Davis 1

Stacey Davis
Eng 123
December 7, 2015
Professor Sung
Research Paper #3
Texas and the Prison Rape Elimination Act
It is an anathema to everything the justice system stands for. They may be inmates, but they are
victims, and they need the same respect and care as any other victim of crime.
Quote by Justice Department official Mary Lou Leary (Johnson 3)
I feel that when we involuntarily detain people, which I have no problem with doing as far as
individuals who commit crime, [then] we have an obligation to protect them.
Quote by Judge Reggie Walton (Johnson 3)
Prison rape has a history that goes well into the past, and only grows. It has been
described by Robert Dumond as, the plague which persists (Struckman-Johnson 336). As of
2010, the Department of Justice estimated that there were approximately 88,500 inmates sexually
assaulted in the nation the previous year (Struckman-Johnson 336). According to The New York
Times, in the 2013 budget year, Texas accounted 743 reports of sexual assault and abuse by
inmates alone (Sontag 7).
In this paper, I will briefly attempt to cover the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA,
and how well the state of Texas in particular has been able to comply with this attempt to reduce
a very large scale, relentless problem facing the well being of our prison inmates. I will begin by
explaining the passage of PREA, which will include the major two scholars involved in the push
to help bring PREA into being. This brief history will also include a condensed version of PREA

Davis 2
standards by sharing its major topics only, as this paper is not about PREA policy, rather about
how Texas has succeeded in its implementation, which is why I will instead focus secondly on
the choice Texas made to openly opt out of PREA participation in 2014.
Following historical key points, I will explain the problematic nature Texas has found in
abiding by PREA standards. After establishing the struggle, I will then explain the most recent
PREA amendment proposal at a federal level and compare this to both the feasibility and
practicality of Texas own advocacy, the Safe Prisons Program, which was created as a result of
awaiting PREA to be implemented over a decade. I will then explain my reasoning for belief
that Texas may be heading in the right direction to lessen prison rape, while in my opinion, it
seems PREA is still not an enforceable act, though with the very best intentions.
Passage of PREA and Texas Response- A Quick History
Scholars and researchers within the field of sexual assault studies searched for years to
uncover a way to deal with the prison rape crisis. According to research done by Cindy
Struckman-Johnson and Dave Struckman-Johnson, in 2010 the Department of Justice released an
estimate that approximately 88,500 U.S. inmates were sexually assaulted in 2009 alone
(Struckman-Johnson 336). Of the countless researchers to provide ideas toward bringing about
change to alleviate prison rape, are two notable individuals, both of whom would also hold a seat
on the panel to push into legislation PREA. These two individuals are Cindy Stuckman-Johnson
and Robert Dumond.
During the passage of PREA, Cindy Struckman-Johnson was a professor at the
University of South Dakota studying sexual coercion in both community and prison settings. It
was Cindy Struckman-Johnson and co-author Dave Struckman-Johnsons opinion that in spite of
the endless suggestions on how to stop prison rape that, ideas to stop prison rape were rarely

Davis 3
translated into policy until changes were mandated by an act of Congress in 2003 (StruckmanJohnson 336). The second academic of importance in the passage of PREA, is Robert Dumond,
a scholar at Franklin Pierce College who researched in depth the effects of rape on prisoners in
his article entitled The Impact and Recovery of Prisoner Rape. Dumonds paper was presented
at the National Conference Not Part of the Penalty: Ending Prisoner Rape in Washington,
D.C. (Dumond 1), in October of 2001. Robert Dumond focused his studies on the role mental
health professionals play for victims of prison rape (Struckman-Johnson 340).
In 2000, both Cindy Struckman-Johnson and Robert Dumond were invited to join the
Prison Rape Coalition, formed by a human rights activist Michael Horowitz. The Prison Rape
Coalition included 18 individuals, a prison rape survivor, a past warden, representatives form
the Prison Fellowship ministries, the Salvation Army, the Heritage Foundation, (StruckmanJohnson 340), and the two afore mentioned scholars. The goal of this coalition was to draft a
bill that would change prison factors that allowed rape. The coalition would grow to a total of 57
individuals before it was passed and was sponsored by, Congressman Frank Wolf and Bobby
Scott and Senators Ted Kennedy and Jeff Sessions (Struckman-Johnson 340). On September 4,
2003, the bill was passed with a unanimous vote by Congress and signed as a law by President
George W. Bush.
With the passage of PREA, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC)
was created to report on the nature and causes of prison rape (Struckman-Johnson 341). This
commission was to recommend national standards in an effort to reduce prison rape, and report
directly to the U. S. Attorney General (Struckman-Johnson 341). While the group was
bipartisan, gender and race varied to create as diverse a group as possible, members always
sought out consensus for the cause (Struckman-Johnson 341). Among the standards set forth,

Davis 4
which expand to 40 core standards states were to comply with, each fall under 4 broad
categories:
I.
II.

Prevention and response planning: prevention planning and response planning.

Prevention: training and education and screening for risk of sexual victimization

III.

and abusiveness.
Detection and response: reporting, official response following an inmate report,

IV.

investigations, discipline, and medical and mental health care.

Monitoring: data collection and review and audits (Struckman-Johnson 344).

While PREA was passed in 2003, states were given a decade to begin to implement
necessary changes within prisons to attain compliance with PREA standards by the first reporting
year, that being 2014. To aid states in their goal of compliance of the PREA standards, reports
estimate that the Department of Justice had disbursed approximately $35 million in grants
(Bannon 3). Passed as a zero-tolerance policy, regulations set forth in 2012 required states make
infrastructure and staffing changes (Bannon 3). As a penalty for non-compliance, states are
subject to losing 5% of corrections federal grant funds each year (Bannon 3).
In 2014 and 2015, Texas made national headlines for failure to meet PREA compliance
standards. States are not eligible to simply opt out, yet this is what it seems Texas chose to do in
2014. In a letter addressed to Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr. on March 28, 2014, Governor
Rick Perry of Texas wrote, I will not sign your form and I will encourage my fellow governors
to follow suit. In the meantime, Texas will continue the programs it has already implemented to
reduce prison rapes (Perry 3). According to the New York Times, this was a moment of
significance as Texas has the largest prison population in the U.S. and also has the highest rate of
sexual assault and abuse, totaling about 3.5 times as many allegations as California in 2011
(Sontag 3). As a penalty, the state lost roughly $800,000 in corrections federal grant money,
which the Texas Department of Criminal Justice flat out said had no effect on its operations

Davis 5
(Sontag 3). Only a year later, upon the second reporting date for PREA, the current governor of
Texas, Governor Greg Abbott indicated that while PREA audits were still ongoing, his wish was
to implement PREA standards where feasibly possible (Abbott 1). This sentiment is in
keeping with his predecessor, Governor Rick Perry of Texas, who stated in a letter to the
Department of Justice in 2014, Washington has taken an opportunity to help address a problem
in our prisons and jails, but instead created a counterproductive and unnecessarily cumbersome
and costly regulatory mess for the states (Perry 3).
Current Advocacy at a Federal and State Level
Feasibility is not the only problem in the enforcement of PREA standards. In his letter
written to the Department of Justice last year, Governor Rick Perry of Texas argued the federal
laws on prison rape is a violation upon states rights (Johnson 3). According to the governor
these rules, are inconsistent with other federal laws, such as labor laws (Perry 1). He further
states the laws would cause Texas to violate both state and labor laws, which prohibit gender
discrimination (Perry 1). The governor goes on to explain that as PREA standards prohibit crossgender viewing, the state would have to deny female officers jobs, as roughly 40% of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justices officers are female (Perry 1).
Another argument the governor brought to the attention of the Department of Justice is
based upon PREA infringing upon a states right to determine an age of criminal responsibility
(Perry 2). PREA standards require 17-year old inmates be separated from adult inmates over 18years of age, while Texas has determined the age of 17 to be adult, and a shift in housing would
require a great financial burden, and in the governors opinion, had no apparent benefit to either
state or inmates (Perry 2). Another complaint the governor had regarding juvenile rules set forth
in PREA, was the inability for a small county to meet staffing ratios, and his opinion was that the

Davis 6
state and professionals in charge should be left to determine what is appropriate based on
knowledge of operations (Perry 2).
A final complaint the governor mentioned in his letter to the Department of Justice, was
the fact that in the entire nation, there are only about 100 PREA auditors available, making
facility audits difficult to complete (Perry 2). All of these factors are considerable problems in
the implementation of PREA standards, and in a state like Texas, where a fine of just over
$800,000 is tiny in comparison to its multibillion-dollar corrections budget (Sontag 2).
According to Brenda Smith, a former commissioner of the National Prison Rape Elimination
Act, There are a lot of carrots in PREA, and not enough sticks (Sontag 2).
Advocates for PREA and politicians are all too aware of the importance of a common
ground over enforcement of the act. States are susceptible to penalties and as stated by Elizabeth
Pyke of the National Criminal Justice Association, with PREA standards well established,
facilities that fail to comply are open to lawsuits (Bannon 5). According to Pyke, that could be
a much more compelling reason (for compliance) than the fines, (Bannon 5). As an attempt to
reach a middle ground and thus dividing the advocacy community, an amendment was proposed
by Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas to encourage compliance. Proposed in the fall of
2014, the bill would have been attached to the Second Chance Act, a bill intended to improve the
situation of individuals returning to communities after incarceration (Bannon 2). According to
The Crime Report, the proposal would mandate states use an equal amount to their 5% federal
corrections grants, but instead pull this from their own state corrections budget, and apply this
amount towards PREA compliance (Bannon 4).
While some advocates fear this move will weaken the act which passed unanimously
over a decade ago, others like Liz Ryan, president and CEO of Youth First Initiative, a juvenile

Davis 7
justice nonprofit organization, feel, if the government is going to tell states to do something, it
has to have federal money attached to it. You cant shift financial penalties to the states- you
cant tell states to comply with federal law and ding them with state money, (Bannon 4). The
bill has yet to be voted upon.
While the federal government attempts to find a solution to encourage PREA compliance
sooner, rather than later, Texas seems to be steps ahead, pushing forth their own statewide
advocacy against prison rape. As an example of comparison, the Department of Justice suspects
that prison rape could be increasing. According to a Department of Justice statistic shared in The
Crime Report, between 2009 and 2010, there was a national 10% increase in prison rapes
reported (Bannon 4). A few years later, in Governor Perrys letter to the Department of Justice,
he released the statistic from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from 2012, stating Texas
had an 84% decrease in sexual assault allegations among offenders within the Texas Juvenile
Justice Department and a 10% decrease in Texas Department of Criminal Justice facilities (Perry
2).
According to Governor Perry, this can be attributed to the fact that Texas acted, rather
than waiting for the federal government to smooth out the issues within PREA. Texas has
attempted to comply with PREA where they can do so, without breaking state and federal
employment laws, and as a supplement, in 2001, created the Safe Prisons Program, which also
maintained a zero-tolerance policy, like PREA (Perry 2). Texas Safe Prison Program
compliments PREA by adding additional surveillance, comprehensive sexual assault training for
staff and offenders, and also put in place a PREA Ombudsman (Perry 2). In addition to this,
within the juvenile department, vulnerability assessments have been created, even greater
surveillance has been placed, and same-sex pat and search policies are mandatory (Perry 2).

Davis 8
Each juvenile facility also has implemented a Sexual Abuse Review Board designed to review
incidents (Perry 2). While Texas still has much room for improvement, it seems to me they are
heading in the correct direction, and actually doing something, unlike the federal government
and PREA, which has standards that took over 10 years to activate and still seem ineffective due
to the inability to enforce.
The feasibility of each of these options has been debated. The Justice Department has
done a lump sum estimate, that the total bill to society for dealing with the effects of prison rape
is about $51.9 billion each year (Sontag 2). This amount includes compensation to victims and
increased rate of recidivism (Sontag 2). That cost is the after effect of prison rape, not
prevention. On a prevention stance, the Justice Department estimates that full national PREA
compliance would cost only $468.5 million per year, through 2026 (Sontag 2), as most of the
measures states are encouraged to take are one time expenses and changes to the facility, such as
surveillance. The estimate of this cost is that amount would break down to less than 1% of a
states spending on corrections (Sontag 2).
On the other hand, if states were to implement a program like the Safe Prisons Program
in Texas, they would still be spending equal to or less than what their yearly corrections budget
is. It would seem to me, the major problem, again, is enforcement. Texas is attempting to take
initiative for an existing, ongoing problem, while the federal government, even after a decade, is
still finding it difficult to figure out how to enforce PREA. I feel Texas has the right idea. They
are trying to keep labor laws in place, while also abide by PREA, and to do so, they created their
very own state program. If PREA would sort out the legality issues they have created, it is
possible Texas would not have had to create their own program. It seems the costs are similar for
each program, the only real difference would be visible in the future, when statistics are released

Davis 9
to show whether the program is working or not. According to Texas, the trend of rape prison
seems to be dropping slowly. This seems to be a hopeful downward curve in comparison to the
slow incline that is still occurring nationwide.
Concluding Thoughts
Since its passing in 2003, PREA has had many wonderful intentions on a humanitarian
level to protect our inmates. Created by advocates who included scholars within the fields of
sexual assault studies, and with the best efforts to help alleviate the number of prison rapes, on its
first reporting year was refused by states like Texas. Found to go up against legal issues such as
labor laws, states right to determine age of responsibility, and a lack of availability in ability to
set PREA audits, the state of Texas refused to comply. Instead, Texas created its very own Safe
Prisons Program and thus far has seen some decline in prison rapes within the state. Meanwhile,
in Washington D.C., advocates are still attempting to vote on an amendment to PREA, to aid in
the penalty portion. It is my hope this is an issue that will not slip back through the cracks and
advocates will continue to work on a way to lessen prison rape and provide help to those who
have already suffered.
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Matt. 25:40)
This verse is beautiful and is a very clear example as to how we should treat others.
Jesus is asking that we love the very least of individuals, as we would love Him. He is asking
that we treat others as we would treat Him. This is quite a calling! I believe when others have
harmed us, or cause pain to others in ways we may not or cannot understand, that we begin to
harden our hearts to others. We find it difficult to forgive, or remember that we are all capable of
causing pain, whether intentional or not. We forget to see humanity is just that: humanity. Christ

Davis 10
has asked us to rise above our sin and inability to see His bigger picture, and care for those who
need to be cared for. This includes prisoners. No one deserves to be the victim of a crime such
as rape. It doesnt matter what they have done. To subject even the worst of prisoners to rape, is
in my opinion, only further propagating the cycle of violence, and this goes against everything
Christ has asked us to do. Not just as Christians, but as moral and ethical human beings.
Working to minimize the suffering of all beings is a very noble calling, regardless of a persons
religious beliefs, and this is why we should care and continue to seek an end to issues like prison
rape.
I do not believe we can all do everything. Meaning, to help with issues such as prison
rape, requires we care and take a stance and become an advocate in that area. I believe through
our own life experiences we find our callings and are drawn to where we are needed in this
beautifully difficult world.

Works Cited
Abbott, Greg. Letter to Loretta E. Lynch. May 15, 2015. TS.

Davis 11
Bannon, Deirdre. "The Battle Over PREA." The Crime Report (2015): 1-7. The Crime
Report. The Crime Report. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.
Bozelko, Chandra. "Why We Let Prison Rape Go On." New York Times 8 Apr. 2015,
164th ed., Commentary sec.: A19. Print.
Decker, Brett M. "America's Prisons Remain Rife With Rape." USA Today 20 July 2015,
News sec.: 9a. Print.
Dumond, Robert. "The Impact and Recovery of Prisoner Rape." "Not Part of the
Penalty": Ending Prisoner Rape. Washington D.C. 19 Oct. 2001. Lecture.
Johnson, Carrie. "Prison Rape Law a Decade Old, But Most States Not In Compliance."
National Public Radio. National Public Radio, 6 June 2014. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769; King James Bible Online, 2015.
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org.
Mason, Karol. Letter to U.S. Governors. 5 Mar 2015. TS.
Perry, Rick. Letter to Eric H. Holder. 28 Mar 2014. TS.
Sontag, Deborah. "Push to End Prison Rapes Loses Momentum." New York Times 13
May 2015, 164th ed., Cover Story sec.: A1-A17. Print.
Sontag, Deborah. "U.S. Spars With Texas on Ending Prison Rapes." New York Times 23
May 2015, 164th ed., National Desk sec.: A14. Print.
Struckman-Johnson, Cindy, and Dave Struckman-Johnson. "Stopping Prison Rape: The
Evolution of Standards Recommended by PREAs National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission." Prison Journal 93.3 (2013): 335-54. Print.