Violence And Sexual Assault In Prison

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

If you or someone you love is being threatened, assaulted, or sexually abused in a federal prison, there are five separate reporting routes, and the Bureau of Prisons is required by regulation to accept a report through any of them — including one made by you, from outside, on the incarcerated person’s behalf. This page sets out what each route is, what protection the law requires once a report is made, what protective custody actually costs, and what damages remedies realistically exist.

Nothing here is a promise about what will happen. The Bureau’s obligations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act are real and enforceable, and they are also routinely under-performed. What follows is the law as it stands, so you can tell the difference between what is supposed to happen and what is happening.

How to report sexual abuse in a federal prison — the five routes

There is no single hotline that solves this. Federal regulation requires the Bureau to maintain multiple ways in, and the differences between them matter: who can use each one, whether it can be anonymous, and whether the report stays inside the institution.

The Department of Justice’s national PREA standards require the Bureau to “provide multiple internal ways for inmates to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment,” to provide at least one way to report to an entity outside the agency that can forward the report while letting the person stay anonymous, and to accept reports “made verbally, in writing, anonymously, and from third parties,” documenting any verbal report promptly (28 C.F.R. § 115.51). Separately, the Bureau must “establish a method to receive third-party reports” and publish how to make one (28 C.F.R. § 115.54).

Route	Who can use it	How it works	What the source says
Tell any staff member, verbally or in writing	The incarcerated person	Every Bureau employee must report “immediately” any knowledge, suspicion, or information about sexual abuse or harassment — including abuse at another agency’s facility — plus any retaliation and any staff neglect that contributed	28 C.F.R. § 115.61(a); the facility must forward every allegation, “including third-party and anonymous reports,” to its designated investigators, § 115.61(e)
Electronic Request to Staff, routed to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General	The incarcerated person	Submitted through the Request to Staff Service in TRULINCS. Current BOP policy states expressly: “Inmates may report allegations of sexual abuse and harassment directly to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General via the Request to Staff Service”	PS 5511.08 Inmate Request to Staff at p. 2 (eff. 19 Mar. 2026) (PDF)
DOJ Office of the Inspector General hotline, 1‑800‑869‑4499, or the OIG online complaint form	Anyone — a parent, spouse, friend, or the person inside	BOP’s own internal-affairs policy states the OIG hotline “is available to anyone wishing to report Department of Justice staff misconduct.” Reports can be made online at oig.justice.gov/hotline	PS 1210.26 Office of Internal Affairs at p. 5 (eff. 26 Feb. 2026) (PDF)
An outside victim-advocacy or rape-crisis organization	The incarcerated person; addresses and toll-free numbers must be supplied by the facility	The facility must give mailing addresses and telephone numbers, including toll-free hotlines where available, for local, state, or national victim-advocacy or rape-crisis organizations, and enable communication “in as confidential a manner as possible” — after telling the person how far that confidentiality goes	28 C.F.R. § 115.53
A written administrative remedy (grievance) alleging sexual abuse	The incarcerated person, or a third party filing on their behalf	No time limit applies; no informal-resolution step is required; a grievance alleging sexual abuse cannot be rejected as untimely; and it may not be routed to the staff member it accuses	PS 1330.18 Administrative Remedy Program at pp. 13–14, implementing 28 C.F.R. § 115.52 (PDF)

Two practical notes on that last row, because it is the route families most often ask about and most often get wrong.

A third party really can file. The regulation says third parties — “fellow inmates, staff members, family members, attorneys, and outside advocates” — must be permitted both to assist and to file a request for administrative remedy on someone’s behalf where sexual abuse is alleged. The Bureau’s implementation adds that the facility may require the alleged victim’s written, signed agreement as a condition of processing it, and that any refusal must be documented with the person’s signature. The response goes to the incarcerated person, and any later appeal must be filed by that person personally, though they may receive help preparing it (PS 1330.18 at pp. 14–15). This third-party route exists only for sexual-abuse allegations. For every other issue, a person must file for themselves.

There is an emergency track. Where a grievance alleges “a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse,” the person marks the BP-9 “Emergency” and explains in writing why. If the local Administrative Remedy Coordinator agrees it meets the criteria, an expedited BP-9 response must be provided within 48 hours, with best efforts to respond to a BP-10 and BP-11 within five calendar days (PS 1330.18 at pp. 15–16). Separately, an allegation whose disclosure inside the institution would endanger the person can be sent directly to the Regional Director as a “sensitive” filing under 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(1) — but the expedited PREA timelines do not apply to sensitive filings, so the two tracks are a choice, not a package.

What PREA is — and what it is not

The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, now codified at 34 U.S.C. §§ 30301–30309, directed the Attorney General to adopt national standards to detect, prevent, reduce, and punish prison rape. Those standards were published as 28 C.F.R. part 115 and, by statute, apply immediately to the federal Bureau of Prisons. The regulation is the binding legal authority; the Bureau’s own program statement is agency policy implementing it, not law. Our standing explainer on the Bureau’s implementation is at PREA and sexual abuse prevention.

PREA is not a cause of action. It does not, by itself, let a person sue for money because a facility fell short of a standard. What it does is create a detailed, auditable set of obligations that can be enforced through the Bureau’s own processes, cited in litigation brought under other legal theories, and used to show a court or a warden exactly which requirement was not met. That is a narrower tool than most people expect, and a sharper one than most people use.

One structural obligation is worth knowing about because families ask where the numbers come from. Congress requires the Bureau of Justice Statistics to carry out, for each calendar year, a comprehensive statistical review of the incidence and effects of prison rape, drawn from a sample of at least 10 percent of federal, state, and county prisons and from surveys of current and former prisoners, with an Attorney General report to Congress due by June 30 each year (34 U.S.C. § 30303). The Bureau must separately make its own aggregated sexual-abuse data public at least annually, with personal identifiers removed, and retain the underlying data for at least ten years (28 C.F.R. § 115.89). When you see a prevalence figure quoted anywhere, ask which of those two sources it came from and what year it covers. We do not publish prevalence estimates that are not traceable to BJS or to the Bureau’s own published data.

What counts as sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and voyeurism

The definitions matter because they decide which obligations switch on. 28 C.F.R. § 115.6 sets them out, and the single most important distinction is between conduct by another incarcerated person and conduct by staff.

Between incarcerated people, the listed acts count as sexual abuse “if the victim does not consent, is coerced into such act by overt or implied threats of violence, or is unable to consent or refuse.” The acts include penetration however slight, oral contact, penetration by a hand, finger, object, or instrument, and “any other intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or the buttocks of another person, excluding contact incidental to a physical altercation.”

By a staff member, contractor, or volunteer, the same acts count “with or without consent of the inmate.” There is no such thing as consent to sexual contact with staff under this regulation. The definition also reaches any attempt, threat, or request by staff to engage in that conduct, and voyeurism — defined as invading privacy for reasons unrelated to official duties, such as peering at someone using a toilet, requiring exposure of buttocks, genitals, or breasts, or taking images of a naked body or of someone performing bodily functions.

Sexual harassment is a separate, lower-threshold category: repeated and unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or derogatory or offensive verbal comments, gestures, or actions by one incarcerated person toward another; and, from staff, repeated verbal comments or gestures of a sexual nature, “including demeaning references to gender, sexually suggestive or derogatory comments about body or clothing, or obscene language or gestures.”

That last item is the one people most often decide is not worth reporting. Under § 115.61(a) it is reportable, and staff who learn of it must report it immediately.

Screening: what the Bureau is supposed to know before anyone is housed

Risk screening is where a great many bad outcomes are decided, and it is one of the few points where a family can usefully intervene early. Under 28 C.F.R. § 115.41, everyone must be assessed for risk of being sexually abused and for risk of being sexually abusive, at intake and again on transfer to another facility, using an objective screening instrument. Intake screening “shall ordinarily take place within 72 hours of arrival,” a reassessment must occur within a set period not exceeding 30 days, and the risk level must be reassessed whenever a referral, request, incident, or new information bears on it.

The ten criteria the screening must consider, at minimum, include mental, physical, or developmental disability; age; physical build; whether the person has been incarcerated before; whether their criminal history is exclusively nonviolent; prior sex-offense convictions; whether the person is or is perceived to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or gender nonconforming; prior sexual victimization; and the person’s own perception of their vulnerability. Critically, § 115.41(h) provides that a person may not be disciplined for refusing to answer, or for not answering fully, the questions about disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, prior victimization, or perceived vulnerability.

Two Bureau policies reinforce this at the institution level. The social intake interview must be conducted in private, and the interviewer must review the presentence report and the central file “for any documentation indicating the inmate has a history of sexually aggressive behavior or has recently been the victim of a sexual assault,” and if either appears, must “immediately forward a copy of the Intake Screening Form and any other comments to Psychology Services and Correctional Services” (PS 5295.01 Intake Screening at p. 2, eff. 3 Sept. 2026, PDF). And the reissued medical policy lists “[a]ny recent Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) history” as an item the mandatory intake health screening must cover — a screening that “cannot be waived,” and after which someone who refuses “will not be housed in the general population until screening is completed” (PS 6031.06 Patient Care at p. 19, eff. 22 June 2026, PDF).

If a prior victimization or a documented vulnerability exists and is in the presentence report, it is far more likely to reach the screener than if it lives only in a family’s memory. That is one of several reasons the accuracy of the PSR matters long after sentencing — a point we develop on how to prepare for prison and the intake process.

What is supposed to happen after a report

Three obligations attach immediately, and none of them depends on the person naming the abuser or cooperating with an investigation.

Immediate protective action. “When an agency learns that an inmate is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse, it shall take immediate action to protect the inmate” (28 C.F.R. § 115.62). That is the whole regulation — one sentence, no qualifiers, no discretion about whether to act.

Emergency medical and mental-health care, at no cost. Victims “shall receive timely, unimpeded access to emergency medical treatment and crisis intervention services,” scoped by the professional judgment of medical and mental-health practitioners. Where medically appropriate they must be offered timely information about and access to emergency contraception and prophylaxis against sexually transmitted infections. And “[t]reatment services shall be provided to the victim without financial cost and regardless of whether the victim names the abuser or cooperates with any investigation” (28 C.F.R. § 115.82). If no practitioner is on duty, security staff must take preliminary protective steps and immediately notify one. This is a specific, named exception to the ordinary inmate copayment rules, and it is worth citing by section if a co-pay is charged.

An investigation that does not go to the accused. Where staff involvement is alleged, the matter “may not be investigated by either staff alleged to be involved or by staff under their supervision,” and allegations of physical abuse by staff are referred to the Office of Internal Affairs (PS 1330.18 at p. 14). Under current internal-affairs policy, physical or sexual abuse of a person in custody is a Classification 1 allegation — the most serious tier, covering conduct that would be a prosecutable offense — and Classification 1 matters are referred to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General for review within 48 hours (PS 1210.26 at pp. 3, 6–7). If an incarcerated person alleges physical or sexual abuse by staff and has not had a medical examination, the warden “must arrange an immediate, confidential medical examination” and forward the results to internal affairs; the person may decline, and the declination is documented (PS 1210.26 at p. 6). OIG may refer criminal matters to the Department’s Civil Rights Division for prosecution under the Sexual Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq. (PS 1210.26 at p. 7).

One provision in that same 2026 policy is worth quoting because it addresses the thing people fear most — that no one will believe them. Consistent with PREA, “the credibility of an alleged victim, suspect, or witness will be assessed on an individual basis and will not be determined by the person’s status as an inmate or staff member,” and “victims of sexual assault will not be required to provide an affidavit” (PS 1210.26 at p. 9).

Retaliation: the 90-day monitoring rule

Fear of retaliation is the reason most incidents go unreported, and it is the one place where the standards are unusually concrete. Under 28 C.F.R. § 115.67, the Bureau must have a policy protecting anyone who reports or cooperates with an investigation, and must designate which staff or departments are charged with monitoring retaliation. It must employ “multiple protection measures” — housing changes or transfers for victims or abusers, removing an alleged abuser from contact with the victim, and emotional-support services.

Then the specific part: for at least 90 days after a report of sexual abuse, the Bureau must monitor the conduct and treatment of both the reporter and the person reported to have been abused, watching for changes suggesting retaliation, and “act promptly to remedy any such retaliation.” The items it should track are named: disciplinary reports, housing or program changes, and — for staff — negative performance reviews or reassignments. For incarcerated people the monitoring must include periodic status checks, and it must continue past 90 days if the initial monitoring shows a continuing need. The obligation ends only if the Bureau determines the allegation is unfounded.

Two related protections close the loop. A report of sexual abuse “made in good faith based upon a reasonable belief that the alleged conduct occurred shall not constitute falsely reporting an incident or lying, even if an investigation does not establish evidence sufficient to substantiate the allegation” (28 C.F.R. § 115.78(f)). And the Bureau may discipline someone for filing a sexual-abuse grievance “only where the agency demonstrates that the inmate filed the grievance in bad faith” (PS 1330.18 at p. 16). If an incident report appears in the 90 days after a report, the timing itself is evidence, and § 115.67(c) is the section that says so.

Protective custody, the SHU, and what it costs

Protective custody in the federal system usually means the Special Housing Unit, and it is not a neutral solution. Understanding the trade is the difference between asking for it and being placed in it.

The regulation lists four grounds for placing someone in administrative detention as a protection case, and the first is stated in the Bureau’s own words: “You were the victim of an inmate assault, or are being threatened by other inmates, including threats of harm if you do not act in a certain way, for example, threats of harm unless you engage in sexual activity.” The others are being an informant or perceived as one; refusing to enter general population because of pressures or threats; and staff concluding on evidence that safety would be seriously jeopardized (28 C.F.R. § 541.27; PS 5270.12 Special Housing Units at p. 11, PDF).

The review structure is specific. A warden or designee — ordinarily the captain — must review a protection placement within two workdays. A hearing follows within seven calendar days of placement, and the person may request a further hearing at any time if they believe continued placement is unnecessary (28 C.F.R. § 541.28). After every 30 calendar days of continuous placement, the Segregation Review Official formally reviews the status at a hearing the person can attend. A multidisciplinary team including the executive team, captain, unit managers, health services administrator, and chief psychologist meets weekly to review the unit’s population and identify what is preventing a return to less restrictive housing (PS 5270.12 at p. 10). Placement can also be challenged through the administrative remedy program.

Where PREA applies, the constraints are tighter still. A person at high risk of sexual victimization may not be placed in involuntary segregated housing “unless an assessment of all available alternatives has been made, and a determination has been made that there is no available alternative means of separation from likely abusers.” If the assessment cannot be done immediately, the facility may hold the person in involuntary segregation for less than 24 hours while it completes it. Such an assignment lasts only until an alternative separation can be arranged and “shall not ordinarily exceed a period of 30 days,” with a review every 30 days. Access to programs, privileges, education, and work must be preserved “to the extent possible,” and any restriction must be documented — what was limited, for how long, and why (28 C.F.R. § 115.43).

The costs are real and should be named. SHU placement generally means loss of programming, of work and pay, and of ordinary movement — the practical consequences we set out at solitary confinement and special housing units and protective custody. There is one further cost that is easy to miss: under PS 5511.08 the electronic Request to Staff Service is not available to inmates housed in a Protective Custody Unit, and exempted inmates and PCU inmates “must submit a paper request via the BP-A0148, Inmate Request to Staff” (PS 5511.08 at p. 2). Protective housing can therefore slow down the very mechanism a person uses to advocate for themselves.

Separation orders and transfer

When the threat is verified, Bureau policy contemplates moving people apart rather than warehousing the person at risk. PS 5270.12 states that when someone is placed in administrative detention for an investigative period and the threat is verified, “correctional officials should seek alternative housing, by transferring the threatened inmate either to the general population of another institution or to a special-purpose housing unit for inmates who face similar threats, with conditions comparable to those of the general population.” More restrictive conditions are reserved for cases where even a special-purpose unit is insufficient, and such a placement “should be regularly reviewed to monitor any medical or mental health deterioration and to determine whether the security risks have subsided” (PS 5270.12 at p. 11).

The durable version of “keep these two people apart” is a separation assignment in the Central Inmate Monitoring system. Separation data travels with the person: intake screening requires staff to pull the system-generated Intake Screening Form and “thoroughly review the CIM Clearance and Separatee Data to identify any separatees currently housed in the institution,” and ordinarily a person may not be transported with or confined with someone from whom they are to be separated. Where a scheduled bus or flight would put separatees together, staff must remove one of them from that transport (PS 5295.01 at pp. 3–4). This is the mechanism to ask about by name; see central inmate monitoring and separatees.

A transfer request runs through the unit team and, ultimately, the Designation and Sentence Computation Center. The governing statute directs the Bureau to place a person “as close as practicable to the prisoner’s primary residence, and to the extent practicable, in a facility within 500 driving miles of that residence,” subject to bed availability, security designation, programmatic needs, medical and mental-health needs, faith-based requests, court recommendations, and “other security concerns of the Bureau of Prisons” — and it also provides that a designation “is not reviewable by any court” (18 U.S.C. § 3621(b)). In practice that means safety-based transfer requests are argued to the Bureau, in writing, with documentation, not litigated. We cover the mechanics at prison transfers and security designation and custody classification.

Physical violence that is not sexual

Assault and fighting are handled through the discipline system rather than PREA, and the code numbers are worth knowing because they tell you how the Bureau is characterizing an event. Under PS 5270.09 Inmate Discipline Program (PDF), the relevant prohibited acts are:

Code	Prohibited act	Severity level	Source
100	Killing	Greatest	PS 5270.09 at p. 45
101	Assaulting any person — used at this level “only when serious physical injury has been attempted or accomplished”	Greatest	PS 5270.09 at p. 45
114	Sexual assault of any person, involving non-consensual touching by force or threat of force	Greatest	PS 5270.09 at p. 46
201	Fighting with another person	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 47
203	Threatening another with bodily harm or any other offense	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 47
205	Engaging in sexual acts	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 47
206	Making sexual proposals or threats to another	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 47
224	Assaulting any person — used “when less serious physical injury or contact has been attempted or accomplished”	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 49
225	Stalking another person through repeated behavior which harasses, alarms, or annoys, after having been previously warned to stop	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 49
229	Sexual assault of any person, involving non-consensual touching without force or threat of force	High	PS 5270.09 at p. 49

The distinction between Codes 114 and 229 is force. The distinction between 101 and 224 is the seriousness of the injury. Codes 114 and 229 were created by the 2011 revision of the discipline program, which the policy’s own summary describes as establishing “Greatest and High severity level prohibited acts for sexual assault of any person” (PS 5270.09 at p. 3).

The trap here is that a person who is assaulted and defends themselves can be charged. Bureau policy states directly that where an inmate is assaulted and swings back at a staff member trying to break it up, “the inmate can be charged with fighting (Code 201)” (PS 5270.09 at p. 18). A victim who ends up with an incident report is common enough that it should be planned for, not treated as a surprise. What to do about it is covered at inmate discipline proceedings and incident reports.

Damages: the FTCA and Bivens reality

Families almost always ask whether they can sue. The honest answer is that two doors exist, one is narrow and one has been closing for a decade, and both run through paperwork that has to be right.

The Federal Tort Claims Act is the route for negligence — a claim that the Bureau failed to protect someone it had a statutory duty to protect. Congress made the Bureau responsible, “under the direction of the Attorney General,” to “provide for the protection, instruction, and discipline of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States” (18 U.S.C. § 4042(a)(3)). Before suit, a claimant must present the claim to the agency, and the claim must be “finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by certified or registered mail.” If the agency does not decide within six months, the claimant may at their option treat that silence as a denial and sue. And the suit cannot demand more than the sum stated in the administrative claim, except on newly discovered evidence or intervening facts (28 U.S.C. § 2675). Getting the dollar figure right on the administrative form is therefore not clerical. See tort claims and the Bureau’s FTCA policy.

A Bivens action — a damages suit against an individual federal officer for a constitutional violation — is now very hard to bring in a new setting. In Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the Supreme Court held that a court “may not fashion a Bivens remedy if Congress already has provided, or has authorized the Executive to provide, an alternative remedial structure,” and that the two-step inquiry “often resolves to a single question: whether there is any reason to think that Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy.” The Court added that where the Executive has created a remedial process it finds sufficient, “the courts cannot second-guess that calibration by superimposing a Bivens remedy” — “even if a court independently concludes that the Government’s procedures are ‘not as effective as an individual damages remedy.'” The Bureau’s administrative remedy program is exactly the kind of alternative structure defendants point to.

Two PLRA rules govern both doors. No action about prison conditions may be brought “until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted,” and no federal civil action may be brought for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody “without a prior showing of physical injury or the commission of a sexual act (as defined in section 2246 of title 18)” (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), (e)). That express carve-out for sexual acts is one of the few places where the statute treats this category of harm differently, and it is a reason the underlying grievance record has to be built carefully and early. See prison grievances.

The constitutional standard: Farmer v. Brennan

The Eighth Amendment standard for failure to protect comes from Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), a case that arose from the sexual assault of a federal prisoner. It has two parts, and both must be satisfied.

Objectively, the person “must show that he is incarcerated under conditions posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Subjectively, the Court held that “a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” That is deliberate indifference, and it is a demanding standard — closer to criminal recklessness than to negligence.

Three refinements matter in practice. First, knowledge can be proved circumstantially: “a factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Second, an official cannot escape liability by showing that, while aware of an obvious substantial risk, “he did not know that the complainant was especially likely to be assaulted by the specific prisoner who eventually committed the assault.” Third, and cutting the other way, officials who actually knew of a substantial risk “may be found free from liability if they responded reasonably to the risk, even if the harm ultimately was not averted” — the duty is to ensure “reasonable safety,” not to guarantee that nothing happens.

Farmer also held that a prisoner seeking injunctive relief need not “await a tragic event such as an actual assault before obtaining relief.” That is why a documented, dated, specific written warning to staff — before anything happens — is the most valuable single document in this area. It converts an argument about what officials should have known into a record of what they were told.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The record is built before the incident, not after. When we work a safety problem, the first thing we look for is whether anyone put the threat in writing — a Request to Staff naming the specific fear, a letter from family to the warden, a psychology contact note. What families most often have instead is a phone call and a memory. Under Farmer, that difference is the case. Christopher Zoukis brings a perspective few federal defense professionals can: he served roughly a decade in the federal Bureau of Prisons, wrote award-winning journalism and books from inside, and then earned his J.D. at UC Davis School of Law.

What changed recently in BOP violence and PREA policy

Three 2026 reissues changed material facts on this subject, and pages that have not been updated since 2025 will state them wrongly.

Policy	Change	Effective	What it replaced
PS 5511.08 Inmate Request to Staff	Requests to staff are now submitted through the electronic Request to Staff Service in TRULINCS; the paper BP‑A0148 becomes the exception, for people the warden exempts and for those in a Protective Custody Unit. Adds the express provision that allegations of sexual abuse and harassment may be reported directly to the DOJ Office of the Inspector General through that service. Limits requests to one per department per day; response ordinarily within 30 calendar days	19 Mar. 2026	PS 5511.07 Request to Staff, Inmate (14 Aug. 1998)
PS 1210.26 Office of Internal Affairs	Retitled from “Internal Affairs, Office of”; clarifies legal authorities; states the OIG hotline is available to anyone; confirms sexual-assault victims are not required to provide an affidavit and that credibility is not determined by inmate-or-staff status, citing PREA at 34 U.S.C. §§ 30301–30309	26 Feb. 2026	PS 1210.25 Internal Affairs, Office of (1 Aug. 2023)
PS 6031.06 Patient Care	Mandatory, non-waivable intake health screening that expressly covers “[a]ny recent Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) history”; person who refuses is not housed in general population until it is completed	22 June 2026	PS 6031.05 CN‑2 (14 Mar. 2025)

One citation problem survives in current policy and is worth knowing about if you are reading the source documents. PS 1330.18, dated 6 January 2014, still cites PREA as “42 U.S.C. § 15606” and “42 U.S.C. § 15607.” Those provisions were editorially transferred to Title 34 and are now 34 U.S.C. §§ 30301–30309. The substance is unchanged; the older citation form simply reflects the policy’s 2014 date. The 2026 internal-affairs policy uses the current Title 34 citation.

Where people get stuck after reporting an assault

“I reported it and nothing happened.” Ask which route was used and get it in writing. A verbal report to a staff member creates a documentation duty under § 115.61(a) but leaves the family with no paper. If the institution has not responded, the next moves are an emergency-marked BP-9 where imminent risk is alleged, a sensitive filing to the Regional Director where disclosure inside the institution is itself dangerous, and an OIG hotline report from outside — which is available to anyone under PS 1210.26 at p. 5.

“He’s in the SHU and he didn’t do anything.” That is the ordinary shape of a protection case, and the review calendar is the lever: two workdays for the warden’s review, seven calendar days for a hearing, 30 days for each SRO review, and weekly multidisciplinary review of the unit. If those reviews are not happening, that is a specific, provable failure to raise, not a general complaint.

“He doesn’t want to report it.” That is common and it is not irrational. Two facts are worth passing along: treatment is provided “regardless of whether the victim names the abuser or cooperates with any investigation” (§ 115.82(d)), and a good-faith report that is not substantiated is not a false report for disciplinary purposes (§ 115.78(f)). A person can get care without triggering an investigation they do not want.

“Can I do anything from out here?” Yes — more than most families realize. You can call the OIG hotline. You can file an administrative remedy on the person’s behalf where sexual abuse is alleged, subject to their written consent. You can write to the warden. You can raise the separation-order question by name. What you cannot do is file the appeals; those must be filed personally. Start at for families and staying in contact.

Talk to us about a violence or PREA case

Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C. is a boutique federal criminal defense and appellate firm founded in 2019, with offices in Columbia and Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, serving clients nationwide. We handle Bureau of Prisons administrative advocacy, administrative remedies, and post-conviction litigation in federal courts across the country. If someone you love is at risk, the useful first step is usually to get the facts and the timeline written down while they are fresh. Call (843) 620-1100 or use our contact page. See also federal prison consulting: solving problems inside.

Frequently Asked Questions About Violence and Assault in Prison

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026