenburg Acad.
Hastings Yth. Acad., Moderate Riske
Jackson Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Riverside Acad.e
Georgiab
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Bill Ireland Yth. Dev. Campus
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusc
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaiib
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.d
Idahob
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Lewistond
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Nampad
Juv. Corr. Ctr., St. Anthonyd
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr., St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Warrenvillec
Indianab
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac.c
North Central Juv. Corr. Fac.
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowab
Boys State Training School
Woodward Acad.e
Kansasb
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complex
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Louisiana
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Maineb
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Maryland
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton

Percent of youth reporting victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound
2.2%
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
3.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.3
0.8

0.6%
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.2

7.7%
3.9
11.5
8.8
16.1
9.3
3.8
4.1
11.8
10.1
12.3
3.6

2.2%
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0

0.6%
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0

7.7%
3.9
11.5
8.8
16.1
6.8
3.8
4.1
11.8
10.1
10.9
6.7

5.1%
0.9
0.0
10.3
1.1

3.2%
0.2
0.0
7.2
0.4

8.2%
3.7
2.1
14.6
3.3

3.9%
0.9
0.0
7.9
1.1

2.2%
0.2
0.0
5.1
0.4

6.7%
3.7
2.1
12.1
3.3

2.2%

0.7%

6.5%

2.2%

0.7%

6.5%

3.4%
0.0
5.0

2.1%
0.0
3.9

5.6%
1.5
6.6

0.0%
0.0
2.5

0.0%
0.0
1.7

7.6%
1.5
3.7

3.4%
1.5
4.1
0.8
11.4

1.1%
0.4
2.3
0.2
4.8

9.4%
5.3
7.4
3.5
24.7

1.7%
1.5
4.1
0.8
6.8

0.4%
0.4
2.3
0.2
2.3

7.2%
5.3
7.4
3.5
18.2

0.0%
16.3
0.0
7.0
0.0

0.0%
13.6
0.0
4.7
0.0

0.6%
19.4
0.4
10.4
1.0

0.0%
14.1
0.0
7.0
0.0

0.0%
11.8
0.0
4.7
0.0

1.5%
16.8
0.4
10.4
1.0

1.6%
4.2

0.9%
3.0

2.6%
5.8

1.6%
2.5

0.9%
1.7

2.6%
3.9

3.1%
2.5

1.5%
1.4

6.1%
4.4

3.1%
2.5

1.5%
1.4

6.1%
4.4

0.0%
7.7

0.0%
1.7

11.1%
28.5

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

11.1%
15.7

0.0%
1.0

0.0%
0.3

7.8%
3.6

0.0%
1.0

0.0%
0.3

7.8%
3.6

9.8%

6.2%

15.2%

9.8%

6.2%

15.2%

0.0%

0.0%

19.5%

0.0%

0.0%

19.5%

January 2010

35

Appendix table 3. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Massachusetts
Fay A. Rotenberg Schoolc,e
Metro Trtmt. Ctr.e
Michigan
Maxey Training Schoolb
Oakland Co. Children's Villaged,f
Pioneer Work and Learn Ctr.e
Shawono Ctr.b
Starr Commonwealth, Albione
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Red Wing
Mississippi
Oakley Training School, Units 1 and 2d
Missourib
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campd
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Kearney
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.d
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
Rite of Passage, Silverstate Acad.e
Summit View Yth. Corr. Ctr.
New Jersey
Juv. Medium Security Fac., Males
New Jersey Training School
Voorhees Res. Community Home
New Mexico
New Mexico Yth. Diagnostic Dev. Ctr.d
New York
Allen Res. Ctr.
Berkshire Farm Ctr. and Srvcs.e
Brookwood Secure Ctr.
Highland Res. Ctr.
Louis Gossett Jr. Res. Ctr.
Tryon Boys Res. Ctr.
Tryon Girls Res. Ctr.c
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Dobbs Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Swannanoa Valley Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.d

36

Percent of youth reporting victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound
:%
0.0

:%
0.0

:%
51.6

:%
0.0

:%
0.0

:%
51.6

6.4%
2.2
0.0
18.2
0.0

3.9%
0.5
0.0
11.8
0.0

10.4%
9.2
3.6
27.0
4.6

6.4%
0.0
0.0
18.2
0.0

3.9%
0.0
0.0
11.8
0.0

10.4%
5.4
3.8
27.0
4.6

1.4%

0.4%

5.3%

0.0%

0.0%

5.8%

0.0%

0.0%

7.9%

0.0%

0.0%

7.9%

0.0%
3.2

0.0%
0.9

3.4%
10.6

0.0%
3.2

0.0%
0.9

3.4%
10.6

7.4%

2.8%

18.4%

7.4%

2.8%

18.4%

0.0%

0.0%

4.9%

0.0%

0.0%

4.9%

4.3%
0.0
2.9
0.0

1.0%
0.0
0.6
0.0

17.2%
9.9
12.4
15.7

0.0%
0.0
2.9
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.6
0.0

8.5%
9.9
12.4
15.7

0.0%
2.7
0.0

0.0%
0.6
0.0

10.0%
11.7
24.4

0.0%
2.7
0.0

0.0%
0.6
0.0

10.0%
11.7
24.4

3.6%

1.6%

8.0%

3.6%

1.6%

8.0%

0.0%
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
9.1
33.3

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.6
14.4

10.7%
27.6
5.8
14.3
15.1
38.5
59.7

0.0%
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
33.3

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
14.4

10.7%
27.6
5.8
14.3
15.1
23.3
59.7

0.0%
7.7
12.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
3.7
7.2
0.0
0.0

6.9%
15.3
19.3
3.4
13.4

0.0%
7.7
12.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
3.7
7.2
0.0
0.0

6.9%
15.3
19.3
3.4
13.4

0.0%

0.0%

4.4%

0.0%

0.0%

4.4%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 3. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Juv. Res. Ctr. of Northwest Ohiof
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.
Mohican Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ohio River Valley Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.d
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma Juv. Ctr.d
L.E. Rader Ctr.
Oregonb
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Abraxas Ie
Cresson Secure Trtmt. Unite
George Jr. Republice
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unitd
Pennsylvania Clinical School, Keystonee
St. Gabriel's Halle
Summit Acad.e
Rhode Islandb
Rhode Island Training Schoold
South Carolinab
Broad River Rd. Complex, Birchwood
Broad River Rd. Complex, John G. Richards
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texasb
Al Price State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Cottrell House
Crockett State School
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 1
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 2
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Ctr. Unit Ic
Victory Field Corr. Acad.
West Texas State School
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.d
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term
Hanover Juv. Corr. Ctr.

Percent of youth reporting victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound
6.0%
2.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
:

3.6%
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
:

9.8%
8.2
2.6
3.5
7.6
9.8
4.0
:

4.1%
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
:

2.2%
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
:

7.6%
3.4
2.6
3.9
7.6
3.8
4.0
:

0.0%
0.9

0.0%
0.2

10.7%
3.7

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

10.7%
6.1

1.8%
4.8
3.0

0.6%
2.7
1.6

5.4%
8.5
5.5

1.8%
3.2
1.5

0.6%
1.6
0.6

5.4%
6.5
3.5

0.0%
8.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
8.3
1.6
0.0

0.0%
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
3.0
0.4
0.0

2.6%
32.4
3.7
4.0
5.6
5.6
20.6
6.3
5.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0

2.6%
18.5
3.7
4.0
5.6
5.6
6.3
6.3
5.0

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

2.0%
4.3

0.9%
2.3

4.1%
8.0

2.0%
2.9

0.9%
1.3

4.1%
6.2

0.0%
2.5
0.0
0.0

0.0%
1.0
0.0
0.0

4.1%
6.0
3.1
3.7

0.0%
2.5
0.0
0.0

0.0%
1.0
0.0
0.0

4.1%
6.0
3.1
3.7

0.8%
13.9
8.3
2.5
4.4
2.5
3.8
0.0
2.9
11.2
0.0
4.0

0.3%
10.3
2.5
1.4
2.1
1.1
1.8
0.0
1.6
8.5
0.0
2.0

1.8%
18.4
24.6
4.4
9.2
5.4
7.9
0.8
5.4
14.6
1.2
7.7

0.0%
9.7
8.3
2.5
4.4
2.5
3.1
0.0
2.2
7.9
0.0
4.0

0.0%
6.7
2.5
1.4
2.1
1.1
1.3
0.0
1.1
5.6
0.0
2.0

0.7%
13.9
24.6
4.4
9.2
5.4
7.2
0.8
4.5
11.0
1.2
7.7

0.0%
7.5
0.0
3.7

0.0%
2.9
0.0
0.7

3.8%
17.8
4.4
16.7

0.0%
5.1
0.0
3.7

0.0%
1.6
0.0
0.7

3.8%
14.9
4.4
16.7

January 2010

37

Appendix table 3. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting sexual victimization by another youth, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of
Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Washington
Echo Glen Children's Ctr.d
Green Hill School
Maple Lane School
Naselle Yth. Campd
West Virginiab
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.d
Wisconsin
Ethan Allen School
Lincoln Hills School

Percent of youth reporting victimization by another youtha
All youth-on-youth
Nonconsensual sexual acts
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound Weighted percent Lower bound
Upper bound
6.3%
0.0
3.0
0.0

2.0%
0.0
1.0
0.0

17.9%
5.7
8.7
12.8

6.3%
0.0
3.0
0.0

2.0%
0.0
1.0
0.0

17.9%
5.7
8.7
12.8

8.8%

6.5%

11.7%

8.0%

5.8%

10.8%

1.2%
4.2

0.3%
1.8

4.8%
9.5

1.2%
2.8

0.3%
1.0

4.8%
7.6

Note: Facilities in which there were no reports of sexual victimization of any type are not listed. See “Definition of terms” in Methodology for measures of sexual victimization by type. Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
:Not calculated. One or more youth victimized. Value suppressed to protect confidentiality.
aWeighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving another youth in the past 12 months

less than 12 months.
bState/facility granted consent in loco parentis. (See Methodology for details.)
c

Facility houses females only.

d

Facility houses both males and females.

ePrivate facility. Some private facilities may be state owned or under state jurisdiction.
fCounty facility.

38

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

or since admission to the facility, if

Appendix Table 4.
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Total
Alabamab
Chalkville Campusc
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaskab
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr.d
Arizona
Adobe Mtn. School
Catalina Mtn. School
Southwest Reg. Juv. Complex, Eagle
Point
Arkansasb
Arkansas Juv. Assess. and Trtmt. Ctr.d,e
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.e
California
Central Juv. Halld,f
Central Valley Juv. Det. and Assess.
Ctr.d,f
East Mesa Juv. Det. Fac.f
Fresno Co. Juv. Justice Campusb,d,f
Heman G. Stark Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Juv. Ranch Fac.f
N.A. Chaderjian Yth. Corr. Fac.b
O.H. Close Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Orange Co. Juv. Halld,f
Preston Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Santa Clara Co. Juv. Halld,f
Southern Yth. Corr. Reception Ctr. and
Clinicb
Ventura Co. Juv. Fac.d,f
Ventura Yth. Corr. Fac.b,d
West Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.d,f
Colorado
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Ridge View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.e
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Delawareb
Ferris School for Boys
District of Columbiab
Oak Hill Yth. Ctr.

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touching
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
10.3%
9.5%
11.1%
9.2%
8.5%
10.0%
3.8%
10.3
19.6

1.5%
7.4
14.3

9.4%
14.1
26.1

0.0%
9.5
17.8

0.0%
6.7
12.7

3.4%
13.2
24.3

11.3%

7.9%

16.0%

7.5%

4.8%

11.7%

14.0%
19.0

6.8%
6.9

26.8%
42.8

14.0%
19.0

6.8%
6.9

26.8%
42.8

23.5

9.3

47.9

23.5

9.3

47.9

8.8%
13.8

6.1%
10.3

12.5%
18.3

7.0%
10.3

4.6%
7.3

10.5%
14.4

0.0%

0.0%

38.5%

0.0%

0.0%

38.5%

10.3
14.3
9.9
3.5
0.0
9.6
12.3
4.0
13.8
1.8

3.8
6.3
7.4
2.1
0.0
5.9
9.2
0.8
9.0
0.4

25.0
29.2
13.0
5.7
40.4
15.3
16.2
17.1
20.6
8.0

10.3
12.7
9.9
3.5
0.0
9.6
11.5
2.0
11.7
1.8

3.8
5.2
7.4
2.1
0.0
5.9
8.6
0.4
7.3
0.4

25.0
28.0
13.0
5.7
40.4
15.3
15.1
9.0
18.2
8.0

8.7
2.5
9.0
8.3

5.6
0.8
5.7
1.7

13.2
7.7
14.1
32.1

8.7
2.5
9.0
8.3

5.6
0.8
5.7
1.7

13.2
7.7
14.1
32.1

11.2%
5.3
4.2
5.6

5.2%
1.4
2.4
1.5

22.7%
17.8
7.5
18.1

7.1%
5.3
4.2
0.0

2.8%
1.4
2.4
0.0

16.8%
17.8
7.5
8.8

18.2%

14.0%

23.3%

18.2%

14.0%

23.3%

11.1%

3.5%

30.1%

11.1%

3.5%

30.1%

January 2010

39

Appendix table 4. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Florida
Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys
Avon Park Yth. Acad.e
Bristol Yth. Acad.e
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Desoto Dual Diagnosis Corr. Fac.
Desoto High-Risk Female Corr. Fac.c
Desoto Juv. Res. Fac.
Falkenburg Acad.
Hastings Yth. Acad., Moderate Riske
Jackson Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Riverside Acad.e
Georgiab
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Bill Ireland Yth. Dev. Campus
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusc
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaiib
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.d
Idahob
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Lewistond
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Nampad
Juv. Corr. Ctr., St. Anthonyd
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr., St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Warrenvillec
Indianab
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac.c
North Central Juv. Corr. Fac.
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowab
Boys State Training School
Woodward Acad.e
Kansasb
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complex
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Louisiana
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Maineb
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Maryland
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton

40

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touching
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
11.3%
10.9
5.3
12.1
12.9
0.0
1.0
7.0
13.8
11.1
10.1
18.5

6.9%
6.0
1.2
6.8
6.3
0.0
0.3
3.3
5.4
3.8
5.7
9.7

17.9%
19.0
20.5
20.7
24.5
6.2
3.8
14.3
30.6
28.4
17.3
32.3

10.3%
10.9
5.3
12.1
10.0
0.0
1.0
7.0
8.8
11.1
10.1
16.8

6.1%
6.0
1.2
6.8
4.3
0.0
0.3
3.3
3.0
3.8
5.7
8.3

16.9%
19.0
20.5
20.7
21.5
6.2
3.8
14.3
22.7
28.4
17.3
31.0

20.0%
16.4
19.4
11.6
22.5

15.4%
12.2
13.5
8.0
17.7

25.5%
21.6
27.2
16.3
28.1

17.4%
12.7
18.5
7.9
18.0

13.0%
8.7
12.6
5.1
13.3

23.0%
18.2
26.4
12.0
23.8

8.5%

4.4%

15.8%

8.5%

4.4%

15.8%

0.0%
3.0
2.5

0.0%
1.5
1.7

7.6%
6.0
3.7

0.0%
3.0
0.8

0.0%
1.5
0.4

7.6%
6.0
1.7

11.8%
13.9
5.7
9.3
6.8

6.8%
10.0
3.8
3.9
2.3

19.8%
18.9
8.5
20.6
18.3

11.8%
13.2
5.7
9.3
2.2

6.8%
9.4
3.8
3.9
0.6

19.8%
18.2
8.5
20.6
8.4

9.1%
8.7
11.3
31.5
8.2

6.2%
6.6
9.4
25.7
5.8

13.2%
11.4
13.6
37.9
11.4

7.3%
8.7
11.3
29.4
6.8

4.7%
6.6
9.4
23.8
4.7

11.1%
11.4
13.6
35.7
9.8

7.8%
8.4

6.0%
6.8

10.0%
10.4

7.0%
5.1

5.4%
3.8

9.0%
6.8

11.5%
13.4

7.7%
10.7

16.7%
16.7

10.4%
13.4

7.0%
10.7

15.1%
16.7

11.8%
0.0

4.2%
0.0

29.0%
15.7

11.8%
0.0

4.2%
0.0

29.0%
15.7

8.0%
15.6

2.9%
11.2

20.1%
21.4

8.0%
15.6

2.9%
11.2

20.1%
21.4

11.5%

8.0%

16.2%

11.5%

8.0%

16.2%

36.4%

16.5%

62.3%

36.4%

16.5%

62.3%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 4. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Massachusetts
Fay A. Rotenberg Schoolc,e
Metro Trtmt. Ctr.e
Michigan
Maxey Training Schoolb
Oakland Co. Children's Villaged,f
Pioneer Work and Learn Ctr.e
Shawono Ctr.b
Starr Commonwealth, Albione
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Red Wing
Mississippi
Oakley Training School, Units 1 and 2d
Missourib
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campd
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Kearney
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.d
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
Rite of Passage, Silverstate Acad.e
Summit View Yth. Corr. Ctr.
New Jersey
Juv. Medium Security Fac., Males
New Jersey Training School
Voorhees Res. Community Home
New Mexico
New Mexico Yth. Diagnostic Dev. Ctr.d
New York
Allen Res. Ctr.
Berkshire Farm Ctr. and Srvcs.e
Brookwood Secure Ctr.
Highland Res. Ctr.
Louis Gossett Jr. Res. Ctr.
Tryon Boys Res. Ctr.
Tryon Girls Res. Ctr.c
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Dobbs Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Swannanoa Valley Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.d

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touching
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
0.0%
:

0.0%
:

32.1%
:

0.0%
:

0.0%
:

32.1%
:

17.0%
4.3
7.5
22.7
6.4

12.6%
1.5
4.0
15.5
2.8

22.6%
12.0
13.6
32.0
14.1

17.0%
2.2
5.9
18.2
4.3

12.6%
0.5
2.9
11.8
1.5

22.6%
9.0
11.6
27.0
11.4

2.8%

1.0%

7.4%

2.8%

1.0%

7.4%

7.1%

2.4%

19.1%

3.6%

0.8%

14.1%

14.3%
3.2

8.9%
0.9

22.1%
10.6

14.3%
3.2

8.9%
0.9

22.1%
10.6

14.8%

7.2%

28.0%

11.1%

4.8%

23.5%

2.1%

0.5%

8.6%

2.1%

0.5%

8.6%

0.0%
4.5
17.7
15.4

0.0%
1.0
9.2
5.2

8.5%
19.0
31.4
37.7

0.0%
4.5
17.7
15.4

0.0%
1.0
9.2
5.2

8.5%
19.0
31.4
37.7

16.0%
23.3
:

7.1%
14.7
:

32.2%
34.8
:

16.0%
20.3
:

7.1%
12.5
:

32.2%
31.3
:

14.7%

10.1%

20.8%

10.5%

6.6%

16.2%

25.0%
:
6.3
12.9
5.0
0.0
0.0

12.8%
:
2.5
5.5
1.5
0.0
0.0

43.0%
:
15.0
27.3
15.4
25.1
19.8

18.8%
:
5.4
12.9
2.5
0.0
0.0

8.6%
:
1.9
5.5
0.5
0.0
0.0

36.2%
:
14.4
27.3
11.7
25.1
19.8

5.9%
15.4
29.2
3.9
23.5

2.0%
9.5
21.7
1.6
10.8

16.4%
24.0
37.9
9.5
44.0

5.9%
15.4
25.0
3.9
17.6

2.0%
9.5
18.1
1.6
7.1

16.4%
24.0
33.5
9.5
37.4

3.3%

1.1%

10.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4.6%

January 2010

41

Appendix table 4. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
Juv. Res. Ctr. of Northwest Ohiof
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.
Mohican Juv. Corr. Fac.
Ohio River Valley Juv. Corr. Fac.
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.d
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma Juv. Ctr.d
L.E. Rader Ctr.
Oregonb
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
Pennsylvania
Abraxas Ie
Cresson Secure Trtmt. Unite
George Jr. Republice
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unitd
Pennsylvania Clinical School, Keystonee
St. Gabriel's Halle
Summit Acad.e
Rhode Islandb
Rhode Island Training Schoold
South Carolinab
Broad River Rd. Complex, Birchwood
Broad River Rd. Complex, John G. Richards
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Texasb
Al Price State Juv. Corr. Fac.
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Cottrell House
Crockett State School
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
Gainesville State School
Giddings State School
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 1
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 2
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Ctr. Unit Ic
Victory Field Corr. Acad.
West Texas State School

42

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touching
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
11.2%
4.6
6.7
4.0
16.9
5.8
14.0
0.0

6.4%
1.8
3.4
1.5
7.9
2.6
8.2
0.0

19.0%
11.3
12.8
10.3
32.6
12.2
22.7
40.4

10.2%
4.0
6.7
4.0
16.9
3.8
12.6
0.0

6.0%
1.6
3.4
1.5
7.9
1.4
7.0
0.0

16.9%
9.3
12.8
10.3
32.6
9.8
21.5
40.4

16.7%
25.0

7.3%
16.2

33.7%
36.5

16.7%
23.1

7.3%
14.5

33.7%
34.8

8.8%
8.1
8.8

5.3%
4.9
6.2

14.2%
13.0
12.3

7.0%
7.3
7.4

3.9%
4.2
5.0

12.2%
12.3
10.7

5.7%
25.0
11.7
11.8
6.9
9.6
3.2
12.2
3.8

2.9%
9.8
6.4
6.7
3.6
4.6
1.2
7.6
1.3

11.0%
50.7
20.3
20.1
12.7
19.3
8.6
19.2
10.7

2.5%
25.0
10.4
7.9
4.1
9.6
0.0
10.8
3.8

0.9%
9.8
5.9
3.9
1.7
4.6
0.0
6.4
1.3

6.5%
50.7
17.6
15.5
9.7
19.3
8.4
17.6
10.7

1.3%

0.5%

3.9%

1.3%

0.5%

3.9%

15.7%

12.2%

20.0%

14.0%

10.7%

18.1%

19.1

14.5

24.9

17.6

13.1

23.4

16.3%
15.1
14.5
26.0

10.1%
9.4
9.1
18.8

25.2%
23.2
22.4
34.6

16.3%
10.7
14.5
22.9

10.1%
6.3
9.1
16.1

25.2%
17.6
22.4
31.4

14.3%
23.7
15.4
20.2
21.3
16.7
17.7
2.6
20.5
4.5
24.6
16.7

11.7%
19.4
6.4
17.2
15.6
11.9
13.0
1.5
16.2
2.8
19.8
12.3

17.5%
28.5
32.5
23.6
28.3
22.8
23.6
4.4
25.5
7.2
30.0
22.1

13.6%
20.9
15.4
18.5
19.8
16.0
14.1
2.6
19.0
2.2
23.0
16.7

10.9%
16.8
6.4
15.6
14.2
11.4
9.5
1.5
15.0
1.1
18.3
12.3

16.7%
25.6
32.5
21.8
26.8
21.9
20.3
4.4
23.9
4.4
28.3
22.1

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 4. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct, by type of incident and facility, National Survey of Youth
in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.d
Culpepper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term
Hanover Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Echo Glen Children's Ctr.d
Green Hill School
Maple Lane School
Naselle Yth. Campd
West Virginiab
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.d
Wisconsin
Ethan Allen School
Lincoln Hills School

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconducta
All staff sexual misconduct
Sexual acts excluding touching
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
13.6%
22.5
30.0
18.5

7.8%
13.3
21.5
8.7

22.9%
35.4
40.1
35.2

13.6%
22.5
30.0
18.5

7.8%
13.3
21.5
8.7

22.9%
35.4
40.1
35.2

6.3%
1.0
12.0
1.7

2.0%
0.2
7.2
0.4

17.6%
4.2
19.4
7.3

3.2%
1.0
11.3
1.7

0.7%
0.2
6.5
0.4

13.8%
4.2
18.9
7.3

7.8%

5.7%

10.6%

6.1%

4.3%

8.6%

7.4%
9.7

4.2%
5.6

12.6%
16.2

6.2%
9.7

3.4%
5.6

11.1%
16.2

Note: Facilities in which there were no reports of sexual victimization have been suppressed. See “Definition of terms” in Methodology for measures of sexual victimization
by type.
:Not calculated. One or more youth victimized. Value suppressed to protect confidentiality.
aWeighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less

than 12 months.
bState/facility granted consent in loco parentis.
cFacility houses females.
d

Facility houses both males and females.

ePrivate facility. Some private facilities may be state owned or under state jurisdiction.
fCounty facility.

January 2010

43

Appendix Table 5.
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Total
Alabamab
Chalkville Campusc
Mt. Meigs Campus
Vacca Campus
Alaskab
McLaughlin Yth. Ctr.d
Arizona
Adobe Mtn. School
Catalina Mtn. School
Southwest Reg. Juv. Complex, Eagle
Point
Arkansasb
Arkansas Juv. Assess. and Trtmt. Ctr.d,e
Dermott Juv. Corr. Fac.e
California
Central Juv. Halld,f
Central Valley Juv. Det. and Assess.
Ctr.d,f
East Mesa Juv. Det. Fac.f
Fresno Co. Juv. Justice Campusb,d,f
Heman G. Stark Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Juv. Ranch Fac.f
N.A. Chaderjian Yth. Corr. Fac.b
O.H. Close Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Orange Co. Juv. Halld,f
Preston Yth. Corr. Fac.b
Santa Clara Co. Juv. Halld,f
Southern Yth. Corr. Reception Ctr. and
Clinicb
Ventura Co. Juv. Fac.d,f
Ventura Yth. Corr. Fac.b,d
West Valley Juv. Det. and Assess. Ctr.d,f
Colorado
Lookout Mtn. Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.
Platte Valley Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Ridge View Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.e
Spring Creek Yth. Srvcs. Ctr.d
Delawareb
Ferris School for Boys
District of Columbiab
Oak Hill Yth. Ctr.

44

Weighted percent
3.9%

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
3.5%
4.4%
5.9%
5.4%
6.5%

0.0%
1.9
8.7

0.0%
0.7
5.3

3.4%
4.8
14.1

0.0%
7.7
11.1

0.0%
5.2
7.0

3.4%
11.4
17.1

3.8%

1.9%

7.2%

3.8%

1.9%

7.2%

11.2%
4.8

4.8%
1.0

23.9%
20.5

5.6%
14.3

1.6%
5.6

17.6%
32.0

5.9

1.1

26.8

17.6

6.1

41.4

3.6%
6.9

2.0%
4.5

6.3%
10.4

3.6%
3.4

2.0%
1.9

6.4%
6.2

0.0%

0.0%

38.5%

0.0%

0.0%

38.5%

6.7
3.2
2.5
2.6
0.0
6.0
2.5
0.0
5.4
1.8

1.8
1.1
1.4
1.5
0.0
3.2
1.3
0.0
2.4
0.4

22.1
8.9
4.5
4.7
40.4
10.9
4.6
14.5
11.7
8.0

10.3
11.1
8.8
1.8
0.0
3.6
9.1
2.0
7.5
0.0

3.8
4.0
6.4
0.9
0.0
1.6
6.6
0.4
4.2
0.0

25.0
27.2
11.8
3.6
40.4
8.1
12.5
9.0
13.0
13.0

1.7
0.0
4.5
0.0

0.7
0.0
2.1
0.0

4.2
12.6
9.3
18.1

7.0
2.5
5.4
8.3

4.4
0.8
3.1
1.7

10.7
7.7
9.3
32.1

5.1%
5.3
1.2
0.0

1.5%
1.4
0.4
0.0

15.6%
17.8
3.6
8.8

6.1%
5.3
3.0
0.0

2.2%
1.4
1.5
0.0

16.1%
17.8
6.0
8.8

9.1%

6.2%

13.2%

10.9%

7.7%

15.2%

5.6%

1.1%

23.0%

5.6%

1.1%

23.0%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 5. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Florida
Arthur G. Dozier School for Boys
Avon Park Yth. Acad.e
Bristol Yth. Acad.e
Cypress Creek Juv. Offender Corr.
Ctr.e
Desoto Dual Diagnosis Corr. Fac.
Desoto High-Risk Female Corr. Fac.c
Desoto Juv. Res. Fac.
Falkenburg Acad.
Hastings Yth. Acad., Moderate Riske
Jackson Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.
Okeechobee Juv. Offender Corr. Ctr.e
Riverside Acad.e
Georgiab
Augusta Yth. Dev. Campus
Bill Ireland Yth. Dev. Campus
Eastman Yth. Dev. Campus
Macon Yth. Dev. Campusc
Sumter Yth. Dev. Campus
Hawaiib
Hawaii Yth. Corr. Fac.d
Idahob
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Lewistond
Juv. Corr. Ctr., Nampad
Juv. Corr. Ctr., St. Anthonyd
Illinois
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Harrisburg
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Joliet
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Kewanee
Illinois Yth. Ctr., St. Charles
Illinois Yth. Ctr., Warrenvillec
Indianab
Camp Summit Boot Camp
Indianapolis Juv. Corr. Fac.c
North Central Juv. Corr. Fac.
Pendleton Juv. Corr. Fac.
South Bend Juv. Corr. Fac.
Iowab
Boys State Training School
Woodward Acad.e
Kansasb
Kansas Juv. Corr. Complex
Larned Juv. Corr. Fac.
Kentucky
Audubon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Green River Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Louisiana
Jetson Corr. Ctr. for Yth.
Swanson Ctr. for Yth.
Maineb
Long Creek Yth. Dev. Ctr.d
Maryland
Backbone Mtn. Yth. Ctr., Swanton

Weighted percent

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound

1.9%
1.0
5.3

0.7%
0.3
1.2

4.7%
4.1
20.5

6.1
6.5
0.0
1.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.8

2.5
2.3
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.2

13.8
16.6
6.2
3.8
8.1
11.8
10.1
7.7
3.6

10.4%
3.7
8.4
7.9
12.4

7.2%
1.8
4.7
5.1
8.6

5.4%

8.5%
9.8
0.0

4.6%
5.2
0.0

15.2%
17.9
11.5

8.1
3.3
0.0
0.0
4.7
8.8
11.1
7.7
16.0

3.9
0.8
0.0
0.0
1.8
3.0
3.8
4.1
8.0

16.1
12.4
6.2
3.8
11.4
22.7
28.4
14.2
29.5

14.8%
7.4
14.6
12.0
17.4

5.9%
10.1
10.3
1.2
11.2

3.6%
6.8
6.4
0.5
7.7

9.7%
14.7
16.0
3.1
16.1

2.4%

11.6%

6.3%

2.8%

13.3%

0.0%
3.0
0.8

0.0%
1.5
0.4

7.6%
6.0
1.7

0.0%
0.0
0.0

0.0%
0.0
0.0

7.6%
1.5
0.4

6.7%
5.5
3.7
3.0
2.2

3.1%
3.1
2.2
0.8
0.6

13.9%
9.6
6.3
10.2
8.4

5.1%
8.3
3.0
6.4
0.0

2.2%
5.3
1.6
3.1
0.0

11.3%
12.8
5.6
12.8
8.0

3.6%
6.5
4.8
16.5
3.8

1.9%
4.7
3.6
12.2
2.3

6.7%
9.0
6.3
22.0
6.2

5.5%
2.2
6.7
15.2
3.0

3.3%
1.3
5.2
11.3
1.6

8.9%
3.6
8.5
20.2
5.5

1.6%
1.7

0.9%
1.0

2.6%
2.8

4.7%
4.2

3.5%
3.1

6.2%
5.9

2.1%
6.1

0.9%
4.3

4.8%
8.7

9.4%
8.6

6.1%
6.5

14.1%
11.5

0.0%
0.0

0.0%
0.0

11.1%
15.7

11.8%
0.0

4.2%
0.0

29.0%
15.7

0.0%
6.2

0.0%
3.4

7.8%
10.9

8.0%
9.6

2.9%
6.2

20.1%
14.5

4.9%

2.8%

8.5%

8.2%

5.3%

12.5%

27.3%

10.7%

53.9%

18.2%

5.7%

44.8%

January 2010

45

Appendix table 5. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Massachusetts
Fay A. Rotenberg Schoolc,e
Metro Trtmt. Ctr.e
Michigan
Maxey Training Schoolb
Oakland Co. Children's Villaged,f
Pioneer Work and Learn Ctr.e
Shawono Ctr.b
Starr Commonwealth, Albione
Minnesota
Minnesota Corr. Fac., Red Wing
Mississippi
Oakley Training School, Units 1 and 2d
Missourib
Hogan Street Reg. Yth. Ctr.
Watkins Mill Park Campd
Montana
Pine Hills Yth. Corr. Fac.
Nebraska
Yth. Rehab. and Trtmt. Ctr., Kearney
Nevada
Caliente Yth. Ctr.d
Nevada Yth. Training Ctr.
Rite of Passage, Silverstate Acad.e
Summit View Yth. Corr. Ctr.
New Jersey
Juv. Medium Security Fac., Males
New Jersey Training School
Voorhees Res. Community Home
New Mexico
New Mexico Yth. Diagnostic Dev. Ctr.d
New York
Allen Res. Ctr.
Berkshire Farm Ctr. and Srvcs.e
Brookwood Secure Ctr.
Highland Res. Ctr.
Louis Gossett Jr. Res. Ctr.
Tryon Boys Res. Ctr.
Tryon Girls Res. Ctr.c
North Carolina
C.A. Dillon Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Dobbs Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Samarkand Yth. Dev. Ctr.c
Stonewall Jackson Yth. Dev. Ctr.
Swannanoa Valley Yth. Dev. Ctr.
North Dakota
North Dakota Yth. Corr. Ctr.d

46

Weighted percent

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound

0.0%
:

0.0%
:

32.1%
:

0.0%
:

0.0%
:

32.1%
:

10.6%
2.2
1.6
9.1
0.0

7.2%
0.5
0.6
4.8
0.0

15.4%
9.0
4.4
16.5
4.6

6.4%
0.0
4.3
13.6
4.3

3.9%
0.0
1.8
8.2
1.5

10.4%
5.3
10.1
21.9
11.4

0.0%

0.0%

5.7%

2.8%

1.0%

7.4%

3.6%

0.8%

14.1%

0.0%

0.0%

7.9%

9.5%
3.2

5.2%
0.9

16.9%
10.6

4.8%
0.0

2.0%
0.0

10.8%
5.1

0.0%

0.0%

7.3%

11.1%

4.8%

23.5%

0.0%

0.0%

4.9%

2.2%

0.5%

8.8%

0.0%
4.5
12.6
7.7

0.0%
1.0
5.6
1.7

8.5%
19.0
26.1
28.5

0.0%
0.0
8.0
7.7

0.0%
0.0
3.3
1.7

8.5%
9.9
18.2
28.5

4.2%
5.3
:

0.9%
1.7
:

17.3%
15.4
:

8.3%
14.8
:

2.7%
8.6
:

23.1%
24.4
:

3.6%

1.6%

8.0%

6.8%

3.8%

11.9%

0.0%
:
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0%
:
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

10.7%
:
5.8
14.4
15.1
25.1
19.8

18.8%
:
5.4
9.7
2.5
0.0
0.0

8.6%
:
1.9
3.7
0.5
0.0
0.0

36.2%
:
14.4
23.2
11.7
25.1
19.8

2.9%
3.8
12.5
2.0
0.0

0.7%
1.4
7.5
0.5
0.0

12.1%
10.4
20.1
6.8
13.4

5.9%
11.5
12.5
2.0
18.8

2.0%
6.4
7.5
0.5
7.5

16.4%
20.0
20.1
6.8
39.5

0.0%

0.0%

4.4%

0.0%

0.0%

4.6%

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

Appendix table 5. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Weighted percent
Ohio
Circleville Juv. Corr. Fac.
3.0%
Cuyahoga Hills Juv. Corr. Fac.
1.9
Indian River Juv. Corr. Fac.
2.2
Juv. Res. Ctr. of Northwest Ohiof
0.0
Marion Juv. Corr. Fac.
3.3
Mohican Juv. Corr. Fac.
0.0
Ohio River Valley Juv. Corr. Fac.
1.7
Scioto Juv. Corr. Fac.d
0.0
Oklahoma
Central Oklahoma Juv. Ctr.d
4.2%
L.E. Rader Ctr.
13.0
Oregonb
Hillcrest Yth. Corr. Fac.
3.6%
MacLaren Yth. Corr. Fac.
3.3
Rogue Valley Yth. Corr. Fac.
0.0
Pennsylvania
Abraxas Ie
2.5%
8.3
Cresson Secure Trtmt. Unite
George Jr. Republice
5.2
Loysville Yth. Dev. Ctr.
4.1
New Castle Yth. Dev. Ctr.
1.4
North Central Secure Trtmt. Unitd
4.8
0.0
Pennsylvania Clinical School, Keystonee
3.3
St. Gabriel's Halle
Summit Acad.e
0.7
Rhode Islandb
Rhode Island Training Schoold
0.0%
South Carolinab
Broad River Rd. Complex, Birchwood
7.8%
Broad River Rd. Complex, John G. Richards
6.0
Tennessee
John S. Wilder Yth. Dev. Ctr.
8.2%
Mtn. View Yth. Dev. Ctr.
5.3
Taft Yth. Dev. Ctr.
9.5
Woodland Hills Yth. Dev. Ctr.
7.6
Texasb
Al Price State Juv. Corr. Fac.
3.1%
8.9
Corsicana Res. Trtmt. Ctr.d
Cottrell House
15.4
Crockett State School
9.2
Evins Reg. Juv. Ctr.
7.5
Gainesville State School
8.4
Giddings State School
6.3
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 1
0.0
McLennan Co. State Juv. Corr. Fac., Unit 2
9.6
Ron Jackson State Juv. Corr. Ctr. Unit Ic
2.2
Victory Field Corr. Acad.
11.7
West Texas State School
4.4

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound
1.4%
0.8
0.7
0.0
1.1
0.0
0.3
0.0

6.2%
4.4
6.9
3.9
9.2
3.8
7.6
40.4

7.2%
2.7
4.5
4.0
8.2
3.8
12.8
0.0

3.6%
0.8
1.9
1.5
4.1
1.4
7.1
0.0

13.9%
8.3
10.2
10.3
15.6
9.8
21.8
40.4

0.8%
6.7

18.1%
23.6

12.5%
14.8

4.8%
7.6

28.6%
26.9

1.6%
1.6
0.0

7.9%
6.5
1.2

5.4%
4.1
7.5

2.7%
2.2
5.1

10.2%
7.5
10.8

0.9%
1.7
2.3
1.5
0.3
1.6
0.0
1.4
0.2

6.5%
32.4
11.4
10.4
5.6
13.9
8.4
7.8
3.3

1.7%
25.0
5.3
4.1
2.8
4.8
0.0
7.4
3.1

0.5%
9.8
2.3
1.5
0.9
1.6
0.0
3.8
0.9

6.0%
50.7
11.6
10.6
7.7
13.6
8.4
14.0
10.5

0.0%

1.7%

1.3%

0.5%

3.9%

5.4%
3.5

11.2%
10.0

8.0%
14.9

5.5%
10.5

11.5%
20.8

4.1%
2.5
5.3
3.9

15.7%
11.1
16.2
14.5

12.2%
6.6
5.0
17.4

7.0%
3.4
2.7
11.2

20.6%
12.5
9.2
25.9

2.0%
6.3
6.4
7.1
4.2
5.2
3.9
0.0
6.9
1.1
8.2
2.6

4.8%
12.5
32.5
12.0
12.9
13.2
10.0
0.8
13.1
4.4
16.3
7.4

10.5%
15.3
0.0
10.1
12.3
7.6
7.1
2.6
11.7
0.0
15.0
12.5

8.1%
12.1
0.0
7.8
8.2
4.2
4.2
1.5
8.4
0.0
11.7
8.6

13.3%
19.3
10.1
12.9
18.1
13.1
11.6
4.4
16.1
1.1
19.1
17.8

January 2010

47

Appendix table 5. (cont.)
Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touching, by use of force and facility, National Survey
of Youth in Custody, 2008-09

Facility name
Virginia
Beaumont Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Bon Air Juv. Corr. Ctr.d
Culpeper Juv. Corr. Ctr., Long Term
Hanover Juv. Corr. Ctr.
Washington
Echo Glen Children's Ctr.d
Green Hill School
Maple Lane School
Naselle Yth. Campd
West Virginiab
West Virginia Industrial Home for Yth.d
Wisconsin
Ethan Allen School
Lincoln Hills School

Weighted percent

Percent of youth reporting staff sexual misconduct excluding touchinga
Force reported
No report of force
95%-confidence interval
95%-confidence interval
Lower bound
Upper bound
Weighted percent
Lower bound
Upper bound

4.2%
7.5
12.0
14.8

1.6%
2.9
6.6
6.4

10.7%
17.8
20.9
30.8

8.4%
15.0
20.0
7.4

3.9%
7.7
12.6
2.3

17.1%
27.1
30.1
21.6

3.1%
0.0
8.2
0.0

0.7%
0.0
4.3
0.0

13.4%
5.7
15.3
12.8

0.0%
1.0
3.8
1.7

0.0%
0.2
1.5
0.4

8.2%
4.2
9.3
7.3

3.5%

2.1%

5.6%

2.6%

1.5%

4.5%

1.9%
2.8

0.7%
1.0

5.5%
7.7

4.3%
6.9

2.0%
3.6

8.9%
13.0

Note: Facilities in which there were no reports of sexual victimization of any type are not listed. See “Definition of terms” in Methodology for measures of sexual victimization by type. Facilities house males only unless otherwise noted.
:Not calculated. One or more youth victimized. Value suppressed to protect confidentiality.
aWeighted percent of youth reporting one or more incidents of sexual victimization involving facility staff in the past 12 months or since admission to the facility, if less

than 12 months.
bState/facility granted consent in loco parentis. (See Methodology for details.)
cFacility houses females only.
d

Facility houses both males and females.

Private facility. Some private facilities may be state owned or under state jurisdiction.

e

fCounty facility.

48

Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth, 2008-09

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

*NCJ~228416*

PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
DOJ/BJS
Permit No. G-91

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

This report in portable document format and in ASCII and
its related statistical data and tables are available at the BJS
World Wide Web Internet site: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2113.

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistics agency of the
U.S. Department of Justice. Michael D. Sinclair is acting
director.
This Special Report was written by Allen J. Beck, Paige M.
Harrison, and Paul Guerino, BJS Statisticians. Paige M.
Harrison and Paul Guerino verified the report.
Georgette Walsh and Jill Duncan edited the report, Tina
Dorsey produced the report and Jayne Robinson prepared
the report for final printing under the supervision of Doris J.
James.
Westat (Rockville, MD), under a co-operative agreement and
in collaboration with BJS staff, designed the survey,
developed the questionnaires, coordinated logistical
arrangements related to interviewing, collected and
processed the data, and assisted in table development. The
project team included David Cantor and Andrea Sedlak, CoPrincipal Investigators; Tim Smith and John Hartge, CoProject Directors; Gary Shapiro, Senior Sampling Statistician;
Greg Norman, Sampling Statistician; Alfred Bishop,
Computer Systems; Debbie Alexander, Director of
Recruitment/Consent Operations; Sherry Sanborne, Field
Director; and an extensive project team of researchers,
analysts, and programmers.
January 2010, NCJ 228416
January 2010 49