Staff Sexual Misconduct of Women on Parole: A Call for Trauma-Informed Social Work Action

Background/Purpose: The Prison Rape Elimination Act attempts to address staff sexual misconduct that occurs in correctional facilities and community supervision (e.g. probation and parole). However, national statistics and the majority of PREA training materials and research focus exclusively on staff sexual misconduct within prisons and jails. This gap limits the ability to identify and address staff sexual misconduct during community supervision. Thus, this qualitative study explored women’s experiences of staff sexual misconduct while they were on parole. The guiding research questions were the following: (1) how does staff sexual misconduct occur during parole?; (2) how do the dynamics of staff sexual misconduct impact women’s parole experiences?

Methods: A case study approach was used for this study, examining eleven incidents of staff sexual misconduct that women experienced during parole. These women participated in a class action lawsuit against a department of corrections for staff sexual misconduct during incarceration. A range of documents, including trial depositions, legal documents, personal correspondence, and the department’s investigation files for each victimization experience were reviewed. The data were analyzed using within and cross-case analysis by social work and legal researchers, using a case study protocol of how and when the victimization started, how it continued, how women reported, and how the department of corrections’ responded to reports. Emerging elements were reviewed amongst researchers until consensus was reached.   

Results: Across cases, similar dynamics of staff sexual misconduct occurred, and in particular, correctional officers used tactics that negatively impacted women’s parole experiences. First, women’s victimization began in prison, shortly before their release, and often officers offered tangible support (e.g. transportation, money) to facilitate the abuse. Second, the officers used women’s vulnerabilities for parole violation (e.g. offering alcohol/drugs when she has a substance use history) to continue the victimization. Third, women’s descriptions of victimization had dynamics similar to intimate partner violence. Mainly, women considered their experiences as relationships with a constant threat (and actual incidents of) the officers flexing their correctional-based power in ways that harmed them (e.g. setting women up to be sent back to prison on a parole violation). Lastly, women had a lack of guidelines on how to report their experiences of staff sexual misconduct specifically while on parole and received very little response by correctional professionals when they did report. In one case, a woman reported the victimization to her social worker, who failed to act upon this report and encouraged her to remain silent.

Implications: Staff sexual misconduct during parole has dynamics similar to interpersonal violence that are detrimental to women and impacts their parole status. While it is against department of corrections’ policies for officers to have any sexual contact with parolees, there is a lack of clear reporting guidelines and effective responses by staff. Social workers are a potential source of assistance for screening and reporting efforts, as well as larger efforts to prevent the continuation of this human rights abuse. Trauma-informed social work action is needed to improve conditions for women on parole.