Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

Progress Report on the

Department of Justice’s

Implementation of the

Prison Rape Elimination Act


WORKING DRAFT

Evaluation and Inspections Division 15-1

October 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) required the Attorney
General to promulgate regulations that adopt national standards for the
detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape. On June 20,
2012, after notice and comment rulemaking, the Department of Justice
(Department or DOJ) published the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and
Respond to Prison Rape (Standards). This OIG progress report examines DOJ’s
early efforts to implement and comply with PREA since publication of the
Standards.
DOJ is responsible for the implementation of the Standards, including
management of the audit process in which facilities demonstrate compliance
with the Standards to an independent auditor. In addition, several DOJ
components have management and operational obligations under PREA. The
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has been assigned responsibility to manage
PREA implementation, and DOJ components with operational responsibilities
under PREA include the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the U.S. Marshals
Service (USMS), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). 1 A PREA Working Group has also been formed, in
part to resolve questions regarding interpretations of the Standards.
The OIG identified several emerging issues with the Department’s
implementation of the Standards. One such issue relates to the USMS’s use of
intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) that allow the USMS to house federal
detainees in state and local detention facilities. The Standards require new or
renewed USMS IGAs with state and local detention facilities to include
language that obligates these facilities to comply with the Standards. However,
the USMS’s IGAs are typically of an indefinite length, and therefore
modifications to the USMS’s existing IGAs are typically made only when the
state or local detention facility (IGA facility) asks for a rate increase or other
modification. Thus, IGA facilities that do not ask for rate increases or other
modifications to existing IGAs could therefore continue indefinitely to hold
federal detainees without a contractual obligation to comply with the
Standards. This issue also affects the BOP and the Department of Homeland
The Standards require the OIG to comply with requirements for external investigative
agencies that conduct investigations of sexual abuse in confinement settings. This progress
report does not assess the OIG’s implementation of PREA due to the inherent conflict that
would be created were this office to evaluate its own compliance with the Standards. We note,
however, that the OIG has provided specialized PREA training to its investigators, conducted a
review of its investigative policies to ensure that they conform to the requirements of PREA and
the Standards, and complied with all BOP requests for PREA-related documentation.
1

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

i

Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, both of which
sometimes adopt the terms of the USMS’s IGAs when housing inmates and
detainees in state and local facilities.
Additionally, the Standards place requirements on external investigative
agencies that conduct investigations of sexual abuse in confinement settings,
including investigative entities within the DOJ, related to uniform evidence
protocols, specialized training, and the conduct of investigations. Until
recently, DOJ components’ compliance with these external investigator
standards was evaluated by independent PREA auditors, but new interpretive
guidance from the PREA Working Group has led to independent auditors no
longer making these assessments. According to several members of the PREA
Working Group, including OJP officials, no other mechanism is currently in
place within the Department to assess the compliance of DOJ components
subject to the external investigator standards. We also found that the USMS
cannot ensure its compliance with the external investigative standards because
it does not have an adequate system to identify all USMS investigations where
the requirements apply.
We identified other potential issues relating to OJP’s management of
PREA implementation. For example, the Standards require agencies that use
IGA and other contract facilities to conduct monitoring “to ensure that the
contractor is complying with the PREA Standards.” Guidance from the PREA
Working Group states that these facilities do not have to be “immediately and
perfectly” compliant with the Standards, but instead must demonstrate
“substantive progress” toward achieving compliance. USMS officials with
whom we spoke expressed uncertainty as to what circumstances would cause
them to deem IGA facilities to be out of compliance with PREA, and therefore
out of compliance with the terms of IGAs, in such a way that they would be
required to remove USMS detainees. These uncertainties may contribute to
inconsistency when assessing the compliance of contract facilities with PREA,
and an unduly lenient interpretation of “substantive progress” could result in
slower implementation of the Standards. Other potential issues we identified
include challenges with development of an online auditing tool, and the need
for increased communication with DHS about the interaction of the Standards
with DHS’s separate standards.
We also identified several possible issues related to PREA audits at BOP
institutions, including likely difficulties implementing the cross-gender patdown standard, challenges locating outside organizations capable of providing
sexual assault support services at BOP institutions, and inconsistencies among
independent PREA auditors’ preliminary assessments of BOP institutions.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

ii

Because the DOJ’s implementation of PREA is ongoing, we do not make
recommendations to the DOJ about how to address the areas of concern we
have identified. However, we encourage the DOJ and its relevant components
take appropriate action to address the issues described in this report,
particularly the priority challenges highlighted in the conclusion. As PREA
implementation progresses and more facilities across the country undergo
PREA audits and implement PREA, these issues will likely become increasingly
significant if left unresolved.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................... 1

Scope of the Review................................................................................ 2

PREA IMPLEMENTATION: EMERGING ISSUES ......................................... 2

I.	

USMS Intergovernmental Agreements ............................................... 2


II.	

External Investigator Standards ........................................................ 5

Assessing Compliance of External Investigator Standards.................... 5

USMS’s Tracking of Sexual Abuse Investigations in Third-Party 

Facilities ................................................................................................. 7


III.	

OJP Challenges in Implementing PREA ............................................. 8

Uncertainty as to What “Complying with the PREA Standards” Means 

for IGA Facilities ..................................................................................... 8

Certifying Enough Auditors to Meet Demand ......................................... 9

Developing an Online Auditing Tool...................................................... 10

Coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security .................... 10


IV.	

BOP Audit Challenges ..................................................................... 11

Cross-Gender Pat-Down ....................................................................... 12

Inmate Access to Outside Confidential Support Services ..................... 13

Inconsistency Among Auditors’ Findings ............................................. 13


CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 14

APPENDIX I: LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................... 15

APPENDIX II: OJP RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT ................................ 16 

APPENDIX III: BOP RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT............................... 37 

APPENDIX IV: USMS RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT............................. 39 

APPENDIX V: OIG ANALYSIS OF COMPONENT RESPONSES ................... 42 


U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

BACKGROUND
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examined the progress of the
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination
Act of 2003 (PREA). 2 PREA required the Attorney General to promulgate
regulations that adopt national standards for the detection, prevention,
reduction, and punishment of prison rape. PREA established the National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission (Commission), which studied prison rape
and recommended national standards to the Attorney General on June 23,
2009. The Attorney General subsequently established a PREA Working Group,
chaired by the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, which reviewed the
Commission’s recommendations and developed final standards.
On June 20, 2012, after notice and comment rulemaking, DOJ published
the National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape
(Standards). 3 The Standards took effect on August 20, 2012, and apply to all
federal, state, and local confinement facilities. There are separate standards
for four different types of confinement facilities: (1) adult prisons and jails;
(2) lockups; (3) community confinement facilities; and (4) juvenile facilities.
DOJ and several of its components have management and operational
obligations under PREA. In general, DOJ is responsible for the implementation
of the Standards, including management of the audit process in which facilities
demonstrate compliance with the Standards to an independent auditor.
Agencies are required to audit one-third of their facilities during each year of a
3-year audit cycle, with all facilities audited by the end of the third year. The
first 3-year audit cycle began on August 20, 2013.
The Deputy Attorney General assigned responsibility for managing PREA
implementation to the Assistant Attorney General for OJP. Within OJP, a
PREA Management Office in the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) manages
PREA-related responsibilities. As part of its responsibilities, the PREA
Management Office manages the BJA’s cooperative agreement with the
National PREA Resource Center (PRC), which provides training, support, and
technical assistance for PREA implementation nationwide. 4
2

42 U.S.C. §§ 15601 et seq.

3

In addition to rape, the Standards are designed to prevent, detect, and respond to
sexual abuse and sexual harassment in confinement settings.
4

The PRC is operated by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency in
conjunction with a variety of partners, including the American Correctional Association, Abt
Associates, American University, The Moss Group, Inc., and Just Detention International.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

1

DOJ components with operational obligations under PREA include the
Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the OIG. 5 In addition, other offices
within DOJ help resolve questions regarding interpretation of the Standards
through participation in a PREA Working Group that the PREA Management
Office within BJA coordinates. 6
Scope of the Review
This progress report examines DOJ’s efforts to implement and comply
with PREA since publication of the Standards on June 20, 2012. 7 Because
implementation is in its early stages, this report identifies challenges that have
arisen thus far and provides notice to DOJ components of areas of PREA
implementation that the OIG has found to be of present concern, or that we
believe may well be of future concern as implementation progresses.
PREA IMPLEMENTATION: EMERGING ISSUES
I.

USMS Intergovernmental Agreements

The USMS is responsible for housing and transporting federal detainees
from the time they are brought into federal custody until they are acquitted,
incarcerated, or released on bond, while the BOP is responsible for federal
prison inmates serving a sentence of imprisonment after conviction for a
violation of the federal criminal code. To meet their needs for detention space,
the USMS and the BOP enter into Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs), which
5 The Standards require the OIG to comply with requirements for external investigative
agencies that conduct investigations of sexual abuse in confinement settings. This progress
report does not assess the OIG’s implementation of PREA due to the inherent conflict that
would be created were this office to evaluate its own compliance with the Standards. We note,
however, that the OIG has provided specialized PREA training to its investigators, conducted a
review of its investigative policies to ensure that they conform to the requirements of PREA and
PREA Standards, and complied with all BOP requests for PREA-related documentation.
6 Offices and components that are designated as part of the PREA Working Group
include the Civil Rights Division, Access to Justice Initiative, OJP, BOP, National Institute of
Corrections, Office on Violence Against Women, and the USMS. Other offices may offer
assistance when appropriate.
7

To assess PREA implementation at the DOJ, we conducted interviews of DOJ and
non-DOJ officials, reviewed public and internal DOJ documents, and analyzed preliminary and
final PREA audit reports of BOP institutions.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

2

are formal agreements between the USMS or BOP and a state or local
government to house federal detainees in state and local detention facilities at
an agreed-upon daily rate. As of March 2014, the USMS had 925 actively used
IGAs with state and local facilities across the country. 8 As of April 2014, the
BOP had 123 actively used IGAs. 9 In addition, the BOP and DHS’s
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “ride” on a number of USMS
IGAs, meaning these agencies use the same terms with the facility that the
USMS has negotiated. As of April 2014, the BOP has such arrangements with
100 state and local detention facilities.
The USMS and BOP have both been proactive regarding inserting PREA
compliance language into contracts with many of their third-party facilities.
BOP has modified all of their contracts with privately operated facilities to
include PREA compliance language, and USMS officials told us that the USMS
also has modified all of its contracts with privately operated facilities. The BOP
has also modified all of its contracts with Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs),
often referred to as halfway houses, to include PREA compliance language.
In contrast, the USMS has taken a passive approach with regard to
modifying IGAs to include PREA compliance language, generally electing to wait
to insert such language until the facility that has entered the IGA with the
USMS (IGA facility) requests some modification to its existing IGA. The USMS’s
IGAs are flexible agreements that allow the USMS or the state or local facility to
opt out of the agreement at any time. Consequently, IGAs do not terminate on
a given date, but rather last as long as both parties are satisfied with the
agreement. The terms of existing IGAs are most commonly modified when state
or local facilities ask the USMS for an increase in the daily rate that the USMS
pays to house its detainees. Generally, the terms of the IGAs allow state and
local facilities to ask for such rate increases every 3 years. 10
Under the Standards, the USMS is required to include in any new or
renewed IGA language obligating the state or local facility to adopt and comply
with the Standards, and to monitor such facilities to ensure PREA compliance.
8

USMS officials told us that, generally, “actively used” IGAs are IGAs with facilities
that have been used in the last year.
9

The BOP uses IGAs primarily for temporarily housing inmates who are being sent
from BOP Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) to BOP institutions.
10

A previous OIG review found that the USMS could improve how it negotiates IGAs
with state and local facilities. See U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General,
Audit of the Intergovernmental Agreement Detention Space Negotiation Process, Audit Report 1121 (March 2011).
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

3

As of January 2014, the USMS had inserted PREA compliance language into
134 of its 925 (14 percent) actively used IGAs; most commonly, these
modifications were made when IGAs were modified pursuant to a facility’s
request for a rate increase. USMS officials told us they will monitor these
facilities’ compliance with the Standards by the addition of a PREA component
to the existing annual inspections that the USMS conducts of all actively used
IGA facilities.
Because USMS IGAs are of an indefinite length, the possibility exists that
state or local facilities that hold USMS detainees will continue to do so without
becoming contractually obligated to comply with PREA. USMS officials we
interviewed expressed the belief that most IGA facilities would ask for a rate
increase after 3 years and that PREA compliance language would be added to
many IGAs through this modification and renewal method. The USMS stated
that it therefore did not plan to ask IGA facilities to insert PREA compliance
language into IGAs unless it was a new IGA, a renewal of an IGA, or a
modification to the terms of an IGA. However, USMS officials acknowledged
that some IGA facilities may not ask for a rate increase and, consequently, that
the USMS cannot predict when all IGAs will include PREA compliance
language. 11 As a result, it is possible that the USMS may in some
circumstances have no alternative to housing detainees at noncompliant
facilities. 12 Such a scenario is likeliest in geographically isolated areas where
the USMS has few options for detention space, and among IGA jails, whose
local governments have fewer financial incentives to comply with PREA. 13

11

Unlike the USMS’s IGAs, the BOP’s IGAs are for a fixed number of years, at which
point both parties must agree to renewal. Many current IGAs have 3-year durations between
renewals, although the BOP is in the process of transitioning to 10-year durations. BOP
officials told us that the BOP is contacting all of its actively used IGA facilities to seek
modifications to include PREA compliance language. We were told that if IGA facilities resist
inserting PREA compliance language into IGAs, the BOP will no longer use those facilities.
12

After reviewing a draft of this report, the USMS emphasized that, in some areas of
the country, the USMS may not have the flexibility to stop using non-compliant IGA facilities to
house its detainees because no suitable alternate facilities exist.
13

There are no financial penalties for non-compliant local governments or federal
entities. In contrast, PREA provides that any state that is not in “full compliance” with the
Standards shall be subjected to a 5-percent reduction in any DOJ funds that the state would
otherwise receive for prison purposes for the fiscal year. The state can avoid this reduction if
its governor pledges to spend the funds that the state would otherwise lose on efforts to bring
the state into full compliance. According to the Department, as of June 30, 2014, 49 of the 56
states and territories that are subject to PREA had either announced that they are in
compliance with PREA or had submitted assurances to the Department committing to
spending the relevant DOJ funds to come into compliance. Additionally, BJA and PRC officials
Continued
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

4

We encourage the USMS to address this issue immediately so as to
avoid, to the best of its ability, the possibility of knowingly housing its
detainees in facilities that are not PREA compliant. Among the options
available to the USMS are: urging its existing IGA facilities to voluntarily agree
to comply with PREA; using PREA as a factor in considering which IGA
facilities to use; and, particularly in areas where no alternate PREA-compliant
facility exists, affirmatively seeking to add PREA compliance language to IGAs,
even in the absence of a facility’s request for a rate increase or other
modification to its IGA.
II.

External Investigator Standards

The Standards place certain requirements on external investigative
agencies that conduct investigations of sexual abuse in confinement settings.
Generally, these requirements include: (1) following certain protocols for
conducting sexual abuse investigations in confinement settings; (2) having in
place a policy governing the conduct of sexual abuse investigations; and
(3) providing specialized training to investigators who conduct sexual abuse
investigations. The Standards specify that any DOJ component that conducts
investigations in confinement settings must comply with these requirements. 14
During our review, we identified two issues that have prevented the
Department from ensuring its full compliance with the external investigator
standards. Those issues are described below.
Assessing Compliance of External Investigator Standards
The Standards state that the certified independent PREA auditor shall
make a compliance determination for each standard, including those relating
to external investigative entities, and until April 2014 this continued to be the
case. However, on April 23, 2014, the PREA Working Group issued interpretive
guidance directing auditors to find a facility compliant even if an external
investigative entity is found to be not compliant. 15 Members of the PREA
told the OIG that in the seven states and territories that have neither complied nor submitted
assurances, some individual facilities had requested PREA audits or had them performed.
14 DOJ components that investigate sexual abuse in confinement settings include the
OIG, FBI, BOP, and USMS. The OIG has primary jurisdiction over cases that involve
allegations of staff sexual abuse, while the FBI has primary jurisdiction over cases that involve
inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse.
15

OJP provides guidance to auditors by making available an Auditor Compliance Tool
that facilitates evaluating compliance of individual Standards. This tool has been updated to
reflect this new interpretive guidance.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

5

Working Group told us that the goal of the new interpretive guidance was to
free individual facilities from being held responsible for non-compliance by
external investigative entities.
While these members told us that this goal was broadly shared among
the members of the PREA Working Group, some members also expressed the
concern that there is no current mechanism by which to determine whether
DOJ external investigative entities are in compliance with the PREA standards.
Several members of the PREA Working Group, including OJP officials,
subsequently confirmed that no such mechanism exists within the Department
to ensure that assessments of the external investigative standards are
conducted. We believe that an assessment of whether DOJ components
subject to the external investigative standards have in place the required
policies and training protocols is an important aspect of PREA’s
implementation.
In this regard, we note that in at least two instances, independent PREA
auditors who conducted audits of BOP institutions expressed doubt about
whether one such component, the FBI, was in compliance with the external
investigator requirements. In the first instance, an auditor noted in a final
audit report that the Taft Correctional Institution, a BOP owned and contracted
facility, had made repeated requests to the FBI for documentation to
substantiate that the FBI was in compliance with its obligations under the
three standards but had not received such documentation. For each of these
three standards, the auditor specifically noted that the FBI was not compliant,
although the auditor simultaneously found, pursuant to guidance from the
PREA Working Group, that the facility had met each standard.
In the second instance an auditor reached a similar conclusion based on
an exchange of information between OJP, the FBI, and the BOP. In December
2013, OJP sent a letter to the FBI notifying it of the standards with which the
FBI is required to comply and expressing concern on behalf of the BOP that the
FBI had yet to produce documentation to demonstrate that it was in
compliance with the Standards. In response, the FBI stated that it was in full
compliance with the Standards, but that it did not need to demonstrate that
compliance because it was unaware of any requirement to do so. After the BOP
inquired directly to the FBI about the FBI’s compliance, the FBI sent a letter to
the BOP outlining why it believed it was compliant. The information in this
letter was subsequently provided to at least one independent PREA auditor,

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

6

who found that the information was not sufficient to find that the FBI was
PREA compliant. 16
FBI officials told us that the FBI’s standards and training as they existed
immediately prior to the promulgation of the Standards were already sufficient
to comply with the subsequently promulgated Standards. These FBI officials
stated that even though it does not have policies uniquely applicable to sexual
abuse investigations in confinement settings, the FBI’s current policies that are
applicable to a prison rape investigation are sufficient to meet the Standards’
requirements. Similarly, these FBI officials told us that despite not providing
training exclusively covering prison rape investigations to its agents who might
conduct sexual abuse investigations in confinement settings, the breadth of the
FBI’s criminal investigative training meets the requirement. The officials also
stated that, in part because it conducts so few sexual abuse investigations in
confinement settings – a total of 15 between calendar years 2009 and 2013 –
they do not anticipate that the FBI will conduct any additional training
exclusively applicable to these investigations. 17 They emphasized their view
that no policies or training beyond what the FBI already offers its agents is
required under the Standards.
We have not attempted to confirm either the independent PREA auditors’
conclusions or the FBI’s statements regarding their compliance with the
Standards. We also note that the PREA Working Group’s April 2014
interpretive guidance directs auditors to find a facility compliant even if an
external investigative entity may not be compliant. However, we believe that
similar questions regarding DOJ components’ compliance with the external
investigator standards could arise in the future. We therefore encourage ODAG
in coordination with OJP, the PREA Working Group, and affected components
to develop a mechanism to assess whether relevant DOJ components have in
place the policies and training protocols required by the external investigator
standards.
USMS’s Tracking of Sexual Abuse Investigations in Third-Party Facilities
USMS policy authorizes USMS personnel to investigate sexual abuse
allegations by a USMS detainee if the USMS determines that the allegations are
16

We emphasize that such a finding does not necessarily imply that the FBI had in
fact failed to comply with the Standards.
17

The FBI stated that these 15 investigations include all full investigations,
preliminary investigations, and assessments that were opened over a five-year period from
2009 to 2013.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

7

not being properly investigated by other law enforcement entities. USMS
officials told us that USMS personnel are most commonly involved with sexual
abuse investigations in third-party facilities not operated by the USMS, such as
IGA facilities. 18
During our review, USMS officials determined that the system the USMS
uses to track sexual abuse allegations by detainees in USMS custody does not
capture the data necessary to determine the extent to which USMS personnel
are involved in such investigations. To ensure compliance with these
standards we encourage the USMS to develop a method to identify all USMS
investigations that are subject to the external investigator standards and to
ensure that those standards are met.
III.

OJP Challenges in Implementing PREA

The Deputy Attorney General assigned the responsibility to manage
PREA implementation to the Assistant Attorney General for OJP. Within OJP,
the BJA manages DOJ’s PREA implementation with the PRC. The following
sections discuss several challenges that OJP faces as it manages this
implementation.
Uncertainty as to What “Complying with the PREA Standards” Means for IGA
Facilities
The Standards require that new or renewed IGAs include both a
requirement to comply with PREA and that the contracting agency conduct
contract monitoring “to ensure that the contractor is complying with the PREA
Standards.” Guidance from the PREA Working Group states that facilities do
not have to be “immediately and perfectly” compliant with the Standards, but
must demonstrate “substantive progress.” Therefore, the contracting agencies,
including the USMS and BOP, appear to have flexibility in determining whether
IGA facilities that have PREA compliance language included in the terms of the
agreement are PREA compliant.
However, USMS officials we spoke with were uncertain as to what
circumstances would cause them to deem IGA facilities to be out of compliance
with PREA, and therefore out of compliance with the terms of IGAs, in such a
way that they would be required to remove USMS detainees. The flexibility
afforded the contracting agency under the Standards to determine whether IGA
facilities have demonstrated “substantive progress” toward PREA compliance
The USMS told us that it has not conducted any investigations in the lockups it
operates since creation of its sexual abuse tracking system in February 2012.
18

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

8

may result in uncertainty on the part of IGA facilities about what, specifically,
they must do to comply with their IGAs. This flexibility may also result in
inconsistency among the contracting agency officials responsible for
determining whether specific IGA facilities have complied with the PREA
compliance language in their agreements. Depending on the circumstances,
this uncertainty could also result in less timely implementation of the
Standards at IGA facilities. Therefore, we encourage ODAG in coordination
with OJP and the PREA Working Group, to develop a method for measuring
“substantive progress” that fosters consistency when assessing PREA
compliance across IGA facilities and promotes the objectives of PREA.
Certifying Enough Auditors to Meet Demand
The Standards require that one-third of an agency’s confinement
facilities be audited within each year of a three-year audit cycle, and that all
confinement facilities be audited by the end of the third year. The first audit
cycle began in August 2013. The PREA statute itself further provides that any
state for which the governor does not certify that his or her state is in full
compliance with the Standards, including meeting deadlines for conducting
audits, shall be subjected to a 5-percent reduction in any DOJ funds that the
state would otherwise receive for prison purposes for the fiscal year. The
statute also provides that each state can avoid this reduction if its governor
pledges to spend the 5-percent of funds that the state would otherwise lose
solely on efforts to bring the state into full compliance. 19
The BJA and the PRC are responsible for ensuring that there are enough
certified independent PREA auditors to meet the nationwide demands of
federal, state, and local confinement facilities. As of June 2014, 377 auditors
had been trained, of which 259 had been certified. Every auditor must
undergo a name check through the FBI’s National Name Check Program prior
to certification, and that name check can take months to complete. The BJA
and the PRC anticipate there will be more than 600 DOJ Certified PREA
Auditors by the end of calendar year 2014.
In March 2014, PRC officials told us that if one-third of the OJPestimated 8,000 confinement facilities subject to PREA auditing requirements
were to request an audit before the end of the first year of the audit cycle in
August 2014, there would not be enough auditors to meet nationwide auditing
requirements. However, after the conclusion of the first year of the audit cycle,
OJP officials told us that, factoring in the lack of confinement facility readiness
19

entities.

There are no financial penalties for non-compliant local governments or federal

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

9

to undergo PREA audits, the number of certified auditors had kept pace with
the PREA audits needed by facilities nationwide.
Developing an Online Auditing Tool
As part of its responsibilities, the PRC developed an audit instrument
that is used by the independent PREA auditors. The auditor fills out the audit
instrument as he or she assesses each of the applicable standards. Some
standards require assessment of agency-wide policies, while others are specific
to the individual facility being audited. 20
Currently, the audit instrument is available to auditors only in hard copy
while a partner of the PRC develops an online auditing tool. In our interviews
with BOP officials, we were told that the lack of an online auditing tool has
caused significantly more time to be spent on the administrative portions of
conducting an audit than should be necessary. BOP officials told us that
personnel in its Central Office and facilities have spent many hours supplying
information to auditors in a process that may be sped up through use of the
online auditing tool. A member of the PREA Working Group also told us that at
least one auditor has expressed frustration with the cumbersome process of
completing a preliminary audit report without an online auditing tool.
BJA and PRC officials told us that the electronic version of the auditing
tool was not in the DOJ’s original PREA implementation plans and that a
decision was made to develop the online auditing tool soon after development of
the audit instrument had begun. They said that they had hoped that the
online auditing tool would be available by the time the first audit cycle began in
August 2013, but that making the online tool compliant with the Federal
Information Security Management Act had delayed its implementation. As of
February 2014, these officials were not able to provide a timeline for completion
of the online auditing tool.
Coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security
On March 7, 2014, the DHS published its Standards to Prevent, Detect,
and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities (DHS’s
PREA Standards). DHS’s PREA Standards are similar to the DOJ’s Standards,
including a similar audit requirement, but they include provisions tailored to
immigration detention facilities that are not part of the DOJ’s Standards.

20

BOP has established an audit of its Central Office to assess agency-wide policies
annually instead of having PREA auditors assess these policies during every facility audit.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

10

In our interviews with BJA officials and members of the PREA Working
Group, we were told that DHS officials have met with DOJ officials to ask
questions about DOJ’s experience creating the Standards, but that there has
yet to be discussion about how the two sets of standards will interact. We
believe that questions about the interaction between the DOJ’s and DHS’s
PREA Standards are certain to arise, and therefore a mechanism for ongoing
coordination will be necessary.
For example, similarly to USMS and BOP, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) uses state and local confinement facilities to house its
immigration detainees. For facilities used by both ICE and the USMS, ICE
often “rides” on USMS IGAs, meaning it uses the same terms with the facility
that USMS has set out. In these situations, a facility that has PREA
compliance language in its IGA would have to comply only with the DOJ’s
Standards. However, facilities that maintain separate IGAs with DOJ and DHS
may have to comply with both the DOJ’s and the DHS’s standards and undergo
separate audits by DOJ and DHS, the substance of which may substantially
overlap with each other.
Because questions about the interaction of the two sets of standards are
likely to arise, we encourage OJP and the PREA Working Group to coordinate
with DHS on the respective DOJ and DHS sets of PREA standards to identify
potential implementation issues and to minimize duplication of efforts. We also
encourage coordination with other relevant federal entities should additional,
analogous standards be developed.
IV.

BOP Audit Challenges

The BOP is the only DOJ component required to undergo PREA audits of
confinement facilities that it operates. 21 There are 120 BOP facilities, each of
which is required to undergo an audit during each 3-year audit cycle. The BOP
entered into a contract with the American Correctional Association to conduct
all of its PREA audits during fiscal year 2014. BOP officials told us that the
BOP was largely already in compliance with PREA when the Standards were
published.
The BOP’s 14 privately operated contract institutions and 182 RRCs are
also subject to the audit requirement. The BOP has modified all of its
agreements with contract and RRC facilities to include PREA compliance
21

The USMS’s lockups are not subject to the audit requirement because they are not
used to house detainees overnight.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

11

language. While the BOP must monitor these agreements to ensure
compliance with the contract, hiring an independent auditor and complying
with the Standards are responsibilities of each contract and RRC facility.
The BOP planned audits for 34 of its institutions and its Central Office
during the first year of the PREA audit cycle, which began on August 20, 2013,
and ended on August 19, 2014. After an analysis that included preliminary
audit reports completed between August 20, 2013, and April 8, 2014, 12
reports showed that the audited facilities ranged from 48-percent compliance
with applicable Standards to 95-percent compliance. 22 However, pursuant to
the Standards, institutions that are found in a preliminary audit report not to
be compliant with an applicable Standard are afforded a 180-day corrective
action period, during which the institution and the auditor develop a corrective
action plan to achieve compliance. BOP officials expressed confidence that all
standards not met in preliminary audit reports would be resolved by the time of
the final audits. As of August 2014, final audit reports had been released for
22 BOP institutions, and all institutions had been found to meet or exceed all
of the applicable Standards. In addition, three reports assessing BOP
institutions containing findings of noncompliance with the PREA Standards
were finalized by PREA auditors and provided to the BOP in 2014, but as of
August 2014 these reports had not been released because BOP was contesting
the findings.
During our review, we identified several challenges related to audits of
BOP’s facilities, contract facilities, and RRCs. The following sections discuss
these areas in more detail.
Cross-Gender Pat-Down
We were told by BOP officials that implementing a cross-gender pat-down
restriction will be a significant task for the BOP. This standard, which goes
into effect for select institutions on August 20, 2015, including the BOP, states
that institutions shall not permit cross-gender pat-down searches of female
inmates, absent exigent circumstances. BOP officials said that because only
female staff will be allowed to pat down female inmates, correctional officer
shifts at BOP institutions will need to be adjusted to ensure there is adequate
female staff to conduct such searches. Changes in staff shifts will be subject to
negotiations between the BOP and the national correctional officer union.

22

Unlike final PREA audit reports, preliminary PREA audit reports are not required to
be made available to the public.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

12

Inmate Access to Outside Confidential Support Services
The Standards require confinement facilities to maintain or attempt to
enter into agreements with community organizations that are able to provide
inmates with confidential emotional support services related to sexual abuse.
The BOP has attempted to assist its institutions in finding and entering into
agreements with such community organizations. In May 2013, the BOP sent a
letter to all of its regional PREA coordinators explaining the requirement and
attached a memorandum of understanding template that could be used by BOP
institutions.
However, BOP officials stated that many institutions have encountered
challenges finding such community organizations. They told us that some
institutions in geographically remote locations have found it particularly
difficult to locate organizations in their area, and that some organizations
capable of providing the needed services have been unwilling to enter into a
memorandum of understanding with a large BOP institution due to the impact
that such a commitment would have on their personnel and resources.
Inconsistency Among Auditors’ Findings
BJA officials stated that all auditor applications are scrutinized so that
only those with extensive corrections experience are allowed to train and
become auditors. In general, the DOJ officials we interviewed were satisfied
with the performance of the independent PREA auditors to date. However, in
our review of preliminary audit reports of BOP institutions, we found a number
of inconsistencies among different auditors’ findings. For example, for the
cross-gender pat-down standard, which does not go into effect until August
2015 and is thus not applicable to BOP institutions, most auditors marked
that the standard had not been met, some marked that the standard had been
met, and others marked that the standard was not applicable. While the
inconsistencies we identified were all contained in preliminary audit reports,
not final audit reports, and while these findings pertain to a standard that has
not yet gone into effect, they nevertheless illustrate the potential for PREA
auditors to reach inconsistent conclusions.
The PRC officials we interviewed also expressed concerns about
inconsistencies among auditors’ findings, particularly regarding standards that
might be incorrectly marked as having been met. They noted that while
standards that are incorrectly marked as having not been met can be fixed
during the 180-day corrective action period, standards that are incorrectly
marked as met are likely to go unnoticed. Any unidentified noncompliance
may therefore not be discovered and cured until the next audit 3 years later.
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

13

Officials from the PRC, as well as a member of the PREA Working Group,
told us that a small amount of inconsistency among auditors is inevitable.
They emphasized that the BJA and the PRC provide auditors with a rigorous
40-hour training course, but that the auditors, who are independent, are left to
make their own determinations and a small amount of inconsistency must be
expected. However, DOJ officials told us that BJA plans to develop a quality
control program, the details of which have not yet been determined.
CONCLUSION
DOJ and its components have important management and operational
responsibilities under PREA and have made significant progress on the process
of implementing PREA. They also face a number of challenges pertaining to
implementation of the Standards. As PREA implementation progresses and
more federal, state, and local facilities across the country undergo audits and
otherwise implement PREA, many of these challenges, if left unresolved, will
become increasingly significant. In particular, the OIG encourages the
Department and its relevant components to address the following priority
challenges:
•	 USMS develop a plan to address the inclusion of PREA compliance
language in USMS active IGAs in a more timely fashion.
•	 ODAG in coordination with OJP, the PREA Working Group, and affected
components develop a mechanism to assess whether relevant DOJ
components have in place the policies and training protocols required by
the external investigator standards.
•	 USMS develop a method to identify all USMS investigations that are
subject to the external investigator standards and to ensure that those
standards are met.
•	 ODAG in coordination with OJP and the PREA Working Group develop a
method for measuring “substantive progress” that fosters consistency
when assessing PREA compliance across IGA facilities and promotes the
objectives of PREA.
•	 OJP and the PREA Working Group develop a method for coordinating
with DHS on the respective DOJ and DHS sets of PREA standards to
identify potential implementation issues and to minimize duplication of
efforts.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

14

APPENDIX I: LIST OF ACRONYMS
BJA
BOP
DHS
DOJ
FBI
ICE
IGA
OIG
OJP
PRC
PREA
RRC
USMS

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Intergovernmental Agreement
Office of the Inspector General
Office of Justice Programs
PREA Resource Center
Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003
Residential Reentry Center
U.S. Marshals Service

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

15

APPENDIX II: OJP RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT 


u.s. Department of Justice
Office of JuMice Programs

MEMORANDUM TO:

Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
United Stutes Department of Justice

THROUGH:

FROM:

Ni na S. Pelletier
Assistant Inspector General far Evaluation and
Office afthe Inspector Gellcral
Vni ted Swtcs Department of Justice

Ins~cti6ns

Kmol V. M"".t=-J,r\
Assistant Attorney Gene rllJ

SUBJECT:

Response to the Office of the lru;pectar Gencral' s Draft
R,cPQrt, Progres.\· R,f'pt)rf on the Department ofJustice. 's
Implementation ofthe Prison Rape Elimination Act

The Ofiice of Justice Programs (OJP) appreciates the opportunity to review and
respond to lhc Office oflhe l;nspector General ' s (0I0's) draft report, entitled Pmgress Report

on /he Department ofJu~'rice 's Implementation ofthe Pri!iIJn Rope /:.'/iminuriQn ACI,
transmitted on September 19, 2014,
Although no fonnal recomme ndat ions were include<! in lhcdrafi progress report, the

OIG encouraged the Department and its re levant components to address five priority
challenges., o f which three involve OJP' s mlc in implementing the Prison Rape Elimination
Act 0(1003,
Introduction

On August 27, 20 13, Deputy Anomcy General (DAC) James M. Cole signed the Prison Rape
.Elimination Act (PREA) Implementatio n Piau. lbis plan charged OJP 'With implementation
af the regulation~ promulgated unde r PREA in AugUS! 20 12, '"most notabl y responsibilities'
related to the process by which fac·ilitics arc audited for compliance with !hI: PREA
Standards" (PREA Implt'fllenlotioll Plan, p. I). [n urder to carry out these vast
respon~ibilities, OJP established the PREA Program Managemeni omcl': (PMO) in the
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), The historic nature of PREA and the unprecedented
development of national standards to pruvent sexual abuse in confinement settings have
required the PMO to develop a numb;:r of groundhrcaking processes, instruments, and
protocols 10 implement the PREA Standards, The PMO, among many other significant duties

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

16

and responsibilities, ehair3lhc Department ' s PREA Working Group. The mission oflhis
group, which is explained in more detail below, is to issue iUlcrprctlltive guidance on
qucstions of first impression related to the PREA Standards.
Since DAG Cole signed the PREA Implementation Plan, the PMO has utilized a
multi-faceted, highly succes~ful strategy to Carry out the Department's PREA responsibilitieli.
While work remains to be don~ the PMO bas made. remarkable progress supponing and
facilitating implementation of PREA nationwide. 111is response explains this progress,
identifies emerging priorities related to PREA implementation, and outlines plans for the
future,
OJP and tbe PMO anticipated tbe ·'priority challenges" related to OJP and the PREA Working
Group that are identified by the OIG in its draft progn:ss report on PREA 'fhe PMO has
already IUken steps 10 address them, and strategic work on thcse and other challenges will
cqntinue into tbe futlU'c.
A central e1cmeot of the PMO's work on PREA implemelltation is ~ollaborntion. Since its
inception in late August 20 13, the PMO has worked \0 promote collaboration across the kcy
Department components that have a lltake in I'RFA implementation, betwecn the Department
and oUler federal agencies tOllt have requirements under "PREA, and among the Department
and numerous external constituent groups that are working to implement PREA 81 the state.
local, and tribal levels. The PMQ recognizes that collaboration is a critical prerequisite for
successful PREA implementation, and the PMO always rd ics upon collaboration in carrying
oul the components of its PREA implementation strategy. These components include:
•

•

•

•

•

Creating and implementing 1I robust PREA audit process to assess compliance with Ule
PREA Stamiards in eonfinemelll facilities across Inc nation;
Delivering targeted training and tcchnical assistance (TI'A) to Ihe field on issues such as
establishing "zero tolerance" cultures related to sexual abuse and sexual harassment in
confinement r.. .ciJities; eliminating these serious problems in adult prisons 3nd jails,
juvenile facilities , community c:pnfinemcllt facilities, and lockups; and coming into
compliance with the PREA Standards;
Developing and operationaiizing a comprehensive oulreach and education ~1ra!egy that
focuses on external constituent group~ that are impaeied by PREA and the PREA
Standards;
Partnering with other Department components to support implementation of the PRf~
Standards ill those components iliat have responsibilities under PREA, and 10 provide
interpretative guioancc io the field on issues of first impression related to the PREA
Standards;
Working closely with other federalll£cncics, so that they CUll leverage thc lcsSQns learned
from tbe Department's successfUl PREA implementation efforts, and Ihe tools Created by
the Department 10 promote implementation acti vities nationwide; and

2

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

17

•

nircclillg a robust n.1tiollal grant program, DemQnstrmion Projtt'rs /0 Es/ablish "Zem
Tolerance " Cullllresfor Sexual Assault in CorrectioJwl FacilirieJ, which pr6vid~s
much-needed resources to siate, local, and tribal jurisdictions 10 carry oul PRBA-rclatcd
activities.

This response summarizes OlP's and the PMO's aeeonlpli shmenl~ related to each of these
sll"ategies. and high lights key steps 10 be taken to build upon the momenlum related to PREA
implementati on_ The!le sleps address numerous priorities, including the .specific chalJenges
identified in the 0I0's draft progress repon on PREA.
Thc National Coundl on Crime aud Deli nquency (NeeD) serves as a critical partner to the
PMO in carryi.ng out many of the implementation strategies that arc described below. In
2010, BJA couceived of and released a solicitation see~jllg the establishment orlhe National
PREA Resource Center (PRe). Through a competitive process, a cooperative agreement was
awarded to NCeD, which has since been supplemented and is fully funded through 20 16.
NCeD has worked colJaboratively with the PMQ 10 direct the activities of the PRe. The
PRe ' s mission is to address sexual safely in confinemen t fudli ties, and to assist state and
locrtl jurisdictions with Iml,llementation oftbe PREA Standards . The l'RC's \'t'Cbsite is
www.prearesoU[eeeenlecofll.and morei nformationaboutthe important resources offered by
the P Re is included below.

Crention lind Implementa t ion "r the PREA Audit Process
lbc PRBA implementation Plan prioritized the PMO' s sU{lpon for the PREAaudit process,
and the first year of tbe init ial PREA audit cycle commenced on August 20, 20 13. As II result,
the PMO, in collaboration with the PRC, hilS spent significant tim e, efron, and resources on
lhe aUdit functi on of the PREA Standards. In faCl , the PMO ' s and the PRe's mosl signilicanl
accomplishme.nt to date has becn creating and implemcnting a comprehtmsive. lrisloric, and
unprecedented PREA audit process. Key milestones achieved by OJp, which reflect the
Departrnent '~ audit-related responsibilities as outlined in the PREA Standards (see §§
115.401 - .405), indude:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Developing an extensive audi tor training curriculum and exam;
Identifying expen faculty member.; to deliver pn:scntntions, aud fflcilitating small groups
focused c;m auditing scenarios and buildi ng interv iewing skills;
Oelivl:ring seven week-lon g auditor trainings for 563 auditor candjdates;
Finaliziug.lour lengthy. detailed, and complex audit instruments that rcflcctlbc four
facility types: included in the PREA Standards;
Processing more than 1,000 audito r applications:
Coordinating the certification and posting proccss for 349 rkpartment-certified PREA
audi tors;
Ini tiating al.l ongoing su pport and education prog,rwn for Dcpartmcnt-cen.ificd PREA
auditors;
Bcginning development of a quality a,ssur.tnr;e process locused on PREA audits that
includes a peer review component; and
lnstituting a PREA audit appeals process.

3

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

18

The P'RIJA Standnrds focus on four confinement facility types: prisons and jails, community
coufinement, lockups, andjuvenile. There are 52 prisons and jails standanh, 47 community
confinement facilities standa.Hl~, 42 lockup standards, and 50 juvenile facilities standards_
The vast majority of these standnrds have multiple sub-sections, wbicll create several hundred
speeific requirements lor eaeh facility type. Because many of these requirements gn beyoud
existing policics and proccdores, and focus on specific practices that bllVe been implemetlled
in confmement facilities, the PREA audit process reflects a rundamental shift in the Wjly that
correctional facility audits are traditionally and typicat\y performed. While the compliance
determination proccss includcs athomugh document review that is usually part of
correctional B.udil~, it also incorporates statT and inmatddctainee/resident interviews, IlS wd l
as tours and direct observations of confinement fac,ililics.
Audilor Training
1n order to equip PREA auditors to conduct document reviews, interviews, and faci lity 10ur9
competently, and to usc the information collected during an audit to come to accuratc and
consistent conclusion.s about whether o[ not a facility is in complillJ;lce with the PREA
Standards, the PMO, in colla\:x)ration with the PRe, has des igned an inlt!nsive. 40-hour
training course for PREA auditor candidates. During the course, in addition to reccivi ng
information about the standards in IccrufC..style presentations, the candidates part icipate in
small group sessions designed to develop and enhance the ir interviewing skills, and to use
complex informat ion from VeriOIlS sources to make accurate and consistent detenninations
about facility compliance with tlle PREA Standards. Candidates are also expected CO conduct
cX'lcnsive document reviews in advance of the onsile training that rocUs on standards
compliance scenarios. The completed pre-work is discussed throughout the training. The
week-long training concludes with II; thorough writtcn exam ination of the content cuvered.
Passing the examination is a requirement of being eenified by the Department as a PREA
audilor.
Participants ar~ as~ed to complete evaluations oflhc event overall, as "'(cll ~ of each
presenter and prescntation. PRe ~iaIT review the evaluations and, ill collaboration with the
PMO, make. necessary revisions to the agenda and materials t6 ensure participanl~ are tl1l incd
to carry Qut their aud iting responsibilities effectiVely. PElrticipanl~, who already possess
significant correcti onal experience and training, consistently report that the event is the
highest quality and me most comprehensive liod thorough training of their professional
careerS.
PREA A uditor Training dates include:

•
•
•
•
•

•
•

JWle 2013
November 20U
January 20 14
March 2014
June. 2014
July 2014
Septem be.r 2014

4

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

19

•
•
•

November 201 4
Three training sessions anticipllted in 2015
Three {fHiuing sessions anticipated in 2016

Cenified Auditors

With ongoing sUPlNrt from the PMO, Ihe PRe utilizes an oriline appJiC8liOil ponaJ 10 receive
and host auditor appl ications, The original application solicitation, launched on August 15,
2013, closed on April 30, 20 14; a flew application process was launched May I, 2014. This
two-part application process is designed to elicit clearer and more useful info,nnation from
applicants that is related to {be specific requirements and criteria associah:d with acceptance
as 11 PREA auditor candidate.
1bc first part of this process focuses
agoonst three threshold criteria:

011

a review of PREA aud itor cnndidate applicatious

1. Does the applicant possess three years of significant auditing, monitoring-. quality
assurance, investigations, or ~ubstant i:a.Ily similar e;,;perience with the facility type in
which ccrtification(s) are sought?
2, Docs Ihe applicant have a bacbelor' s degree, or II. high school diploma and experience.
substitution?
3. Does the applicant have at least two reference letters from someone in a field relatl!d tn
!he relevanl sct of standards, or a single endQrsemen\ from a qualified employing emily?
Each candidal.e's application is reviewed against these criteria and receives a score of 1 (Yes)
or 0 (No) for each question. Those who receive a total of three points are advanced to the
.second part of the application process., which incl udcs a tnorough review of each candidate' s
employmem and experience related to auditing, monitoring, quality assurnnce, investigations,
and related activities. 'l1lose who receive a score of two or less arc removed from the active
candidates list. Where appropriate. thcse candidates arc contacted by the PRe. and given the
opportunity to update and add 10 their application infol1llatlon aod material s.

More than 1,000 completcd PREA auditor applications have been submitted, with many more
staJ1ed ruJd awaiting completion. The candidatos are diverse in terms of geography, auditing
experiencc, and the Iype(s) of auditing certifications sought. R~eotly, the PMO approved a
consolidation of auditor certification tyPCs from four (prisons and jails, commWlity
confinement, lockups. and juvenile) to two (adult faciLities and juvenile facilities). The
dt.'Cision 10 consolidate the certification types was madc after careful consideration by the
PMO and the. PRe, aJld with extensive fccdbaclllU1d input from the community of
Depanmcnt-ccnified PREA a.uditors, and from agencies and facilities that are undcrgoiug
lIudi\!;. lnitial fcedback on this consolidation has been very favorable.

5

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

20

"fo date, the PMO, in collaboration with the PRe, has trained 563 individuals seeking PReA
auditor certification; 349 have passed the written examinatil,ln aftcr the auditor tmming as WClU
as tht required criminal background chC1:k l and have been certified by the Depamnent as
PREA auditors. !.tis expected that this number will increase by at least 90 when the
!;;8udid.1tes from the .July 2014 training class are certified , bringing the lotal to 439. With the
auditor trainings in lale September and November 2014, tbc PMO expects there 10 be more
than 600 Department-certified PREA auditors by the end of2014. To date, the number of
certified auditors has kepI pace with the PREA audits requested by confinemcnt facilities
nationwide.
The PRe website maintains a dedicated page that lists the certified auditors and includes a
bricfbiographical statement, date of certification, certilication typc(s), and state ofrcsidence.
This li)1;( is searchable by certification type and state of residence.

Traini!!! Dat e

Number of Auditan Certified.

Juue 2013
Novembcr2013
J",
2014
March 2014
Junc20 14
Ju ly 2014

4J

77
77
62
9()
9()

antici ated

PREA Audit Instruments
The development of comprehensive, accurate audit insttumCnll; for all four sets of Standards
hss been a significant and time-intensive undertaking for the PMO and the PRe. The audit
instnuncnt for prisons and jails was released pending final revisions in May 201 J. A draft of
the j uvenile facilities instrument was made llvailable to Dcparlmcnt"ccrtified PREA lluditors
in June 2013, and the community confinement facilities instrument was made available to
auditors ill Novcmber 20 13.
Final revisions to the prisO)}S and jails instrument. which included a thorough legal review and
approval by OJP's Office of General CQunsel (OGG), were completed and incorporated in the
final instrument that was re leased in April 20 14. TIle juvenile facilities instrument was also
fmalizcd and released in April 2014. The community confinement facilities instrument was
beta tested in Septcmber 2013 and released in fina.! in May 2014. The lockups instrument was
beta tested in December 20 13 and was released in final in the summer of2014. Pccdback"ou
the tools from bQth Dcpartment-ccrtiJict\ PitEA auditors and agencies and faci lities being
audi ted has bCCll extremely positive.

The ~d 01••,1:\: fa I'RM ... di .... <an<lid"", ir limited IQ Ill< F<tkraI. fJ\~ ...... of I,wutigation " (fBI) NOliQllal NomeCll<d:
1"'' ''''''o-'l>lCI') If . c • .dida«' JI"'.... ;,. O_d ~ Illo )oII>lCl-', ~ .. I'MQ ruJ_ tJat Ib<: individual mW: • ~""IIQ !he FBt"
en",;,,,1 Ju"",," It>fufln ....... Scntic<ojCJ !Sj Oivis;c. b- til< .-.iI.
"";,,,;,,.1 ~"d d>:<k IQ bt f<"\II '" ill« PMO. Th< PMQ
make< Ihio ...... ll>.'.:Atlot OJP d<\oOI lIOI po$Sffl !he k:pl ",uMmy [0 111m !hi$" "'~\JO$I dl~y \() I"" CJIS Dr. ,,,,,,,, . .",., (""Ilts dfltlc
bacl<g<liIIDd d>ook ...., US«! b~ OW. otrl<t! or Admini>lntiorl to m.l:u mitipli ... dtottrrnin.otioo,

of""'"

6

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

21

Neither the PREA Standards nor the PREA Implementation Plan signed by DAG Cole
contemplates the need for an online version of the audit in~trumenlg. Huwever, given the
significant complexities and burdens associatcd with collecting, organizing, and securely
retailJing documt:nl~ and infolJllation related JO PREA audits, the PMO and the PRC initialed
development of an ollliue version of the audit instruments shortl}"afier the PREA
Implementation Plan was approved. 'The 1001, which is'"highlighted in the OIGls draft
progress report on PR\::A as an important resource for the field, will allow audit doculllcnl~ to
be completed electronically, and reference materials to be uploaded and stored securely and
digitally, versus the aud itQr keeping hard copics of all materials used in an audit.
The development process associate<! with the online 1001 has beL'I1 C.lCtcnsiye because of the
data security requIrements imposed under the Fedeml Tnfonnation Security Management Act
(FISM,A). While addressmg issues related to FISMA has extended the time required to
complete development of the tool, the PMO and the PRe recognize the importance of
ensuring that sensitive infonnation reviewed or CQllected liS part of PREA audits is
appropriately safeguarded. A flllal version of the tool has been completed and is curre ntl y
undergoing a security review by OJP ' s Office of the Chieflnronnation Officer (OCIO). ·Ibe
PRe and the subcontractor that devdopcd the tool, Abt Associatf:5, are poised to immediately·
make the needed security changes idcnlilied hy OCIO, so that the tool can be made available
as dpeditiously as possible. As an interim measure, and in recognition ortne needs of
Depanmcnt-ccl1ificd PREA auditors alld the field, the PMO and the PRC are working
diligently to dcvclopJillablc PDF versions orthe audit instrument documents, and Will make
thr:st: widely available in the coming weeks.
Ongoing Support fUld

As~jstancc

for Auditors

Before the first PREA auditors were certified by thc Department, the PMQ and the PRe
recognized that auditors may encounter interpretive challenges or other issues during !lleir
critical audit work. To support auditors in the field, the PMO and the PRe have established
multiple methods for auditors to obtain expert guidn.nce. For less urgentoecds, such as
questions related to document reviews that take place in advance of the onsite portions of
audits, or the development of wrillen audit repOrts, audito rs may submit an email query to
which the PRe will respond within three business days. Recogni zi ng /tillt some auditors may
lIeed assistance while at facj]itie.~ during audits, the PRe opcmtes a helpline and works to
respond to inquiries in less than 24 hours durlllg the work wcek.
Additional auditor supp(ltt is provided by thc PMO and the PRe through frequent wcbinars
and newsletters. In March 20]4,the PMO and the PRe conducted the first auditor wcbinar,
which leatured four Department-certified PREA audilOrs who participatcd in the JlU1c 20 13
training. They shared with participants their lessons learned from conductin g audits, and, in
the case of one auditor, their experience with being audited. Key topics covered included
contmct development, document review, establishing II Limited Liability Company (LLC),
and effectivc strategies for communicating with facility Slaffmcmbc:rs about audits. In May
2014, a seeond webinar on fmal audit report writing was held, emphasizing the critical
importan~ of detail and clarity in final reports to support the findill~s of audits. Two
additional webi nars were held in Scptember 2014 thaI focused On tho new auditor certification

7

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

22

process, practical differences auditing in different facility types, reporting responsibilities, and
corrective action plans.
The PMO and the PRe provide two main. eommwlklltion mechanisms to disseminnte critics]
infonnation consistently to auditors over time. The first is notification of recently Issued
requests for proposals (RFP) IlT other solicitations for audit contracts received by the PRe
frnm external entities. Scc6nd. in ordcr to keep auditnrs abreast nf reeCllt audit-related
updates, the PMO and the PRe have issued three newsletters to all Department-certified
PREA auditnrs til. advise them Mrcrent intcrprct ive guidance, issued by the Department's
PREA Working Gro up, in the [nm1 of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and other auditor
resources. These newsletters will continue til. be disseminated approximately-every two
months and include new FAQs made available by the working group.
Recognizing the importance nf keeping all auditors as informed as possible, the PRC, nn
behalfnfthe PMO, tracks what infnnnalinn !luditors receive and when, and makcs sure to
disseminate previously di ~tributed information. til. new auditors once they are certified. With
iO Upport and guidance from the PMO, the PRC is in the proce~~ of creating an nnline portal fo~
lJepartment-certified PREA auditors til. give them re:ldy, round-thc-cloc~ access to all
archived I1'UItcrials .
PREA Audit Tracking

lllePMO and thePRC are \\ourking to finalize data collection forms nn PREA audits in order
10 track audits that are taking place across the nation, and til. infnrm audit quality assurancc

and peer re.view efforts. 1n the fall of2014.lhese fnrms will be posted on the PRe website,
and the PMQ wiU cnmmunicate with all Departmem--certilicd PREA. auditnrs and tbe field
requesting submission nftbis information. The PMO and the PRe are also developing more
snphisticated loWs for both auditor and audit tracking, including cnncrele guidance and
requirements for auditors to report their audit activities and findings.
Even withnut these mcchuni:)ms for reporting, the PMO and the PRe receive ad hoc
information about completed and nngoingaudits tlltough communicatinns with Department­
certified PREA auditors. These cnmmunieations reveal that hundreds nfPREA audits have
been-----{)r are being-----conduclt-d in dozens nf states. The PMO' s and the PRe's goal in the
coming months is to institutionalize information collection and repOrt ing processes.related to
PREA audits occurring across the nation.
PREA Audit Quality Assurance and Peer Review
On Sepl~ber 17, 20 14, the PMO and the PRG ennvened a productive strategic meeting til.
discuss the goals and uexi steps associated wi th a quality assurance process for PREA audits
tbat includes a peer review component. The quality assurance process, which is highlighted
iu the OIO's draft pl"C)gres~ rel;l<)f1 on PREA, wilt build upon the audit traCking acti vities that
arc explained above. and will be implemented, alnng with supporting peer review activities, in
20 1S. The PMO anticipates that the quality a.-.surllnce process will:

•
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

23

•
•
•
•

•

PrmtlQte the accur.1CY of PREA audit results;
Enhance the c~dihililY of and confidem:e in the pREA audit process on the part of the
field and Depamnent-certified PREA auditors;
improve intcr-nttcr re.1iability !lITIOTJg Dep<U1mc.nt.ccrtificd PREJ\ !ludjtors in their condllet
of audits;
Assist in the iJentifieatiotl of important trends in agencies' and facilities ' efforts and
abili ty to comply with the PREA Standards, so that TIA actiVitic.~ can Qe adjusted
accordingly; and
Promote accountabi lity among Department-certitled PREA auditors for the misapplieati~)I)
and/or misunderstanding of the PREA Standards, and forconduct~rel ated issues.

PREA Audit Appeal Process
OJP's OGC, whh inpnt from thc PMO and the PREA Working Group. developed a PREA
Audit Appeal Process that was approved byOJP ' s Assistant Attorney General (AAO) Karol
V. Mason and posted on the PRC website in tbe swnmcr of 20 14. Any agency may lodge an
appeal with the Department regarding any specific PREA audit finding that it believes to be
incorrecL Such an appeal must be lodged within 90 days of the auditor's fmal detenninalion.
Each audit appeal will be reviewed by a thrcc.person pancl that is composed of members of
the PREA Working Group, including one representative from the PMO< Pursuant to the
PREA Implementation Plan, the panel's find ings are forwarded to OJP AAG Mason for a
final decision regarding the appeal ..
Delivery of T rainin g a nd Tcehnic.al JUsistance to the Field
The PMO recogni"tcs that 5ucccssfuJ PREA implementation TC<juires the delivery of targeted

rr A to the field 00 issues such as establj shing ·'zero tolerance" cultures related to ~exuaJ

abuse and sexual harassment in confinement facilities; eliminating these serious probJem.s in
adult priooos and jai.ls, juvenile facilities , community corrections facilities. and lockups; and
coming into compliance with the PREA Standards. As a result, the PMO has worked closely
with the I'RC to establish and improve over time a very rol]ust, cost-effective ITA Vroce.~s
that is responsive to the d iverse needs of the fie ld relnted 10 PREA.
Targeted ITA Providers

The PMO's and the PRe's work would nol be possible without the efforts and support of their
expert TTA -partners. In the Gill of2013, and with support and apprt;lval from ihe PMQ, tbe
PRe rel~J.Sed Iwo RfT's 10 identify ITA partncrs for the f'RC's current TTA strategy. Onl!
RFP focused on core IT A to continue field-initiated assistance and major resource
development. The second Rf"P fucused on special projects to be responsive to resource gaps
for speci fi c target groups such as lockups and community confinement facilities. Nearly $2
million was awarded to seven six providers witb CQntrnets rangin g from 12 to 24 months,
commencing in January 2014. The selected ·n 'A providers include:

9

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

24

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

American Jail Association
American University's Washington College of Law, Project on Addressing Prison RapeIntemational Association of Chiefs of I)olice
lu.~t Detention International
Natiol}al Association of State Mentall-lenlth Program Direc:tors
The Moss Group
Vt!l'!l Institute of Justice

fhc PRe, in collaboration with the PMO, provides oversight tn these providers to ensure that
their deliverables address the needs of the (ie/d, are innovative. build upon and leverage one
another, and do not duplicate resources that are already available. The fo:llowiJ:lg are selected
examples of pending ITA resources that are currently being finali:t:ed by the PMO, the PRC,
and their T f A partners:

•
•
•

t\rtides and manuals for prosecutors on PREA
Comic books for talking about PREA with inm<ltes
A eross-gl!nde:r pal search instructional video and facilitator's guide

The PMO, the PRC, and its 'rr A partncrs will concentmte on dc.veloping ami/or cnhanc~1:l

PREA-focused re.~ources on topic areas and issues that reflect major questions and needs
articulated by the field. The PMO and the PRC will focus on the tolJowing areas and issues
through the end of2015:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Staffing plans
Youthful inmates
Limiting the usc of segregalion
Cross-gender supervision
irun8te education
Inmates with disabilities
Efiects of trauma training for staB'
PREA in Action
PREA fact sheets

Regional Training Events and Training Curricula
Prior to the establishment of the PMQ by DAG Cole, but undcr guidance from BJA, the PRe
began conducting regional trainings across the naiion on key issues related 10 PREA. A total
of26 rcgionaltntlnings were conducted. All were well attended by teprestlnlatives from
agenl;ies and facilitit:s seeking guidanet: and information io further their PREA
implementation efforts. Across all of the regionallrainings, nearly 370
jurisdicliorut/organi7.f1tiolls participated in lit least one evenl, with 100 anending more. than
Imt:.

10

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

25

Because these events were v.'ell rece.ived by justice ~ystcm polieymakers and practitioners,
and given the relatively high cost a.'lsocialed with delivering live trninings, the PRe, in
collaboration wi th the PMO, has worked with the individuals involved in de livering the
train i n~ 10 tr.mslate the materials used inlo curricula. This curricula. development effort wiJl
ensure.that the li eld has access to high-quality. comprehensive trn.ining materials, in
recognition that in-person tmining events cannot possibly serve the number ofpcople who
need to be u-J.ined un issues related 10 PREA. From December 2013 through the spring or
2014, the PRe, in collaboretion with the PMO, released the rollowing curricula:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
,.

Specialized training: Investigating sexual abuse in confinemem smings
Specialized training: PREA mellical and menial health srandard$
Preventing alld addressing sexual abuse in tribal deTention facilities : The impact o/the
i'rison Rap.: Elimination Act
Human resources and administrative jnvesli~aliollS employee training
Gender-responsive .l"lrutegics - adulls
Gender-responsive stratt!gies - juveniles
Employee trainillg on PREA
What )'ou Need to KIlOw (inmate education video and facilitator ' s guide)

The re~1JOnse from the field to the inmate educ.u.tion video and facilitator's guide hilS been
overwhelmingly positive and reflects the field'! typical responsc to the release of materials by
tbe PMO and the PRC. In fact , the demand for the video was so great immediately following
its release thllt it shut down the online points of aC(:css for download ing. Since its (ejense, the
video has been WHtened I,In YouTube neQrly 6,000 times and downloaded hundreds of times.
This 16-m.inute video is an example of the kind M practical, easy-to-use resource that is being
made available til the lield by the PMO and the PRe to support PREA implementatio\l. It can
be utiJized to provide inmates with necessary infonnation during the intake process., as well as
during a more comprehensive education related to PRRA,J>eT the requirements ortbe PKEA
Standard~. While tbe video can be vjewed independently. feedback from the many
policyrnakers and pral;titioners in the field who areleveruging this ~source reveals that its l\S()
in conj unl;tiotl with the Qccompallyillg facilita.tor> ~ s.uide provides an effective approach to
inmale education on PRF..A_
Webinars
To date, the PRe, in collaboration with the PMO, has hosted 5S wcbinars, all of which are
archived 00 the PRC website. lbcse wcbinars arc primarily targeted to corrections
professionals and community stakcholders 10 assist in PREA implementation. Twenty or
these wcbinars were hrnadcasted during the latter half of 2013 . In 10taL, nearly 15..000 people
participated in the live br03dcHSts and there have been more than 12.600 views ofthc arch.ivt:d
webinars. The PM 0, in partnership Witll the PRC, will continlie to oITcr wcbioars and archive
them on the PRC website.

II

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

26

Fidd-Initiated TrA
The PMO and the PRC continue to encourage jurisdictions LQ request field-initiated ITA
using a website request ioml. Each request is reviewed alld triaged 10 determine ifPRC staJT
can respond or if it requires onsite or remote assist.'Ulce that relies upon the specialized
expeniseofthe PMO' s and the P'RC' s 'ITA panners.

The web-based request lor assistance is a successfuJ method of addressing the fjeld's
signifiea11l 11eed fot targeted support related to PREA. More !han 1 ,350 requests were
submitted to PRC dll1ing the past year. Requests are commonly submitted by prison and ja.il
staff membt:rs, police, representatives of community corrections and juvenile detention
facilWes, and national associations, networks, and coalitions. The typcs of field-initialed
requests include. tntioing.. policy Ieviews, general information, and presentations. To ensure
efficient use of I'RC resources, PRe staff members often encourage requestors to review lind
utilize the previously mentioned curricula and other iargeted training materials.
D~l'elf)piJJg

and Operatiooalizing:t Comprehensive Communi cation and Outreach

Strategy
A continuing priority for the PMO and the PRC is to Communic..'lle proactively with key
constituent groups.and naliooul organizations that are impacted by, or have a stake in., PREA
implementation. The PMO and the PRC employ several strategies to carry out this important
priority. These strntegjes are described below.

Natjonal Organizatjons
Representatives from OIP, the PMQ, al)d thc PRC have conducted multiple infurtlJa\ioll
sessjons on PREA and participated in many committee and board meelings at major nalionul
conferences and other events hosted by national organil'.<Itions. These organizations include:
American C..orrectiomll Association
American Jail Association
American Probation and Parole Association
Association of State Correctional Administrators
• Correctional Accreditation Managers Association
• COlUlcil of Juvenile Correctional Administrators
• Inmate and victim advocacy organizations (such as the Rnisillg the Bar Coalition)
• International Association of Chiefs of Police
• intemationaJ As..<;ociation of Corrt:ctional Training Peroonncl
• International Community Correetions Association
• National Association of COIll1ties
• . National Commjssion on Correctional Health Care
• National Criminal Juslice Association
• NaLional Governors A.ssociation
•
•
•
•

\2

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

27

•
•

NrltionaJ Sheriffs' AssociatIon
North American Association of Wardcns and Superintendents

TIm jcedbac:k and input provided to OJP, the PMO, and the-PRC in conferences and meetings
sponsored by these organizations have been very valuahle in shaping the assistance and
support related to PREA that is provided to the field. -In addilion, Ihe outreaoh and education
sessions have been excellent opponunities for representatives ofOJP, thc PMQ, and the PRC
10 answer specific questions about PREA implementation and clarify misperceptions about
the statute and the standards.
A nuteworthy example of this outre3ch and education is a recent face-to-face meeting at OJP
with numerous members of the Raising the Bar Coalition. -rbe~alition's mission is to
advocate for full , effective imp1cmenwtioo and monitoring of, and cQmpliance with, th-e
PREA Standards. Prior to the meeting, the PMO received qucstio n.~ from the coalition and
prepared responses, which were used to guidc the produclive di5cussion. Going forward, the
PMQ will cQnvene additiooal meetings with the coalition approximately twice a ycar. The
PMO's strategic, proactive education and outreach efforts to the organi1.ations listed above
and others will also continue into the future.

Communication and Outreach Related to the May 15,2014 PREA Deadline
As the historic May 15, 20 14 deadline approached for governors 10 ~ubmit, for the fm.1 timc,
certifications of full compliance with the PREA standards or assurances that not 1c5S than 5%
of certain Department grant programs for prison purposes wouJd be used to come into fuJI
compliance with the standards In the future,. tne PMO and the PRe worked togcther 10
educate the field about the implicalions of submitting a ccnification Or a%urance, or doing
neither. for example, io March 20 14, th e FMO and the PRC co-hosted a webinar on PREA
and thc associated May lS responsibilities of goveOJors for the National GOVen10rs
AssOciation and the National Criminal Justice Association. The PMO and thePRC have also
served as criticaJ po inls-ot~cout..1ct on PREA implementution fot grant managers and staff
from the Office on Violent£: Against Women (OVW) and OJP's Office of Juvenile Justice
and Dclinqucncy Prevention (OHDP), tbe two other Departmcnt entities with glant pmgrams
imp3(;ted by PREA.
In addition, on February 11 , 20 14, OIP AAG Mason and OVW Principal Deputy Director Bea
Hanoon sent a letter to all of ihe nation' s state and teTTitorial governors outlining their
responsibilities relatcd to th e: May 15 deadline. In the days prior to this deadline, AAG
Ma.~on and Principal Deputy Director Hanson sent another lr...'f.tcr to the governors' chiefs of
staff, governors' criminaJ justice policy advisors, and each stnte' s administering agencies
regarding the implications oflbe deadline and the reduction of certain Departnlent grant funds
in statC5 and territories whose governors did not submit a certification or assurance.
As a result of these efforts, for the fitst lime in our nation's history, stat(' and territorial
governors provided infonllation to the federal govenunent regarding their statcs' cflorts to
combat sexual abuse in correctional facilities. Two states provided 10 tJle Attorney General

13

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

28

certifications offull compliance, w1d 47 states and territories provided assurances to usc

certain DOJ funds to ac hieve full compLiance in the future.
Following the May 15, 2014 deadline, the PMO, in collaboration with OJP's OGC, and the
Depanment entities that administer the grant progrllms impacted by PREA (OIP's RJA, OJP' s
OJJDP, and OVW) woJ;kcd 10:
•
•

•

Calculate the Ilmounts oftne gram rcrill6Catioos and reductions;
Develop SQLicitation guidance ~ut1ining how reallocated funds could be used by Slates and
territories whose governors submitted assurances to work to cOlDe into compliance with
the PREA Standards in the future; and
Communicalc proactively with the impacted states and territories about reallocations and
reductions, and the spcc:ifi!; expectations associated with the solicitation guid~.

The PMO is nowworlOng io collaboration With OJp' s BJA and OlP's OJJDP to c:onducL
enhanced monitoriog of the states and territories whose gQvemors submitted assurnnces. This
enhanced monitoring will help to ensure· that the PREA-relaled activities in these states lind
territories that are funded by the reallocated gront funds are being used to bring these states
and territories into cornplian~e with the PREA Standards.
In addition, OlP, in collabomtion with the PMO. will ~ommunicate with the s!alcs and
territory that submitted neitber a certification nor an assurance. These communications will
emphasize the importance of the~ jurisdictions' obligations under the PREA Standards,
answer qUCfotions they havc about PREA, and encourage submission of a certification or
lISSurance next year.
PREA~Related

Notifications

The PMO and the PRC are committed to providing the members o(the national organizations
listed above and others w ith accurate, timely information about the PREA Standards,
includiog PREA event announcements, available resources. and guidance issued by the PREA
Working Group. 'fhis is accomplished through monthly c-blasts and periodic spccial
notificatiQns when essential i!lformatkm needs to reach ihe field before the next scheduled
blasL Since Jlmc 2013 , thc. PRC, in collabomtion with the PMO, has sent 26 event blasts
reaching nearl y 11,000 individuals in the field. Information included in these blasts is also
posted on the PRe website, which is described below.
I'Re Website

·'be PRe website (www,prcarcsourcccenter.Qrg) isthefocal pOint for all of the inJormation
and resources provided to the field by the PMO aJld the PRe, with new material added on an
almost daily basis. lbe PMO and the PRe continuously review the websil'e content to ensure
that messaging is CQnsistcnl and that accurate infonllation is readily available and easily
accessed. The homt!page banners and entries to the Nf!lw( and Events page are updated
regu larly. Since its launch in May 201 2, thc PRe website has had more than 361 ,300 total
views, more thun 173,000 of them wliguc. In the last year alone, the website has had more

\4

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

29

than 200,000 visitors, more than 95,000 of them unique. Anecdotal infOnllatlon collected by
the PMO and the PRe at the national conferences 3.Jld meetings of the organizations listed
above reveals 1lJal website visitors find it to be an invaluable tool and source of PREA-related
information.
The PRe website's most frequently visited pages during the last year, aside from the home
page, indude:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Curricula (morc than 137.400 views)
PREA Essentials: Prison and Jail Standards (more than 137.400 views)
Training and '(eebnical AS::Ilstance (more than 72,300 views)
List of Certified Auditors (more than 49,500 views)
AuditHomepage (more than 49,400 views)
FAQ (more than 102,600 views)
"About" Page (more than 56,600 views)

The PREA Essentials page on the PRe website is a particularly important and helpful
resource. It is intended .to guide professionals in their implementation of specific PREA
Standards. Each category on the page contains a brief synopsis of the specific standards in
that category; links to both an online version ofthosc standards 1I.I1d belpful resources related
to those standards. sorted by correctional faci lity type; and, where relevant, a discu~sion of
kt:y issues mised by tho~e particular standards. The issues and resources covered on this page
are, by design. not exhaustive, but rather olTer a snapshot of those that may be of particular
interest to policymaker~ and practilioTlcrs working to implement PREA.
Part nering with Other Oepartment Com ponents to Support rREA Implem entation
While OlP and the PMO do not have any aUlhonty over other Dt:partment OOJDpuntmlS and,
therefore, cannot compel them to comply with the PREA Standards, OJP AAG Mason and the
PMO work closely with other Department components on issues related 10 PREA
imp)cmentatioll lhis work is accomplished primarily at twice-monthly meetings oflhe
PREA Working Group. This long-standing grnup' s mission has evolved over time from
completing the PREA Standards to providing interpretative guidance to the field on is.~ucs of
first inlpression related to the standards. The v.1lrking group is also a venue wher~ member:;
share infonnation about and discuss the challenges associated with PREA implementation.
Chaired and directed by the PMO, the gruup's m;:mbers include leaders [rQm the following
Dcpar1i:nent components:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Office n f the Deputy Attorney Genernl (ODAG)
Office ofO)P's Assistant Attorney General (OAAO)
Access to Jjlstice
Bureau Qr Prisons (BOP)
Civil Rights Division (CRT)
Natiooallnstitute of Corrections (NIC)

•
•

OVW
U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

30

•
•
•

•

OlP's Blj\
OJP's Office for Civil RighLS(OCR)
OJP'sOQC
OJP's Ol1DP

The PMO will encourage Ibe Federnl Bureau of l'uvestigation 10 participate in tbe working
group.
The group has issued approximately 70 PAQs thut address issues of first impression related to
the PREA Standards. The issues reflect questions and concernS from the field as local, statc.
and [rocm] agencies and facilities nationwide work toward~ implcmCJllation ofthc PREJ\
Standards.
Onc example of an PAQ that is refcrcnced in thc GIG' s draft progress report Oil PR&\. is as
follows;
Questifm.- Is a public agency tho.t contracts Wilh wwtba public agency or private agency/orlhe
confinemcnroJinma/cs. de/aiJIees, or residenl.! oul of compliance with §§ 115, 12, 115. / 12. /15.211,
and 1/5.312 iflhe cOlllracledfncilily is dell!rmined /() he noncomplianl wilh one or /nore provisions Q(
rhe P~RA Srundards by either ils required Irilmnla! audit. or by flu- cnH/roc/lng tWenCY 's roT/trac/
monitoriflg?
Anl· ...'t'r: Nol nec/!Ssurily. §§ J /5.12. 1/5. 112. 1/5.2/2, tUld 115.312 require Ihoillew or renewed
cOlltruCUjpr Ihe pIO("t'JlI('r/T ojillnwles include boll! II requiremt"n/ 1o comply with l'REA. mId Ihm the.
C()ntrdCtillg "g"lIC)1 conduel COIllr(lct "'OIIiloring "10 ellSure thatlhe (:onrracfor iJ complying w;lh rhf
PRf.:A StUlldard.l·." The SIWldwd dO<'.f nol require Illallh .. cnnlracledfaci/iry he immediately Ulld
perfi"t/y compliant with lhe Siomfarth;. Rather, the cQIIlractedjacifity mu.<;1 demon.I·Irate Q
Crlmmiflrlen! l(I be /'}/EA compJiall1 and he (Wfively ami effec ti\'Cly working mWlJI'"Il w.'hicving
compliance wilh Ill{ lhe S/ondards. The contracted /lgellcy.shO/lld be able 10 dem011$/rnle If) Ih/!.
contracting agency SUh.flall/illt! pmgress toward t1Chje~illg .fllCh compliance. and l/Ie progrU $ should
be dncWIlented.
Far a di.~clISsjall regarding Ihe CfJ IIlracl mOllilOring ahligalians of l.I comraclillg ag ..ncy, see FAQ til

/11llier COlllrt1CI.~.

Las! updaud Fehruary }9, 1014.
This FAQ is also related to the following priority challenge identified in thc OIG's draft.
progress repon on PREA;

ODAG ill coordination with OJI' and the PREA Working Group develop a methQdfor
measuring "suhstunfil'(! progress" that joslers cOllsistency when assessing PREA complianct.
across IGA facililies and promotes the objecliws of PREA.
The working group' continuously examillcs existing FAQs to identify thosc in need ofrcvisioll
and clarification, and has begun making needed changes in several of them. At the direction
ufand v.~[h oversight fmm ODAG, the working group plans to pmvide guidance aboul the
meaning of "substantivt: progre~s" as it rdales to the FAQ above, and OJP and the PMO plan

16

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

31

to work with ODi\G to "develop a method for measuring substantive prt)gress that fosters
consistency when assessing. PREA compliallce across TGA facilities and promotes the
objectives of PREA."
A sccond eXllmple of 8n FAQ that is referenced in the 010' s draft progress report on PREA is

as follows:
Questil:m: Can an (llidilor find a/I!deru! Bureau 0/ Prisulls, l'Ia/e, county, or Olher IOcul or pro'ale
/acility compliu/ll wilh Ihe PRf;.A Standards if wllmtily eUemalto the COnfillif/8 (j~ency, which
cOllduCI,~ criminal itMiMigUliolis 0/ sexUllI abuse in the/acility being audited, is nof compliant with the
"_f/ernul inve,~ligatNe enlily 's obligatiO/Is wukr f JJ 5.11 , § J 15.12, § 11J34, and § 115, 7

a

Ann""'r: Yes, provided that tht confillillg'agellC)' and/acilify being muli/ed haf met il.f own .fpeCj{iC
obligations Imdtr these .~tondards. .For txample, § J Il21(/) re'lllirt!S lhe confining qgeocy /(} reqlll!,11
Ihatthe relevalll external investigaling agency fulluw the 1'REA. Standards regarding a uniform
el'idellce protocol muijnreJlsic medical nalualic:ms.

The/allr PREA

Slandard,~

referenced above e.xplidfly apply 10 DOJ and ~/ate entitil!.'1 lhat are

responsible far il1l¥Jligming allegations 0/ se.'ll(d abuse in adldl prisons,jaill', lockups, community
corrcctionJ/acililiu, a/ldjUVf!nile/ucili(ie,~. See, §§ 115,] I(g){l), 115, 12M, 115.14(d). ami
115. "1I(k)&(fj.

This FAQ clarities lhe role ofDcpartmenl--eertified PREA auditors in assessing external
investigative agencies' compliance with ihe PREA Standanb. 'Ibe FAQ makes cieartha!, for
example, it is nQI appropriate for an auditor who is auditing a BOP facility to assess the
Federal Bureau oflnvestigation' s (which I:onducts some criminal investigations of sexual
abuse in BOP facilities) compliance with the PREA rcquirelllenl.~ of cxtemal investigative
agencies. This FAQ is also related to the followiog priority challenge identified in the QlG·"
draft progress report on PREA:

UDAG, in coordination wi/II OlP, the PREA Worhng Gml/p, and aJfeclcd L'ompollen/s,
(J mechan/,I'm to assess whether relevant DO.! components have in place Ihe policies

develop

anti training prO/ocols reqllired by the ex/ernul inw!SIiga/or standards.
OJP and the PMO have long recognized.lhe Ilced for more infammtion to guide thc c.lTorts of
local. slate, and federal agencies to comply with the PREA requirements of external
investigators. At the direction oI"ODAO, OJP and the PMO plan to leverage the expertise of
the PRe and tbe pREA Workin.g Group to develop a user-friclldl y tool or checklbt to assist
stale, local, and federal agencies in assessing whether tbey have in plllce the policies and
training protocols required by the external investlgator !.1andards. OlP and tbe PMO are
available to ,~uppotl OOAO in any OOAG-Jed effort to promote implemC11t3tion by other
Department compQncnts of policies. procedures, and pmct:icc.'! related to thePREA
requirements for external investigativc agencies. However, as stated above, OlP and the
PMO do not possess any authority over other Departmenl components and callnot compel
them to comply wilh any "fthe PREA Standards.

17

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

32

Another example of the I'MO's ongoing efforts 10 partner with and support other Department
components' PREA implementation dIom is inviting representatives from those components
to participate in the auditor trainings. To dale, 34 such representlltives have participated in the
training. The breakdown of the Department ~omponen ts and the number or representatives
from each who have participated in the training are as follo\¥S:

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

OAAO - 2
BOP - 18
CRT -2
NIC - I
USMS - l
OJP's BJA - J
OJP's OCR - 3
OJP' s OGC - I
QlP' s OlJl)P - 3

N IC has been, and remains, a valued collaborative partner of the PMO and the PRe in tbe
delivery of critical information to the field related to PREA implementa(ion. For,ex,ample,
NIC has made five e·lcaming cour5CS on PHEA available to the field. and the NIC
Information Center includes II Wide variety ofPRC resources.

Working with Otber Federal Agendes to Support PREA lrupl~mentatipn
Since its i.nception. the pMO has been recognized as a leader ,11 the federal level in PREA
implementation efforts. and has worked diligently 10 suppon the efforts of other federal
agencies in fulfilling thei r r.:quirements under PREA. POT elGilllplc, month.~ prior 10 the
release of the OIG's draft progress report on PREA,.the PMO was ah:cady working with the
Department qf Homeland Security (DHS) to shan: lessons learned related to PREA
implern<:ntation, with the goal of assisting the current and future implementation eITons of
DBS. Through conference calls and facc'lO-facc m~tiDgs with DHS staiT, Ihe PMO. wilh
support from the PRe, has:
•
•

•

Provided extensive information 10 OHS on the mi~sio n and ongoing efforts of the PREA
Woddog Group \I.) issue intctpretalive guid!lnce to the field on the PREA Standards;
Shared lessons learned from the successful \'rork of the PRC and thc methoos being used
to provide suppon and llSSiSlance to the lield on jssucs reJated to PREA implernent~tion:
and
Conducted a demonstriltion of the online PREA audit tool and dIscussed its :;pplicabilil)'
to the fuiurc PRJ~A audit cflorts of DBS.

The PMO's ongoing work with OIlS will minimize duplication of effort" and result in more
cost-efieclive inveslment~ related 10 PREA implementAtion on the part ofOOlh the
Departmc:nt and OHS. 1\ priority chal lenge identified in the OlG's draft progress report on
PREA that is rclntcd to the PMO's long-standing, ongoing coordination effort with DHS is:

18

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

33

OJP and (he PREA Working Group develop tl T1U!.(hi)d[or c:obrdinaling with DHS on
r(!~pecfive- DOJ (md DIIS sets ofPREA standards to identifY potenrial implementalion ISSl/e.t

alld 10 minimize duplication ofeffol'ls.
Going forward, the PMO will continue to coordinate with OIlS 011 PREA implementation
etTorts. and wiJltake direction from ODAG regarding how to ensure this cuordination elTort is
most effective. The PMO will also invite DHS to participate in PREA Working Group
meetings.
Another example of the PMO's ongoing efforts (0 partner with and support other federaJ
agencies in these agencies' PREA implementatiun is the provision of seats in the auditor
training~ to represtntatives frulU these agencies. To date, 18 such representatives have,
participated in the Ir.lining. TIle breakdo\,flI of federal agencies and the Dumber of
representatives from eaeh who ha"e partiCipated in the training arc as follows:
•
•
•

Department of Defcnse!Unitcd States Military - 10
DHS - S
Department of the Interior - 3

TIle PMO's efforts to partner with lind Support other federal agencies in PREA
implementation will continue into the future.
Directing the S.JA G rant program, Demonstration Project.f to E.ffabJish "Zero ToJero.nce"
Clllfllres for &xual Assault ill Correcfioltal Facilities

The PMO directs the grant program, DemOIl~/r/Jtit)1I

Pr~jecfs to !:-.s/ablish "Zero Tolerance "
Sexual Assallit in Correctional Facilities, which provides much-needcd resources
to jurisdictions across the nation to carry out PREA implemenilltion activities. Since fiscal
year (FY) 2011. 49 PREA grant awards have been made to slate- and l(K"sUcounty
CIII(1(re~Ior

jurisdictions... In addition. tbe PRe,. in coordination with the PMO, has made 4] awards to
local/county jurisdictions. The total amount of the PREA grant awards made since FY 201 1
exceeds S22.S million. Examples of noteworthy flctivitie:. funded through these grants
includc:
•
•

Enhancements to management ioformation systems to allow tracking of sexual ahuse
incidents, investigations, outcomes, and other PREA-specific infonnation;
Development of inmate education brochures, posters, and curricula related to PREA

•

(usually in bolh En gli~b and Spanish):
Creation of PREA trainiIlg curricula for confinement facility sta(fmembers, volunteers,

•
•
•

and contractors;
Development, review, and revision ofPHEA polities Wid procedures;
E~ tabli5blUent of management staff positions to assumt! PREA compbancc duties; and
Fonnalization of collaborative partnerships between agencies that oversee confioement
facilities and Jlr(widers ofrupe crisis services: including Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners
(SANEs), crisis counseling, and ongoing mental heaJth services.

19

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

34

A number of stales that were-awarded PREA grants have i,mplcmenled lnl)ovative and
promising PREA-related practict:s. Exampltls include:
•

•
•
•
•

Georgia - E.stablished on-call SA..'lE nurses tOIespond \n sc)[uai assaull~ in confinement
facilities;
Kansas - I,s workil\l:l to cre.1tc· a memoranda of understanding with a rape crisis clinic for
every oonfillCmCfl\ facility;
Louisiana - Hosted mUlli-state leadership confcrence on PREA issues;
Maine - Developed IIIId implemented intake screening and assessment looL~ fqcu.scd on
risk of sexual victimization and abusiveness; and
MassachuscttS - Made changes to state slatutes now restricting the sentencing of those
under the agoof 18 10 juvenile settings.

The PMO, in C{)llaboration with the PRe. is analyzing tbe work l:Uld accomplishments of the
SO lhal others may learn from theil experiences and to inform the development of
future grant solicil.ations. should additional PREA appropriations bcmade available.

grantcc.~.

Conclusion
In the 13 months since DAG Cole signed the PREA Implementation r iM il) lale August 2013.
the PMO has wurkcd tin:le~sly to carry oul the Departmenl's historic and unprecedented
t'REA implementation responsibilities. As described above. a greal deal has oc'Cn
accomplished during the past year. On May 15, 2014. the governors of49 of the 56 states and
territories submitted to Ihe Departmenl certifications of full compliance with the PREA
Standards or &SUTanceS that their states would use nolless than 5% of impacted Department
gran t funds to come illlo full compliance With Ihe standards jn the future . In collaboration
with the PRC, the PMO is making critical resources and expertise available to jurisdictions
Ilnd agencies nationwide that are working to come into compliance with Ihe PR£A St;mdards.
While work remains 10 be done and priorilie.~, many of which arc highlighted in this
document, conlinue to emcrge. lhe PMO has madc tcm<lTkable progress SUPPOl:til,lg and
facilitating implementation of PREA nationwide. The PMO's assiduous and collaborative
wOI,k \0 promote sexual safety in C{)nfinement facilities across the country will continue into
the future.
Thank you for your continued support and assistance. Jf you have any questions regarding
this response, please conl'aet leffery A. Haley, Acting Director, Office o f Audit, Assessment.
and Management, on (202) 616·2936.
cc:

Mary Lou Leary
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Maureen A. Hcnnebcrg
Acting ])cputy Assistant Attorney General
for Operations and Management

20

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

35

~

bcnlsc O'bonncll
Director
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Roben LisTenbee
Administrator
Office or Juvt.'J)i!t Justice and Delinquency Prevention
William Sabol
Acting Director
Bureau of Justice Statistlcs

William Sabol
AcTing Director
Nationallnstitutc of Justice
Joye Frost
Director
Office for Victims of Crime

leigh Benda

Chief Financial Officer
Rafael A. MadWl

Gcncr..tl CUWlscl

Jeffery A. Haley
Acting Director
Office of Auail, Assessment, and Management

Silas V. .Dardt.'TJ
Acting Director
Office of Communications
Richanl P. Theis
Director. Audit Liaison Group
Internal Review and Evaluation Office
Justice Management Division

OJP Executi ve Secretarial

Control Title 1'1'20141002155347

21

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

36

APPENDIX III: BOP RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT 


U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Pri sons

PROGRAM REVIEW DIVISION
WashmglOlI. DC ")0534

October 3, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR NINA S. PELLETIER
ASSISTANT INSPECTOR G3NERAL
EVALUAT ION AND INSPECTIONS
OFFI CE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

t/~v

FROM:

Sara M. Reve 11

Assistant Director

SUBJECT:

Response to the Office of Inspector General's (OIG )
Final Draft Report: Progress Report: on the
Department: of Justice's Implementation of the Prlson

Rape Elimination Act

The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
a response to the OIG's Final Draft Report;
Progress Report on the
Department of Justice's Implementation of the Prison Rape

Elimination Act.

Please find bel ow the Bureau's comments.

The Bureau o f Prisons has strived, and continues to strive, to lead
the nation! s correctional agencies by example through its compliance

with the PREA regulations.

The agency implemented additional

protocols towards the goal of 100 percent: compliance in meeting t he
Prison Rape Elimination Act:
•

I n addition to PREA audits, the Program Review Division,
conducts program reviews at Bureau facilIties, and
provides technical assistance and training on t he PRcA
compliance process.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

37

•

The agency's National PREA Coordinator is act.i vely engaged
in the PREA process by providing guidance to all
institutions and conduct in'] quarterly meetings with key

staff in the Central Office and Regional Offices to
identify problems/areas of concern.
•

Outside of the standardized PREA training, leadership
positions receive additi o nal PREA training during New
Warden ' s training, New Associate Warden's training, and

Principles of Leadership.

Finall y, on page 11 of the draft report, the information stated below
is inaccurate:

"As of June 2014, final audit reports had been released for 25 BOP
institutions, and all instltutions had been found to meet or exceed
a ll of the applicable Standards. In addition, three reports assessing
BOP institutions containing findings of noncompliance with the PREA

Standards were finalized by PREA auditors and provided to the BOP
in 2014, but as of August 2014 these reports had not been released
because BOP was contesting the findings.

Instead, on August 29, 2014,

the agency provided OIG the correct

information after the Exit Conference,

as follows:

"As of August 2014 , final audit reports had been released for 22 BOP
institutions, and all institutions had been found to meet or exce e d
all

of

the

appl,cable

Standards.

In

addition,

three reports

assessing BOP institutions containing findings of noncompliance with

the PREA Standards were finalized by PREA auditors and provided to
the BOP in 2014, but as of August 2014 these reports had not been
released because BOP was contesting the findings."
("bolded" text is the on] y needed cha.nge in this paragraph)

If you have any questions regarding this response,

me at (202)

please contact

353-2302.

2

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

38

APPENDIX IV: USMS RESPONSE TO DRAFT REPORT 


·." · ·
8*
.;

..

U.S . O<'p:l r lmeJlI of J uslicc

"

.

~

United Slates Marshals Service

'i:'"':'.'

G.Oice oI lhe Associare Directors
Aiex"",Mu. VA 22JOI

October 10, 2014

M EMORANDUM TO:

FROM:

SUB1ECT:

Ni na S. Pelletier
Assistant !nspcc lOT General
Evaluation and Inspections Division
Office o f the Inspector General

William D. Snelson
Associate Director lOr Operations
Response 10 Fomlal Druft Repon: Progress Report on the
Department of Justice's Implementa tion o r tlle Prison Rape
El imination Act

This is in response 10 co rrespondence from the Office of the Inspector General (D IG)
requesting a fonna l wri ncn response \0 the subject draft repon.
[n 2003, the United Siales Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).
The purpose of the act is to estahlish zero to lerance standards fo r prison rape. and to make the
prevention ofrape a top priority within the pri son systems and law enfo rcement communities.
The United States Marshllls Service (USMS) has acti vely pilrticipilted in every aspect of lhe
development of those standards and has proactively implemented i1gency-arplicabJc standards.
•

Beginning in 2007. the USMS provided testimony before the PR EA Commission
regarding the incidence o f sexual assault un federal prisoners remanded to the USMS.

•

In 2009, the USMS part icipated on the Department o f Justice (DOJ) PREA Working
Group to develop PREA standards.

•

From 2010 through 201 2 , the US MS :
o

Published USMS Policy Directi ve 9 .8, PI"CI'Cl1liOIl ofPri~·o'lCl· Se.w(I/ Abuse, to
romp ly with PREA, and to create a zero to lerance policy to prevent sexual abuse
o f feder<l l prisoners in the care and custody o f the USMS.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

39

Memorandum from William D. Snelson, Associate Director for Operations
Page 2
Subject: Response to Fonnal Draft Report: Progress Report on the Department of Justice's
Implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act
o Developed and implemented an annual online mandatory PREA training module
for operational personnel to learn responsibilities under PREA, All USMS
operational employees receive instruction relating to the preveniion, detection,
and appropriate timely response 10 sexual abuse. Training is conducted on an
8lUU,l81 basis.

•

o

Developed and implemented the Suspicious ACliviry, Assault, Incident, and Death
(SAID) module within the USMS JUS(ice Delainee Information System (JOIS) to
track sexual assault/misconduct information and investigations. An associatei1
policy.is being revised 10 implement mandatory reporting using the SAID module
in JOIS for all incidents of SCJlua1 abuse. Specific data, required by the Finw Rule
for collection by USMS, is documented in the SAID module in JOtS.

e

Ensured all USMS cellblocks display signage, provided by the Prisoner
Operations Division (POD), in appropriate locations, infunning all prisoners that
lhe USMS has a zero tolerance policy toward sexual abuse, and that all prisoners
are encouraged to report any and all instances of sexual abuse. These posters
provide instructions to all prisoners received at a USMS cellblock on how and
where to report seKusi abuse.

In 2014, POD revised USMS Policy Directive 9.7, ReviewofNon-Fedel'O/ (ktelltian
Facilities and associated inspection forms. ensuring lhat PREA was incorporated into wi
facility reviews. Newly revised forms contain PREA related questions in lhe compliance
review process. USMS:
o Revised form USM-218, Detention Facility Monitoring Report, used for review
of Intp'-Govemmental Agreement (IGA) facilities to address USMS agency
compliance.
o Reyjsed Federal Performancl>Based Detention Standards, used for reviewing
non-federal detemion facilities, to address PREA requirements.
e Updated USMS Conditions of Confinement Training to include a PREA module.
o Appointed a PREA Coordinator for USMS.
o Added PREA language to all new and renewed toAs and to all private detention
contracts. In order to comply with the original mandate, the USMS included the
following language in all new and modified IGAs: ''The Facility must post the
Prisoner Rape Elimination Act brochurelbulletin in each housing unit of the
Facility. 'The Facility must abide by all relevant PREA re.gulations."

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

40

Memorandum from William D. Snelson, Associate Director for Operations
Page 3
Subject: Response to Formal Draft Report: Progress Report on the Department of Justice's
Implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act
With respect to the priority ehallengeslisted in the formal draft report, we offer the
following comments regarding those that apply specifically to USMS:
•

USMS develop a plan to address the inclusion of PREA compliance language in USMS
acf{w IGAs in a more timely fashion.

The USMS is reviewing the feasibility of a nation-wide modification 10 all actively used
IGAs, incorporating the language currently being used in new/renewed IGAs.
•

USMS develop a method to identify all USMS in~tigations Ihat are subject to the
externallnvesligator standards and to ensure that those standards are mel.

The USMS has determined that the Agency does not have clear statutory authority to
conduct such investlgations, and will not conduct sexual assault investigations in
confinement settings. The USMS is currendy amending policy to reflect this. USMS
Policy 9.8, Prevention ofPrisoner Sexual Abuse. states that in a non-federal facility, the
USMS will coordinate with the proper local authorities, as well as FBI and D01-OIG, to
ensure the allegations are properly investigated. Furthermore, all case records associated
with sexual misconduct are maintained in the SAID module within JOIS, which is
managed and monitored by the USMS. This data is made available to appropriate law
enforcement agencies when requested.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. We appreciate the OIG's
recognition of the steps we have already t~en, as well as its guidance regarding future steps that
could be taken to further implemenlthis importanllegislation. The tlSMS takes its role in the
implemenlation of PRE A very seriously.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact
Ms. Isabel Howell, Audit Liaison, al' 202-307-9744.

cc.:

Richard Theis, Director
001 Audit Liaison Group
Mary T~ Myers
Audit Liaison Group
Gerald Auerbach
General Counsel, USMS

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

41

APPENDIX V: OIG ANALYSIS OF COMPONENT RESPONSES
The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), U.S.
Marshals Service (USMS), Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG),
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Civil Rights Division (CRT). OJP’s
response is included in Appendix II to this report. BOP’s response is included
in Appendix III. USMS’s response is included in Appendix IV. ODAG, FBI, and
CRT did not submit responses.
We are encouraged by the responses submitted by some Department
components indicating that they are taking steps to address the challenges
discussed in this progress report. Timely and appropriate action will decrease
the potential that these challenges become increasingly significant as the
number of Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) audits increase at federal, state,
and local facilities across the country. The Office of the Inspector General is
committed to ensuring that the Department and its components satisfy their
important management and operational responsibilities under PREA, and will
continue to monitor PREA implementation.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General
Evaluation and Inspections Division

42

Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
www.justice.gov/oig

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
(DOJ OIG) is a statutorily created independent entity
whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud,
abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and
to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s
operations. Information may be reported to the DOJ
OIG’s hotline at www.justice.gov/oig/hotline or
(800) 869-4499.