S. WEAVER ET AL.

American Journal of Qualitative Research

2025, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 52-74
https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/15879
© 2024 AJQR. http://www.ajqr.org
ISSN: 2576-2141

The Power of Perception: Female Inmate Views on PREA Implementation

Sharon Weaver
Troy University, Troy, AL, USA

Margaret E. Shippen1, Nicholas C. Derzis & Rebecca S. Curtis

Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

Angela L. Hall
Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL, USA

Christine L. Fleming
Friends of Disabled Adults and Children, Tucker, GA, USA

ABSTRACT
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA, 2003) mandates zero-tolerance for sexual assault in
prisons. Despite the increase in female inmates, the criminal justice system policies remain male-
focused. This study, stemming from a settlement agreement between the US Department of Justice
and a state Department of Corrections, explores female inmates’ perceptions of PREA through
three constructs: impressions of (a) PREA, (b) sexual safety, and (c) system efficacy/change.
Conducted via Zoom, 44 confidential interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative
method. Findings show most participants indicated PREA is weaponized for retaliation. Future
research should examine improvements in response to inmate feedback.

KEYWORDS: Women’s prison, sexual safety, prisoner perceptions, interviews

Each year, over 80,000 prisoners experience sexual victimization, yet only about 8% of
these incidents are reported to correctional authorities (Kubiak, Nnawulezi, Karim, Sullivan &
Beeble, 2012; Kubiak et al., 2017a; Kubiak et al., 2017b). This underreporting indicates systemic
issues within the prison environment. The restrictive and highly regulated prison environment
further complicates accurate reporting of these incidents, as studies that examine reporting
behaviors rely on self-reported incidents or hypothetical victimization scenarios (Kubiak et al.,
2012; Kubiak et al., 2017a; Kubiak et al., 2017b). Compounding the issue, correctional staff, who
make up a sizable portion of perpetrators, often undermine the safety and integrity of these
institutions. Sexual victimization within women’s correctional facilities ranges from verbal abuse
to rape and includes sexual harassment, unwarranted strip searches, inappropriate sexual touching,
and coerced or forced sexual intercourse, usually perpetrated by prison staff (Hensley, 2002;
Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2006).
Female inmates face unique challenges, including heightened vulnerability to sexual
victimization due to male-centric policies and practices. Despite representing approximately 7% of
1
Corresponding Author; 2084 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 36849. E-mail; [email protected]

52
the U.S. prison population, women disproportionately report staff-on-inmate misconduct (Kajstura,
2018). Historically, scholarly research has focused on male inmates or inmate-to-inmate dynamics,
neglecting the critical issue of staff-perpetrated sexual violence against incarcerated women
(VanNatta, 2010; Wolff & Shi, 2011). This study addresses this gap by examining female inmates’
personal perceptions of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and its efficacy in fostering
safety, additionally paving the way for further research into the experience of women behind bars.

Contextualizing Statement and Study Objectives

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), enacted in 2003, aimed to establish zero-
tolerance policies for sexual misconduct in correctional facilities. While the Act broadly addresses
inmate-on-inmate and staff-on-inmate assaults, its implementation has faced significant barriers,
including inconsistent enforcement and lack of transparency (Smith, 2020). This study investigates
female inmates’ perceptions of PREA, exploring three constructs: impressions of PREA, sexual
safety, and systemic efficacy/change.
By integrating qualitative data from structured interviews with 44 incarcerated women, this
research identifies systemic shortcomings and offers actionable recommendations to enhance
PREA’s efficacy. The findings contribute to the broader discourse on prison reform, emphasizing
the importance of gender-responsive and trauma-informed approaches to policy and practice. This
research aims to bridge the gap between policy intent and practical application, shedding light on
overlooked perspectives to inform meaningful reforms.

Filling a Unique Gap in the Literature

Previous studies have primarily relied on outdated sources or generalized data, often failing
to capture the nuanced experiences of female inmates. Recent literature emphasizes the need for
gender-responsive reforms in correctional facilities (Surrell & Johnson, 2020). By incorporating
firsthand accounts and exploring systemic vulnerabilities, this study critically engages with current
thinking and advances understanding of PREA’s practical impact. This focus on female inmates’
lived experiences sheds light on critical gaps in the implementation of PREA, offering actionable
insights to improve safety and equity within correctional facilities (Covington, 2022). As the first
study of its kind in this facility, it provides a timely contribution to the broader discourse on prison
reform, particularly for underrepresented populations.

The Prison Rape Elimination Act

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), signed into law by President George W. Bush
in 2003, applies to correctional facilities across diverse settings, including prisons, jails, juvenile
facilities, military installations, Native American reservation facilities, and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities (United States, 2003). The Act establishes a zero-tolerance
standard for inmate sexual assault and rape, prioritizing prevention and safeguarding prisoners’
Eighth Amendment rights. PREA broadly defines “prison rape” to include both inmate-on-inmate
or staff-on-inmate sexual assault; without distinguishing between genders. It encompasses all
sexual assaults, no matter the victim or perpetrator, achieved through manipulation, exploitation,
violent threats, or when the victim cannot consent because of mental or physical incapacity (United
States, 2003). The Act was to “provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape
in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations
and funding to protect individuals from prison rape” (United States, 2003, p. 1). While PREA was
53
S. WEAVER ET AL.

designed to create safer correctional environments, its practical implementation has faced
significant barriers. This study seeks to explore these challenges through the lived experiences of
female inmates.

Investigation of Abuse

Despite the 2003 enactment of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) aimed to detect,
report, investigate, and prevent incidents of sexual misconduct in correctional facilities, incidents
of prison rape and sexual assault remain problematic in many correctional facilities (Smith, 2020).
Beck and Johnson (2012) documented that some correctional administrators have failed to
implement PREA standards, severely limiting inmates’ ability to report incidents of sexual
misconduct without fear of retaliation. This failure underscores persistent challenges in enforcing
the PREA standards effectively.
The facility in this study has one of the highest rates of reported sexual assaults among U.S.
prisons (Equal Justice Initiative, 2012). An official investigation conducted by The Equal Justice
Initiative (EJI), which included interviews with over 50 female inmates at the facility, revealed
pervasive and severe instances of officer-on-inmate sexual violence. Disturbingly, multiple female
inmates became pregnant after their incarceration, highlighting the gravity of the situation.
Moreover, the EJI investigation found evidence indicating that prison officials were inaccurately
reporting the frequency of sexual assaults perpetrated by prison employees. Consequently, in May
2012, the EJI filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), urging a
prompt and thorough federal investigation into the State Department of Corrections’ systematic
failure to adequately protect prisoners from sexual violence perpetrated by corrections’ employees
(Equal Justice Initiative, 2012).
Attorneys from the USDOJ Civil Rights Division initiated a formal inquiry into the matter.
Federal investigators conducted an on-site inspection at the facility, conducting interviews with
staff and numerous prisoners, while also scrutinizing various documents, including incident and
investigative reports, along with letters from approximately a quarter of the prison population. The
investigation revealed a plethora of troubling issues: malfunctioning security cameras, lack of
privacy for toilets, absence of effective grievance procedures, reports from women expressing
feelings of physical or sexual insecurity, and instances where male staff members were observed
monitoring women during their shower routines (Frank, 2014; Kubiak et.al., 2012; Kubiak et.al.,
2017a; Kubiak et.al., 2017b). Additionally, the DOJ uncovered an “unprecedented” level of
corroboration for the women’s reports (Equal Justice Initiative, 2020).
Subsequently, in January 2014, the USDOJ informed state officials of the findings of its
investigation, revealing egregious misconduct within the facility, including:
a. prison staff perpetrated rape, sodomy, fondling, and indecent exposure against
prisoners,
b. coerced prisoners into performing oral sex,
c. engaged in voyeuristic behavior by observing women while they showered and used
the toilet,
d. subjected women to a “daily barrage of sexually explicit verbal abuse,” and
e. prison officials punished women who reported sexual abuse and did not adequately
investigate allegations (United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division,
2014).
The State Department of Corrections entered into a settlement agreement with the USDOJ,
as evidenced in the case of United States of America v. The State and the Department of
Corrections (2015). This agreement comprehensively addresses the underlying causes of the abuses
54
uncovered by the investigation, drawing upon gender-responsive and trauma-informed principles
to supplement the existing framework of the Prison Rape Elimination Act National Standards.
These Standards are designed to prevent, detect, and respond to custodial sexual abuse and sexual
harassment throughout the nation’s prisons. Tailored to specifically target the identified problems
revealed at the facility, the agreement aimed to meaningfully redress the harm inflicted upon
women prisoners.
Numerous reforms were outlined, including mandates to ensure the safety of women from
sexual abuse and sexual harassment by employing qualified staff to operate the facility and
supervise prisoners securely. To augment this protection, the agreement stipulates the
implementation of a state-of-the-art camera surveillance system. Furthermore, provisions were
made to prevent staff from unnecessarily observing prisoners in vulnerable states, such as when
they are unclothed or performing bodily functions. Integral to the settlement agreement between
prison officials and the USDOJ is the commitment to conduct regular polling with incarcerated
women to gauge their perceptions of sexual, physical, and emotional safety.
The investigation underscores persistent systemic barriers to the effective implementation
of PREA, with widespread implications for inmate safety and institutional accountability. The
settlement agreement represents a critical step toward fostering gender-responsive and trauma-
informed environments, yet its success hinges on sustained oversight and adherence to reform
mandates. This study builds on these insights, aiming to provide actionable recommendations that
align with these principles and directly address the lived experiences and perceptions of
incarcerated women.

Gender-Responsive Programming

The United States has approximately 219,000 incarcerated women, constituting the highest
female incarceration rate globally (Kajstura, 2018). This significant increase can be attributed to
the broadening scope of law enforcement initiatives, stricter drug sentencing laws, and post-
conviction barriers to re-entry, which disproportionately impact women and contribute to elevated
recidivism rates (The Sentencing Project, 2019). Many women entering the prison system bear
extensive histories of physical and sexual abuse, exhibit heightened rates of HIV infection, and
grapple with substance abuse disorders, creating complex challenges that e necessitate targeted
interventions (Mejía et al., 2015; Surrell & Johnson, 2020).
In alignment with feminist social work best practices, which advocate for gender-
responsive interventions tailored to address women’s unique needs (Hanmer & Statham, 1988), the
institution implemented significant reforms. As a part of the settlement agreement with the USDOJ,
the position of Women’s Services Deputy Commissioner was established in 2014 to lead these
efforts. This role spearheaded initiatives, including revisions to policies on haircuts and the
availability of makeup, and the creation of the Women’s Services Division, which implemented
programs aimed at addressing underlying trauma and interpersonal challenges faced by female
inmates.
Key gender-responsive programs introduced include:
• Active Adult Relationships
• Beyond Trauma: A Healing Journey for Women
• Beyond Violence: A Prevention Program for Criminal Justice-Involved Women
• Moving On: A Program for At-Risk Women
• Parenting Inside Out

55
S. WEAVER ET AL.

These programs focus on fostering resilience, addressing trauma, and equipping women
with skills to navigate interpersonal relationships effectively. Complementing these efforts, staff
underwent comprehensive training in gender-responsive disciplinary and conflict resolution
methods (Covington, 2022). This training aimed to reduce prolonged periods of segregation and
interpersonal conflicts among the inmates, enhancing the overall environment within the facility.
In response to the investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the USDOJ, the State entered
into an agreement to ensure that inmates at the main women’s prison are afforded constitutional
conditions protecting them from sexual abuse and sexual harassment. A key provision of the
agreement required routine polling of inmates to assess their perceptions of the implementation of
these terms. Areas evaluated included the prevalence of staff sexual abuse, inmate vulnerability,
privacy concerns, and the efficacy of reporting and grievance systems (United States v. The
Department of Corrections and the Prison for Women).
Building on this foundation, the Department of Corrections expanded the Prison Rape
Elimination Act (PREA) polling project to include qualitative data collection through structured
interviews. This qualitative approach provided a deeper understanding of inmates’ lived
experiences, supplementing the quantitative data from routine surveys. Recognizing that survey
methodologies capture perceptions rather than empirical facts, this study leveraged structured
interviews to explore overarching trends and identify systemic barriers to safety within the prison
environment.
The research team conducted these interviews with female inmates to gather firsthand
narratives about their physical, emotional, and sexual safety while incarcerated. This article
summarizes the insights gained, offering a nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by
female inmates and highlighting opportunities for reform. These findings not only shed light on
systemic vulnerabilities but also provide a foundation for developing targeted interventions that
prioritize dignity and safety for incarcerated women. By addressing these challenges, the research
underscores the importance of continuous feedback and adaptation to create sustainable and
inclusive correctional environments.

Method and Sampling

The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987) was utilized as
the qualitative research design for this study, as it is well suited for synthesizing data from multiple
sources. This method enables formal analysis to begin early in the study and continues throughout
data collection, culminating in a comprehensive descriptive model that captures the phenomena
under scrutiny. Purposeful sampling was utilized to select participants based on their perceived
potential to contribute to the evolving understanding of systemic issues related to PREA. Unlike
random sampling, which aims to mirror population characteristics, purposeful sampling prioritizes
the inclusion of diverse subject types.

Sampling

The study was conducted at the only female prison under the USDOJ settlement
agreement. To gather firsthand accounts and insights, interviews were conducted with
incarcerated females to investigate their experiences and perceptions regarding their physical,
emotional, and sexual safety. The interviews were structured to provide a safe and confidential
space for the participants to share their experiences openly. To ensure every volunteer participant
had the opportunity to share her perceptions, the research team collaborated with the Department
of Corrections (DOC) personnel to develop a robust data collection implementation plan.
56
Recruitment involved inviting volunteers to participate in structured interviews, resulting in the
consent of 44 women.

Data Collection

During the data collection, structured interviews were conducted with 44 participants. Each
interview lasted approximately one hour and followed the same set of open-ended questions to
provide consistency and comparability across responses. The interviews were audio-recorded with
participants’ consent to ensure accuracy in capturing their accounts. Ethical considerations,
including confidentiality and voluntary participation, were strictly upheld. The study received
approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), ensuring adherence to ethical research
standards.

Data Analysis

Following the data collection, interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the constant
comparative method. This process involved coding transcripts to identify recurring themes and
patterns, with continuous comparison across data points to refine findings. Researchers in the study
conducted coding to enhance reliability, resolving discrepancies through discussion. This process
allowed themes to emerge naturally, reflecting participants' lived experiences.

Reliability and Validity

Efforts were made to ensure the credibility and robustness of the findings:
• Coding Consistency: Data coding was conducted by the research team, with regular
discussions to ensure consistent application of codes across interviews.
• Transparency: The data collection and analysis process were documented to provide a
clear account of the study’s methodology.
• Ethical Considerations: Participants’ confidentiality and voluntary participation were
prioritized throughout the study to maintain trust and authenticity in their responses.

Instrument

The research team developed questions related to the areas of the PREA settlement that the
USDOJ mandated. The nine structured interview questions were as follows:
1. What is PREA? (What is it supposed to do?)
2. Give your first impression that is as honest as you feel you can be: How would you
respond to this statement, “I have been informed of my rights to be free from sexual
abuse at this facility.”
3. Do you feel you are free from sexual abuse/misconduct at this facility? (This can include
sexual harassment, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, or ongoing sexual relations between
inmates and/or staff members.)
a. When/where is this most true? Can you describe it?
b. When/where is this most not true? Can you describe it?
4. In your opinion, what makes an inmate vulnerable to sexual misconduct/abuse? As a
victim? As a perpetrator?

57
S. WEAVER ET AL.

5. In your opinion, is it the person or the system that makes someone vulnerable to sexual
misconduct/abuse?
6. How could the system be made different or changed to decrease sexual
misconduct/abuse? (Are there problem areas or problem times that increase the
likelihood of misconduct/abuse occurring? examples: adequate privacy in toilet and
shower areas, enough staff members in various areas of the facility.)
7. Finish this sentence, “If I report a PREA incident, then _______________.” (What
happens? Is it important? Does it change anything? I get in more trouble because of
doing so. Does it make a difference? I would do it again if needed.)
8. Do you feel like PREA has helped or hurt inmates and others? (Describe how it has
helped? Describe how it has hurt?)
9. If PREA did not exist, what kind of program, rules, or system would you create to
decrease/stop sexual misconduct/abuse for inmates and those who work in the system?

Demographics

The survey data reveal the demographic profile of respondents, encompassing various
characteristics such as age, marital status, children, length of sentence, ethnic and racial identity,
educational background, income level, offense category, length of sentence, sexual orientation, and
diagnosed disabilities. Regarding age distribution, most respondents fell within the 36-45 age range
(31.8%), followed by the 26-35 age group (27.3%). In terms of marital status, the most common
category was “Single, Never Married” (43.2%), followed by “Divorced” (25.0%). Many
respondents reported having children (75.0%). Concerning the length of sentence, the most
prevalent category was “More than one year” (72.7%), followed by “11 - 20 years” (22.7%). Most
respondents identified as not Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish Origin (95.5%) and as White/Caucasian
(50.0%). Regarding educational background, the most common categories were “Less than high
school diploma or GED” (18.2%) and “Some college undergraduate work but no degree
completed” (13.6%). The income distribution showed a large portion of respondents falling within
the “$19,000 - $45,999” category (34.1%).
In terms of the offense category, most respondents were incarcerated for “Crime against a
person” (59.1%). The length of sentences varied, with the highest number of respondents reporting
“More than one year” (72.7%). The sexual orientation of respondents predominately identified as
“Straight” (65.9%), while 15.9% identified as “Bisexual.” Finally, regarding diagnosed disabilities,
mental health conditions were the most prevalent (34.1%), followed by no reported disabilities
(47.7%). Other categories included cognitive disabilities (2.3%) and physical disabilities (4.5%).
See Demographic Table 1 for an overview of each category.

58
Table 1
Demographics of Participants
Characteristics N %
Gender
Male* 0 0%
Female 44 100%
Sexual Orientation
Straight 29 66%
Bisexual 7 16%
Lesbian/gay 3 7%
Transgender 1 2%
Decline to Answer 2 5%
No response 2 5%
Ethnicity
African American 6 14%
Black 5 11%
Black; African American 2 5%
Black; White/Caucasian 1 2%
White/Caucasian 22 50%
White/Caucasian; American Indian or Alaska Native 5 11%
No response 3 7%
Age Range
19 to 25-years-old 2 5%
26 to 35-years-old 12 27%
36 to 45-years-old 14 32%
46 to 55-years-old 9 20%
56 and older 6 14%
No response 1 2%
Marital status
Widowed 3 7%
Divorced 11 25%
Separated 3 7%
Married 7 16%
Single, never married 19 7%
No response 1 2%
Children
Yes 33 75%
No 10 23%
No response 1 2%
Educational background
Less than high school or GED 8 18%
High school diploma or GED 7 16%
Vocational or trade school certificate 7 16%
Some college but no degree completed 6 14%
Graduate work beyond completed degree 4 9%
Less than high school diploma or GED; Vocational or trade school certificate 1 2%

59
S. WEAVER ET AL.

High school diploma or GED; Vocational or Trade School Certificate 5 11%

High school diploma or GED; Vocational or Trade School Certificate; Some 2 5%
college undergraduate work but no degree completed
High school diploma or GED; Some college undergraduate work but no degree 2 5%
completed
Some college undergraduate work but no degree completed, Vocational or 1 2%
Trade School Certificate
No response 1 2%
Diagnosed Disability
Cognitive (e.g., learning disability, difficulty thinking, ADHD) 1 2%
Mental health (e.g., substance abuse, depression, anxiety, personality disorder) 15 34%
Physical (e.g., mobility, cosmetic/scarring, injury) 2 5%
Physical (e.g., mobility, cosmetic/scarring, injury) Mental health (e.g., 2 5%
substance abuse, depression, anxiety, personality disorder)
Physical (e.g., mobility, cosmetic/scarring, injury); Mental health (e.g., 1 2%
substance abuse, depression, anxiety, personality disorder); Sensory (e.g., vision,
hearing, touch/texture)
No disability 21 48%
No response 1 2%
Decline to answer 1 2%
Offence Category
Crime against person 26 59%
Crime against property 4 9%
Drug crime 4 9%
Sex crime 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Crime against person; Drug crime 1 2%
Crime against person; Crime against property; Drug Crime 1 2%
No response 4 9%
Length of Sentence
1-3 years 2 5%
4-7 years 2 5%
8-10 years 8 18%
11-20 years 10 23%
21-30 years 6 14%
31-50 years 1 2%
Life 5 11%
LWOP or Death Row 6 14%
No response 4 9%
Note. * Male is included as an option for those who identify as male.

Procedures for Analysis

As noted, interviews were recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were used for data
analysis. Themes were derived by examining the transcript to identify repetitions, to look for
original categories, and to classify similarities and differences in responses. By comparing
responses, themes surfaced by being present in multiple reactions, which produced insights for
analysis.

60
 Quotes selected for inclusion were designed to capture analytical themes derived from the
analysis. Multiple researchers reviewed the transcripts of the interviews numerous times, making
notes and highlighting themes. Examining the perspectives of incarcerated women was used to
determine whether sexual safety was possible. Having multiple researchers review the transcript
increased confidence in theme identification.
The open-ended research questions were grouped for conceptual analysis into three (3) sets.
Questions 1, 2, and 8 comprised the first set reflecting Impressions of PREA. Questions 3 (a) and
(b), 4, 5, and 7 comprised the second set reflecting Impressions of Sexual Safety. The third and last
set of questions were comprised of Questions 6 and 9 Impressions of the System Efficacy and
Change. See the sets below.
Set I: Impression of PREA
1. What is PREA?
2. Give your first impression that is as honest as you feel you can be. How would you
respond to this statement, “I have been informed of my rights to be free from sexual abuse.”
8. Do you feel like PREA has helped or hurt inmates and others?
Set II: Impressions of Sexual Safety
3. Do you feel you are free from sexual abuse/misconduct? This can include sexual
harassment, verbal abuse, or ongoing sexual relations between inmates and/or staff
members.
a. When is this most true? Can you describe it?
b. When is this mostly not true? Can you describe it?
4. In your opinion, what makes an inmate vulnerable to sexual misconduct/abuse? As a
victim? As a perpetrator?
5. In your opinion, is it the person or the system that makes someone vulnerable to sexual
misconduct/abuse?
7. Finish this sentence, “If I report a PREA incident, then ____________.”
Set III: Impressions of the System Efficacy and Change (6 and 9)
6. How could the system be made different or changed to decrease sexual
misconduct/abuse?
9. If PREA did not exist, what kind of program, rules, or system would you create to
decrease/stop sexual misconduct/abuse for inmates and those who work in the system?

Findings and Analysis

In addition to these findings, it is crucial to consider the broader implications of female

inmate perceptions of PREA on criminal behavior and justice policies. This research underscores
the need for policy changes that address gender-specific needs within correctional facilities. The
following section presents the findings and integrated analysis grouped by conceptual perspective.
Participant quotes are offered to support and illustrate the findings, highlighting the importance of
addressing both individual experiences and systematic issues within the correctional environment.

Analysis and Discussion of Set I Questions (1, 2, & 8) Impression of PREA

1. What is PREA?

Responses ranged from being clear to ambiguous about their understanding of inmates’
rights. Inmate responses indicate that there appears to be a general understanding of PREA, that it
stands for Prison Rape Elimination Act, and is a way to report unwanted sexual contact,
61
S. WEAVER ET AL.

harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape to help eliminate such activity between inmates and/or
inmates and officers. Inmate responses indicate a general understanding that PREA stands for
Prison Rape Elimination Act and serves as a mechanism for reporting unwanted sexual contact,
harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape, with the goal of eliminating such activity between inmates
and/or inmates and officers. Examples of such comments included: “It’s supposed to be a thing
that’s supposed to help you stay safe in prison.” and “What PREA does is protect us from abuse
and letting us know our rights; what people can and cannot do.” Finally, “It’s against sexual assault
on an inmate - whether it’s an inmate and an officer or an inmate and an inmate. It’s a way to
protect the victim.”
As perceived by some inmates, PREA was considered as increasing safety and protecting
both inmates and officers. However, there was inconsistent knowledge regarding exactly how
PREA works. For example, a minimal number of responses indicated that PREA is about being gay
and/or having “gay” sex in prison or experiencing fights about same-sex partners, such as, “Well,
I think it would be about gay and seeing gay things go wrong in a lot of it, fights all the time over
women.”
Statements like “Doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do.” or “Unfair based on sexual identity”
reflect this skepticism. These varied perceptions suggest that while PREA is recognized as a
protective measure, its implementation and effectiveness are not universally understood or trusted
among the inmate population.

2. Give your first impression that is as honest as you feel you can be: How would you respond to
this statement, “I have been informed of my rights to be free from sexual abuse at the prison.”

Inmate responses to this item were primarily positive, such as “This statement is true.”
“Agree” and “I have been informed of my rights.” A minority of responses, however, were
negative in nature and served to expound upon how PREA can be abused by inmates. “So, I hadn’t
really seen anything out of the ordinary since I’ve been here. Like most people just use it to get
back at somebody, for real, like, people don’t take it serious.” and “It’s supposed to help officers
and inmates. - Some people play games, aren’t serious, try to control someone else.”
Fewer inmates indicated their overall disagreement and/or mistrust of the PREA system.
For example, “PREA is not taken seriously,” “[The guards] Don’t understand sexual abuse versus
sexual preference,” and, finally, “I would say that it’s kinda bullshit because you could be informed
of something but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true.”

8. Do you feel like PREA has helped or hurt inmates and others?

Inmate responses to this question were split into positive and negative comments, indicating
that PREA has both helped and hurt inmates and others in the system. For example, positive
comments included: “[It has] helped with officer-to-inmate abuse incidents.” and “Now, before I
got here, they said that people used to be sexually molested by the officers and stuff like that but
when I got here, I don’t see it happening now.” Finally, PREA was described in the following
way: “It hasn’t fixed everything, but it’s working.”
Negative comments regarding PREA were based on more specific circumstances and
individuals, such as: “Helpful if not misused for retribution and confidentiality is observed.” and
“It’s hurt because inmates can use PREA to their advantage. Inmates will PREA if they don’t like
you or an officer.” A final statement explained how it could be used more effectively, “It has
helped, but it would be better if they would investigate it further before just separating inmates.”

62
 Inmate responses indicate the perception that PREA is used to help inmates as well as
misused for both retaliation and manipulation by inmates and officers. Responses were more
evenly split into positive and negative comments, indicating that PREA has both helped and hurt
inmates and others in the system.
Positive comments include the following:
• “Inmates have confidence to reject unwanted advances because now a
process is in place for reporting/investigating allegations.”
• “I think PREA’s intimidating to officers and that’s a good thing.”
• “Inmate to inmate sex still happens but to a lesser degree.”
Negative comments were based on more specific circumstances:
• “Not helpful because of false reporting”
• “Reports/calls by inmates ignored”
• “Mistrust of cameras”
• “Bad shower situation”
Specific abuses of PREA were identified by inmates, including retaliation and manipulation.
For example, the following comments illustrate using PREA for retaliation: “Used as a method of
retaliation against officers and inmates,” “Retaliation and intimidation by officers if/when accused
by inmates,” and “Inmates written-up for lying” about PREA incidents. Comments illustrating
manipulation include, “When inmate wants to be moved to a different area/dorm.” and “used to hurt
officers for being too strict with inmates.” Additional comments that were expressed, but somewhat
difficult to categorize include “misconduct is wide open” and “This place is a Playboy mansion!”

Analysis and Discussion of Set II Questions (3, 4, 5, and 7) Impressions of Sexual Safety

3. Do you feel you are free from sexual abuse/misconduct? This can include sexual harassment,
verbal abuse, or ongoing sexual relations between inmates and/or staff members.

a. When is this most true? Can you describe it?

b. When is this mostly not true? Can you describe it?
Overall, responses indicate that most inmates do feel free from sexual abuse with several
exceptions. Multiple inmates indicated they do NOT feel free from sexual abuse/misconduct in the
bathroom areas. Problems identified in this area include little to no privacy, low staffing, and
inmates often experiencing inappropriate boundaries from officers.
For instance, inmates observed that abuse/misconduct was less likely during busy periods,
such as during posts or shifts when guards were occupied with their duties. This suggests that the
presence and attentiveness of staff play a crucial role in preventing incidents of abuse/misconduct.
Participants noted that abuse/misconduct did not seem to happen when there was little, or no
opportunity based on time, place, and level of activity occurring. For example, it was stated that
abuse/misconduct did not occur during posts or shifts when guards were busy.
Some inmates indicate that they feel free from sexual misconduct and/or abuse. However,
responses to this question indicate that, overall, inmates do NOT feel free from sexual
abuse/misconduct. Responses range from incidents of verbal abuse to general “misconduct”
because of time, place, and/or situation. The complaint of unfair treatment based on one’s sexual
identity as well as race/ethnicity was additionally voiced. Verbal abuse was mentioned by inmates
as well. Complaints were made against officers, commonly using inappropriate language to or
about inmates as a way of abusing their authority.

63
S. WEAVER ET AL.

Do you feel you are free from sexual abuse/misconduct?

a. When is this most true? Can you describe it?

Some inmates emphasized the importance of personal agency and self-protection, noting
that maintaining a certain demeanor could deter potential misconduct. For example, statements
highlighting this initiative-taking approach include: “You have to make a stand with guards and
inmates,” I stay to myself mostly, but I also have a good support system,” and “I feel like I
personally keep myself safe.” These responses suggest that inmates who actively assert boundaries
and cultivate supportive networks may reduce their vulnerability to abuse.

Do you feel you are free from sexual abuse/misconduct?

b. When is this mostly not true? Can you describe it?

Participants voiced that when abuse/misconduct DID occur, it was often during times of
slow or low activity, such as “during 3rd shift,” when supervision might be less rigorous.
Additionally, inmates reported that abuse/misconduct frequently occurred when it served a specific
purpose, often to achieve a desired outcome within the system. For example, incidents were
sometimes “used against officers to get rid of them” or to facilitate “to get moved or be with
someone [another inmate].” Inmates also noted that “officers show a lot of favoritism and have a
lot of control,” which could contribute to an environment where misconduct is strategically
employed. Overall, it appears that time, opportunity, and results are significant factors influencing
the occurrence of sexual abuse/misconduct.

4. In your opinion, what makes an inmate vulnerable to sexual misconduct/abuse? As a victim?

As a perpetrator?

Responses indicate that what makes inmates vulnerable to sexual misconduct/abuse as a

victim includes things that make one weak and/or vulnerable or appear to be so. Examples
included individuals who are new to the system, individuals who are perceived as fearful and/or
show weakness such as being “too nice,” naïve, or exhibit a lack of self-esteem; as well as those
who abuse and/or manipulate drugs. Additional comments included: “Being in a state of fear, not
knowing who to trust in here - inmates and staff.” “ Being bullied and harassed, being a drug addict,
not being able to have commissary.” “I’m scared and I just want to get back home to my life.”
Additionally, if inmates lack resources and support, inside or outside of the prison, don’t
have access to goods (commissary, food items, etc.) or money, they appear poor and/or vulnerable
and often become targets for abuse. For example, “If someone needs something from the outside
and cannot get it inside,” or, “Doesn’t have a lot of support on the outside, doesn’t have a lot of
support on the inside.” Alternatively, having resources on the inside can increase the risk of
someone becoming targeted because of their real or perceived resources. As stated by one inmate,
“People that have money, drugs, canteen and others want to use them for what they have, or they
can benefit from.”
Finally, several factors were identified that may increase the likelihood of an inmate
becoming a perpetrator and engaging in sexual misconduct/abuse. One notable observation was
that “Individuals who don’t have moral or financial support from home are often victims and
victims often become perpetrators.” Additionally, inmates noted vulnerability associated with
certain relations or roles within the prison, such as “Vulnerable because in lesbian relationship in
prison.” Another role mentioned was “May be a ‘prison princess,’” a term used to describe inmates

64
who might receive certain privileges in exchange for favors. One inmate noted, “There’s usually a
payment plan for that privilege or to ‘not be a witness.’”
Responses to this question also revealed that inmates might be vulnerable to sexual
misconduct/abuse because “they get something out of it,” whether from the perspective of a
perpetrator or a victim, with outcomes that could be either “positive” or “negative.” For instance,
some responses suggested that inmates with unmet emotional needs might inadvertently make
themselves targets for victimization. Examples include inmates who want to be noticed and might
“wear skimpy clothing at night in the dorm,” or those who are “first-timers” who are “young and
naïve.” Additionally, inmates described others who are “lonely, desire love, act ‘flirty’ for
attention,” thereby unintentionally opening themselves up to sexual abuse/misconduct. Victims
were typically characterized as powerless and vulnerable, often the poorest and the weakest among
the inmate population.
Furthermore, it was noted that some inmates might engage in or become targets of
misconduct due to a lack of funds, using sex as a form of payment, or seeking “protection” through
sexual exchanges. Finally, it was emphasized that perpetrators often “see/seek” vulnerability in
others and exploit it to their advantage to obtain what they want. Many respondents also highlighted
that those who become perpetrators may have a history of being abused themselves as inmates,
perpetuating a cycle of victimization and abuse within the prison system.

5. In your opinion, is it the person or the system that makes someone vulnerable to sexual
misconduct/abuse?

Responses to this question were evenly split between three options: “both the system and
the person,” “the person,” and “the system.” Responses indicated that variations of these may make
inmates vulnerable to sexual abuse. For example, participants stated, “A combination of both.”
“The person is here for a reason, but the system isn’t doing enough.” “There aren’t enough officers,
200 women to 1 officer in a dorm.”
Some statements related to the person being vulnerable. For example, “The person won’t
stand up for themselves.” and “The person, if they are flirting or having sexual relations with
someone, that’ll make them vulnerable to harassment.” The following comment was especially
impactful regarding the role of the system creating vulnerability:
Well, I think it’s the system because I just feel like it’s a lot of people that’s
being locked up in the system for years, for a really long time. So, then,
they become institutionalized. They don’t know anything else other than
the system, so they play the system. That’s just their thinking process.
That’s just how they think. That’s all they know.
Finally, some individuals indicated that it’s not the system or the person; however, PREA
is often misused, abused, or used to circumvent the system. At times, there is no actual sexual
misconduct or abuse involved:
What I think as far as like there’s a lot of people here use it for the wrong
reasons. And they just do false allegations for whatever reason. To get
someone moved away from a girl they like. Or, if they’re having problems
with them, they’ll fall out, they’ll fill out or call a hotline, or send in a
request stating this happened. And they they’ll move that person. It, so
you know, that’s not right I’ve seen it numerous times.
Overall, responses to this question primarily fell into the “system” category or “both system
and person” category. Complaints were made that “the system doesn’t enforce the rules or changes
them all the time,” “training doesn’t impact treatment,” “facility conditions in showers/toilets make
65
S. WEAVER ET AL.

abuse easy to occur,” “some places in prison don’t have cameras that work.” Witnessing abuse in
some situations appears to be just as harmful/dangerous as experiencing it one’s self - “should have
just left it alone and not gotten involved.”

7. Finish this sentence, “If I report a PREA incident, then ____________.” What happens? Is
it important? Does it change anything? I get in more trouble as a result of doing so. Does it
make a difference? I would do it again if needed.

Responses indicate that when a PREA incident is reported, it is typically taken seriously
and investigated. If the “offending party” is found guilty, they are usually relocated to another dorm
or facility. However, among inmates, such incidents can escalate tensions, leading to confusion,
arguments, fights, or retaliation.
Consider the following comments:
“It will cause a fight. There will be confrontation which will lead to issues
and fighting. There will be retaliation.”
“Some inmates understand that if the PREA is considered a “sexual
situation” someone will be moved to protect the reporting inmate. “
“If the facts are true, the inmate will get reprimanded. But other than that,
its just a whole bunch of mouth. Just spread around. They spread lies about
you and all that and try to make other inmates not talk to you and pretty
much segregate you. If the incident is true, it will make you feel heard and
feel like you are protected. If it’s true, they do everything they can. But if
it’s not, it just creates havoc and makes it hard for the ones who are going
through it because they see the backlash from that, and it wasn’t even real.”
“As long as no one finds out, you’re ok, but inmates and officer’s gossip.
It’s a small city.”
Some inmates do not agree and state, “Sometimes, women here don’t even report stuff
because they know ain’t nothing gonna happen.” However, most inmates indicated that something
would happen if a PREA incident is reported at the very least, an investigation will begin. Many
comments indicated that the perpetrator and the victim will be separated with the “victim” typically
being moved, therefore PREA incidents often are filed as a means to an end.
Other inmates appeared bitter in their response, such as: “It’s a joke” or “No recourse even
if found ‘not guilty’.” Alternatively, some inmates indicated that “A PREA is easy to file but not
to undue” and “I think it’s just for show. PREA ain’t shit. It doesn’t work.”

Analysis of Set III Questions: Impressions of System Efficacy and Change: (6 and 9)

6. How could the system be made different or changed to decrease sexual misconduct/abuse?
Are there problem areas or problem times that increase the likelihood of misconduct/abuse
occurring? (Examples: adequate privacy in toilet and shower areas, enough staff members in
various areas of the facility, adequate security equipment including cameras, etc.?

The age of prisoners was considered significant, as older inmates were often ignored,
mistreated, or neglected due to differential treatment based on age. Many respondents noted that
older women in the prison system appear to become invisible, with little to no voice in their
treatment in the prison’s operations. This lack of attention and respect for older inmates often leads
to their needs being overlooked, exacerbating their feelings of isolation and helplessness within the
prison environment. The perception that they have “literally no voice” underscores the systemic
66
issues that contribute to their marginalization, making it difficult for them to advocate for
themselves or receive adequate support. Additionally, some responses diverged significantly from
the general observations and were unique to the individual speaker. For example, one inmate
expressed,
Well, I think they need a top warden that’s a man. I think that is a lot of our
problems. I think these women really don’t know how to run this prison for
real. They’re trying, bless their hearts, they are.
Another inmate suggested a more radical solution, stating, “If they fire the whole staff and
just get everybody new in here—just fire the whole staff, from the warden down.” Most of the
respondents seem to believe “better” and more staff are needed. Some inmates indicated a need for
female only officers in the prison, especially in areas that are considered “trouble spots” (i.e.,
showers, toilets, dorms). It was noted that there is only one PREA officer and one phone for PREA
calls. Respondents identified the shower, toilet, and dorm areas as problematic for
misconduct/abuse.

9. If PREA did not exist, what kind of program, rules, or system would you create to
decrease/stop sexual misconduct/abuse for inmates and those who work in the system?

Also included were suggestions/recommendations for programs, rules, and systems that
could be implemented or become the focus of change. These suggestions encompassed a variety
of approaches aimed at improving the safety and well-being of inmates. Among the
recommendations were the introduction of accountability programs and behavior modification
programs which would help address the underlying causes of misconduct and promote behavioral
changes. Inmates also suggested the creation of an in-person “Anonymous programs/groups that
would serve as a ‘safe’ place for inmates to talk.”
Additionally, the idea of female-only guards was proposed to create a safer environment,
particularly in sensitive areas such as showers and dormitories. Other recommendations included
the implementation of counseling and/or other programs for inmates who are victims of rape or
who have experienced trauma, whether emotional, mental, and physical abuse. To ensure
continuous support, an “after-hours” hotline with access to counselors was also suggested, along
with the need for consistency across all dorms and settings to prevent discrepancies and ensure
fairness.
Comments specific to the PREA program highlighted included the importance of proper
implementation, with inmates noting that “PREA is a very good thing, you know. I just don’t think
it should be used wrongly” and “Good system that needs to be used the right way.” These insights
underscore the necessity of not only having robust systems in place but also ensuring that these
systems are applied correctly and fairly so that they achieve their intended purpose of protecting
inmates.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore female inmates’ perceptions of the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (PREA), and focus on its impact on their physical, emotional, and sexual safety within a
correctional facility. The findings reveal a complex landscape where PREA is simultaneously
viewed as a critical protective measure and a system prone to misuse and mistrust. These insights
highlight the nuanced and multifaceted experiences of incarcerated women, underscoring the need
for targeted reforms and systemic accountability.

67
S. WEAVER ET AL.

Key Findings

The findings demonstrate that while many inmates recognize PREA as an essential tool for
reporting and addressing sexual misconduct, inconsistent knowledge about its mechanisms and
skepticism about its efficacy persist. For example, some participants described PREA as a means
to ensure safety, stating that it has reduced officer-to-inmate abuse. Conversely, others perceived it
as a system open to manipulation, used for retaliation or to achieve personal goals, such as transfers.
A significant finding relates to structural vulnerabilities within the facility, such as
inadequate privacy in bathroom and shower areas, insufficient staffing, and malfunctioning security
cameras. These factors exacerbate the risk of abuse and contribute to inmates’ sense of insecurity.
Additionally, the findings reveal that personal characteristics, such as being new to the system,
lacking resources, or appearing vulnerable, can increase inmates’ susceptibility to misconduct.

Comparison to Previous Research

These findings align with earlier studies that emphasize the critical role of PREA in
fostering safer correctional environments (Smith, 2020; Surrell & Johnson, 2020). However, they
also expand on previous research by illustrating the dual nature of PREA—both as a safeguard and
a system that can be exploited. Prior literature has primarily focused on the administrative
implementation of PREA, detailing policies and procedural guidelines for compliance. This study
contributes a unique perspective by centering the lived experiences of female inmates, highlighting
gaps in knowledge, trust, and systemic enforcement that influence PREA’s effectiveness
(Covington, 2022). By examining these nuanced perceptions, this research underscores the
importance of integrating inmate voices into the evaluation and refinement of correctional policies.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The study underscores the importance of implementing gender-responsive and trauma-

informed interventions to address systemic barriers to inmate safety (Covington, 2022).
Recommendations include increasing staffing levels, particularly female officers in sensitive areas,
improving facility infrastructure to ensure privacy, and providing consistent training for staff on
PREA protocols. Additionally, there is a need for programs that address both the misuse of PREA
and the underlying causes of sexual misconduct, such as accountability and behavior modification
initiatives.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study provides valuable insights, its focus on a single facility under a USDOJ
settlement limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research could examine perceptions of
PREA across multiple facilities to identify broader trends. Longitudinal studies could also explore
the long-term impact of PREA on inmate safety and well-being. By capturing the voices of
incarcerated women, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on correctional reform
and highlights the critical need for policies and practices that prioritize safety, fairness, and
accountability within correctional facilities.

68
Summary

The summary of this research project is structured into three distinct yet interrelated areas,
each designed to address critical aspects pertaining to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
and its implications within one women’s correctional facility. The first area, examined through
Questions 1, 2, and 8, Impressions of PREA, explores inmates’ foundational understanding of
PREA, including its principles and overarching objectives. The second area, comprising Questions
3, 4, 5, and 7, Impressions of Sexual Safety, examines the prevalence of, the power dynamics
involved, and the institutional response to sexual abuse and misconduct within the correctional
setting. This segment not only scrutinizes the occurrence and reporting of such incidents but also
examines the efficacy of PREA-mandated measures in mitigating these challenges. Finally, the
third area, Questions 6 and 9, Impressions of the System Efficacy and Change, explores pathways
toward positive change to include policy reform, institutional change, and contemplating strategies
to enhance PREA’s effectiveness and foster a rehabilitative, safe, and equitable environment.

Impressions of PREA

Within this domain, inmates demonstrated a varied understanding of PREA and its purpose.
Most interviewees articulated the primary objective of PREA: to detect, report, and address sexual
assault, harassment, unwanted sexual contact, or rape within correctional facilities. However,
divergent perspectives emerged regarding PREA’s efficacy. While some inmates expressed
confidence in its capacity to safeguard individuals, others harbored reservations, suggesting that
PREA might inadvertently endanger or disadvantage fellow inmates. Additionally, concerns were
raised about the potential for false reporting or misunderstandings regarding PREA’s purpose,
highlighting the complexities in its implementation and reception. For instance, a subset of
responses mistakenly associates PREA with matters related to sexual orientation, such as being gay
and/or engaging in same-sex relationships within prison walls. As revealed by inmates' perceptions
within correctional settings, PREA’s impact remains both pivotal and contested, a delicate balance
between protection and potential pitfalls.

Impressions of Sexual Safety

Within this domain, inmates interviewed were asked about their perceptions of safety
concerning sexual abuse and misconduct. Overall, most inmates indicated they do feel free from
sexual abuse, albeit with notable exceptions. Many inmates expressed feeling unsafe, particularly
within the bathroom areas, citing concerns related to privacy, insufficient staffing levels, and
instances of inappropriate officer behavior. Furthermore, verbal abuse and misconduct within the
dormitories emerged as prominent areas of concern. Additionally, interviewees asserted that factors
such as race and sexual identity wielded influence over the incidence of abuse, underscoring the
intersectional dynamics at play within the correctional environment.
Inmates emphasized the significant power wielded by officers within the correctional
system, noting a pattern wherein inappropriate language and misconduct were frequently utilized
as means of asserting authority and control. Observations for the inmate population suggested that
the occurrence of sexual abuse and misconduct was influenced by various factors, including timing,
opportunities, and motivations. Furthermore, inmates underscored those instances of abuse and
misconduct typically served a specific purpose or functioned as a means to an end within the prison
environment, highlighting the power play dynamics and institutional cultural shaping of such
behaviors.
69
S. WEAVER ET AL.

This section also explored an inmate’s vulnerability to abuse and misconduct, probing
whether vulnerabilities were attributed to individual traits or system deficiencies. Responses
revealed a multifaceted concern, wherein vulnerability stemmed from several factors, both
individual and systemic. Among these factors were substance use and abuse, the targeting of new
or perceived weaker inmates, low self-esteem, fear, and a lack of resources. Inmates lacking
financial resources both within and outside the correctional system were identified as particularly
vulnerable, often becoming targets for abuse. Additionally, those lacking moral or financial support
from external networks frequently fell prey to victimization, with some victims eventually
assuming the role of perpetrators. Replicating the behavior they endured, thus perpetuating the
cycle of abuse.
It was generally conveyed that reporting a PREA incident would trigger some form of
response. However, the nature of this response varied considerably among respondents. At the very
least, it was indicated that an investigation would be initiated to address the complaint. Many
inmates also mentioned that in certain cases, the perpetrator and the victim would typically be
separated, with the “victim” being relocated to a different area of the prison. Additionally, some
comments reflected inmates’ negative perceptions of reporting a PREA complaint, highlighting
underlying skepticism and disillusionment regarding the efficacy and consequences of reporting
such incidents within the correctional system.

Impressions of System Efficacy and Change

Inmates were asked for suggestions on strategies to mitigate sexual misconduct and abuse
within the prison, as well as to identify problem areas and times for such incidents. Most responses
highlighted the imperative recruitment of “better” staff, emphasizing the need for personnel
equipped with specialized training pertaining to sexual abuse and misconduct, particularly female
staff. Additionally, there was a resounding call for an increase in the number of PREA officers to
bolster oversight and enforcement mechanisms.
Inmates expressed a strong desire for expanded opportunities to earn money while
incarcerated, suggesting that such initiatives could reduce the reliance on engaging in “sexual
favors” to obtain basic necessities or to gain influence within the prison hierarchy. The ability to
earn money could empower inmates by providing them with legitimate means to meet their needs,
thereby decreasing the vulnerability that comes from financial dependence on others. Additionally,
creating more opportunities for financial independence could help to foster a sense of self-worth
and reduce the desperation that often leads to exploitation.
Furthermore, respondents identified specific areas within the prison, such as the shower,
toilet, and dormitory spaces, as being particularly prone to misconduct and abuse due to a lack of
surveillance cameras. These areas, where privacy and security are most needed, were highlighted
as high-risk zones that require enhanced monitoring and security measures. The lack of surveillance
in these spaces not only increases the likelihood of abuse but also makes it difficult for victims to
seek justice, as incidents go unrecorded and unreported. Addressing these security gaps with
improved monitoring could play a crucial role in preventing misconduct and ensuring a safer
environment. These recommendations encapsulate the insights and perspectives of inmates,
offering proactive measures aimed at fostering a safer and more equitable environment within
prisons. By highlighting the need for enhanced staff training, gender-specific staffing
considerations, and improved monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, inmates advocate for
fundamental changes to mitigate instances of sexual misconduct and abuse. Moreover, their
suggestions underscore a collective endeavor to address systemic deficiencies and uphold the
principles of safety and justice enshrined in the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). In
70
advocating for these measures, inmates not only seek to safeguard their own well-being but also
endeavor to effectuate a positive transformation of PREA's efficacy and impact, paving the way
for a more humane and secure correctional system.
This summary captures the comprehensive findings from interviews conducted with
incarcerated females, shedding light on the challenges they encounter in maintaining safety within
the prison system. The findings underscore pervasive concerns regarding physical, emotional, and
sexual safety, with many participants reporting feeling unsafe due to the threat of violence from
both fellow inmates and correctional officers. Instances of sexual harassment and assault by both
inmates and staff members highlight the vulnerability faced by incarcerated females. Moreover,
there is a significant lack of trust in the reporting and handling of incidents by prison staff,
exacerbating fears of retaliation or negative consequences for seeking help.
Many participants reported a lack of resources and support for their emotional well-being
during their incarceration, noting limited access to counseling or mental health services within the
prison environment. Some participants expressed frustration with the lack of preventive measures
and safety protocols in place to mitigate the risk of violence and abuse within the prison
environment. Additionally, several participants highlighted the negative impact of overcrowding
in prisons on their safety, citing increased tension and conflicts among inmates as a result. Many
incarcerated females expressed the need for more comprehensive training and education on
personal safety and self-defense strategies to empower them to protect themselves within the prison
setting. The findings underscore the urgent need for improved safety measures and support systems
within the prison system to ensure the well-being of incarcerated females. Furthermore, the
findings emphasize the importance of addressing power imbalances and promoting a culture of
accountability within correctional facilities to prevent physical, emotional, and sexual violence
against incarcerated females. The findings also emphasize the necessity of creating a safe and
supportive environment that allows incarcerated females to report incidents without fear of
retaliation and to receive appropriate resources.

Conclusion

This study sought to explore female inmates’ perceptions of the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (PREA), focusing on its role in fostering physical, emotional, and sexual safety within
correctional facilities. The findings reveal a dual narrative: while many inmates view PREA as a
vital protective measure, its effectiveness is limited by systemic vulnerabilities and inconsistent
implementation. These challenges undermine its potential to create safer environments and
highlight the need for targeted reforms.
By centering the lived experiences of female inmates, this research underscores the
importance of addressing structural barriers within correctional facilities. Inadequate staffing, poor
facility design, and mistrust in reporting mechanisms contribute to feelings of insecurity among
inmates. Addressing these issues requires prioritizing gender-responsive reforms that enhance
privacy, fairness, and accountability within the prison system.
The findings also emphasize the importance of consistent and equitable enforcement of
PREA protocols. Recommendations include increasing the presence of trained staff, particularly in
sensitive areas, and providing resources to ensure all inmates understand their rights under PREA.
These changes could significantly improve the perception and effectiveness of PREA among the
incarcerated population.
Future research should expand on these findings by examining perceptions of PREA across
diverse correctional settings. Longitudinal studies are also needed to evaluate the long-term effects

71
S. WEAVER ET AL.

of PREA reforms on safety, institutional culture, and inmate outcomes. Such efforts will be critical
to advancing the field of prison reform and ensuring policies better serve vulnerable populations.
This study contributes to the broader discourse on prison reform by shedding light on the
successes and shortcomings of PREA. By revisiting the claims made in the introduction, it
reinforces the importance of centering inmate voices in the evaluation and implementation of
correctional policies. Finally, this research offers actionable pathways for fostering dignity, equity,
and justice within the correctional system.

References

Beck, A. J., & Johnson, C. (2012, May). Sexual victimization reported by former state prisoners,
2008 (Report NCJ 237363). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Bureau, Bureau
of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/svrfsp08.pdf
Covington, S. (2022). Creating a trauma-informed justice system for women. In Gelsthorpe & S.
Brown (Eds.), The Wiley handbook on what works with girls and women in conflict with
the law: A critical review of theory, practice, and policy (pp. 172–184). John Wiley & Sons
Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119874898.ch12
Frank, D. W. (2014). Commentary: Abandoned: Abolishing female prisons to prevent sexual abuse
and herald an end to incarnation. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 29(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38M03XW7R
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Aldine Publishing Company.
Hanmer, J., & Statham, D. (1988). Women and social work: Towards a woman-centered practice.
Macmillan.
Hensley, C. (2002). Prison sex: Practice, and policy. Rienner Publisher.
Kajstura, A. (2018). Women’s mass incarceration: The whole pie 2018. Prison Policy
Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2018women.html.
Kubiak, S. P., Nnawulezi, N., Karim, N., Sullivan, C. M., & Beeble, M. L. (2012). Examining
disclosure of physical and sexual victimization by method in samples of women involved
in the criminal justice system. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51(3), 161–175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.618528
Kubiak, S. P., Brenner, H. J., Bybee, D., Campbell, R., Cummings, C. E., Darcy, K. M., Fedock,
G., & Goodman-Williams, R. (2017a). Sexual misconduct in prison: What factors affect
whether incarcerated women will report abuses committed by prison staff? Law and human
behavior, 41(4), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000239
Kubiak, S. P., Brenner, H. J., Bybee, D., Campbell, R., Cummings, C. E., Darcy, K. M., Fedock,
G., & Goodman-Williams, R. (2017b). Do sexually victimized female prisoners perceive
justice in litigation process and outcomes? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(1), 39–
52. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000100
Mejía, B., Zea, P., Romero, M., & Saldívar, G. (2015). Traumatic experiences and re-victimization
of female inmates undergoing treatment for substance abuse. Substance Abuse Treatment,
Prevention & Policy, 10(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-597X-10-5Smith, H.P. (2020). Evaluating the implementation of the
Prison Rape Elimination Reform Act (PREA): A “lessons learned” approach. Evaluation
& Program Planning, 83, Article 101855.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101855Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative
analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.

72
Struckman-Johnson, C., & Struckman-Johnson, D. (2006). A comparative of sexual coercion
experiences reported by men and women in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21,
1591–1615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506294240
Surrell, A., & Johnson, I. M. (2020). An examination of women’s experiences with reporting sexual
victimization behind prison walls. The Prison Journal, 100(5), 559–580.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520956328
The Equal Justice Initiative. (2012). Tutwiler Prison for Women: EJI investigated and exposed the
widespread sexual abuse of women at Tutwiler Prison for Women in Wetumpka, Alabama.
https://eji.org/cases/tutwiler/.
The Equal Justice Initiative. (2020). Tutwiler prison for women. https://eji.org/cases/tutwiler/.
The Sentencing Project (2019, June 19). Incarcerated women and girls.
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/.
United States (2003). Prison rape elimination act of 2003. U.S. G.P.O.
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2014, January). Finding letter: Julia
Tutwiler Prison for women. Washington, DC.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/01/23/tutwiler_findings_1-17-
14.pdf.
United States of America v. The State of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections
(2015, May). https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-
courts/alabama/almdce/2:2015cv00368/57474/10/0.pdf?ts=1434705561.
VanNatta, M. (2010). Conceptualization and stopping state sexual violence against incarcerated
women. Social Justice, 31, 27–52.
Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2011). Patterns of victimization and feelings of safety inside prison: The
experience of male and female inmates. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 29–55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708321370

Notes on Contributors

Dr. Sharon M. Weaver is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling,

Rehabilitation, and Interpreter Training and Coordinator of the Rehabilitation and Disabilities
Undergraduate Program at Troy University. She holds a certificate in Rehabilitation and
Leadership Management. Her research focuses on enhancing programs for incarcerated women,
fostering independent living for individuals with significant disabilities, and advancing equity for
marginalized communities.
Dr. Margaret E. Shippen is a Professor of Special Education in the Department of Special
Education, Rehabilitation and Counseling at Auburn University. Her research interests include
social justice and improving outcomes for individuals with disabilities and the incarcerated.
Dr. Nicholas C. Derzis is a Clinical Professor of Rehabilitation and Disabilities Studies in
the Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation and Counseling at Auburn University. He has
conducted prison research and outreach for nearly two decades and coordinates the undergraduate
program in Rehabilitation and Disability Studies.
Dr. Angela L. Hall earned her PhD in Rehabilitation and Special Education from Auburn
University in 2016. After finishing her PhD, she worked for Auburn as a Research Professor until
coming to Alabama State University as Assistant Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation
Studies in January of 2020. Dr. Hall has previous work experience as a school counselor and as a
transition specialist inside of the Alabama Prison System. Her research interests include how
congenital versus acquired impacts disability identity development and incarcerated women with
undiagnosed disabilities.
73
S. WEAVER ET AL.

Dr. Christine Fleming, FODAC Director of Program Development, develops and supports
programs to further the organization’s mission – to provide medical equipment for those in need at
little to no cost. Dr. Fleming has worked in the rehabilitation profession for over thirty years. Dr.
Fleming previously worked at Auburn University where she successfully secured over eight
million dollars in grants and contracts. Christine earned her PhD in Rehabilitation and Special
Education from Auburn University, MS in Rehabilitation Counseling from Boston University, and
BA in Psychology/Sociology from Washington & Jefferson College. She kept her Rehabilitation
Counselor Certification (CRC) since 1990.
Dr. Rebecca S. Curtis is a retired Associate Professor from the Department of Special
Education, Rehabilitation and Counseling at Auburn University. She previously served as Lead
Faculty for Rehabilitation programs and program coordinator for the master’s and doctoral
programs. Dr. Curtis is a qualitative research expert. She conducted research in the prison system
for multiple projects.

ORCID

Sharon M. Weaver, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9271-3045

Margaret E. Shippen, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6583-9072
Nicholas C. Derzis, https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5839-4948
Dr. Angela L. Hall, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6032-1138
Christine Fleming, https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2470-9280

74