PREA 2015 Data
The following are definitions of Sexual Abuse, Non-Consensual Acts, Sexual Misconduct, and Sexual Harassment, per Department of Justice (DOJ) Survey of Sexual Violence (SSV):
Abusive Sexual Contact (Client-on-Client) - Contact of any person without their consent or of a person unable to consent or refuse. Contact between the penis and vagina or penis and anus including penetration, however slight; or contact between mouth and penis, vagina, or anus; or penetration of the anus or genital opening of another person by a hand, finger, or other object.
Nonconsensual Sexual Acts (Client-on-Client) - Contact of any person without their consent or of a person unable to consent or refuse. Intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person.
Sexual Harassment (Client-on-Client) - Repeated and unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or verbal comments, gestures, or actions of a derogatory or offensive sexual nature by one inmate directed toward another.
Staff Sexual Misconduct (Staff-on-Client) - Any behavior or act of a sexual nature directed toward an inmate by an employee, volunteer, official visitor, or agency representative. Romantic relationships between staff and inmates are included. Consensual or nonconsensual sexual acts include: intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire; or completed, attempted, threatened, or requested sexual acts; or occurrences of indecent exposure, invasion of privacy, or staff voyeurism for sexual gratification.
Staff Sexual Harassment (Staff-on-Client) - Repeated verbal statements, comments, or gestures of a sexual nature to a client by an employee, volunteer, contractor, official visitor, or agency representative, including: demeaning references to gender or derogatory comments about body or clothing; or profane or obscene language or gestures
ICCS hired its first PREA Coordinator in 2015 with an eye towards complete compliance with the standards and better education and training for both staff and clients. Due to this, statistical information going back is not as accurate. But when comparing the number of allegations in 2015 (15) to 2014 (7), it is impossible to ignore the increase in allegations. This seems to be a trend throughout corrections though as clients are receiving more education about PREA and knowledge of it is becoming more main stream.
Three new cameras were added to the Kendall Facility in 2015. These were added to give better views to two shorter hallways and a staircase that were largely in blind spots. In addition to these three cameras, a second PTZ (Point, Tilt, Zoom) camera replaced an older stationary camera in the courtyard and two cameras with fuzzy pictures were replaced with better functioning cameras. Multiple older cameras were also replaced with cameras with wider angles to increase the viewing area.
There were also numerous laundry room and utility closets that had their doors removed so that the interior of these rooms could be seen by anyone walking by, without anyone having the ability to close the door to hide from view.
The West Facility replaced all their cameras with higher definition cameras that also gave us more functionality. While the existing cameras were replaced, there were seven new cameras added. Two other camera placements were moved to give fuller views of different areas as well.
More improvements are being made to the Weld, Pueblo, and Montrose County facilities, but those changes are being made in 2016.
Upon reviewing the allegations for the Kendall Facility from 2015, all of the allegations occurred in areas where cameras cannot be placed (bathrooms, shower rooms, and living quarters). This is similar to years past. When examining each allegation separately, there does not appear to be an underlining theme that calls for any fundamental shift in the day to day operations of the facility.
At the West facility, each of the allegations differs in nature, showing no trend in security deficiencies.
At our Weld County facility, the nature of the unsubstantiated allegations made against staff members has shown a greater need for training and education.
Our Pueblo facility only had one unsubstantiated allegation, which has resulted in more supervision over newer staff members.
And our Montrose facility was allegation-free in all of 2015.
Looking at all these facilities combined, the most prevalent need appears to just be a greater amount of training provided to staff members. Our new PREA Coordinator has created a personalized training that is more specific to ICCS and each facility’s dynamics and layouts.