U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Cost Impact Analysis: Final Report

NCJ Number
238774
Date Published
June 2010
Length
414 pages
Annotation
This document contains the final report of the cost impact analysis on the implementation of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission standards.
Abstract
Major highlights from this report on the cost of implementing the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) standards include the following: of the 41 standards, 12 have negligible or non-existent cost impacts; 8 out of 10 sites visited for this report demonstrated compliance with the standards; 26 standards have minimal to moderate cost impacts, along with varying degrees of compliance; 3 standards account for 99 percent of all upfront costs, while 1 standard accounts for 96 percent of all upfront costs; and 2 standards account for 76 percent of all ongoing costs relating primarily to increased staffing requirements. The findings also contain information on the compliance rates of the standards, with compliance with the standards ranging from a high of 88 percent at one site to a low of 38 percent, with the average compliance rate being 63 percent. In addition, the report indicates that lockups have the compliance rates, 74 percent, while jails have the lowest, 61 percent. This final report presents the results of a cost impact analysis on the implementation of the NPREC standards at 49 sites across the country. Five types of facilities were included in the review: State prison systems, State and local juvenile facilities, community corrections, local/county jails, and police lockups. The analysis assessed the following: costs specific to each standard, variations within the cost estimates, and implementation and compliance with each standard on a national level. Data for the analysis were obtained through on-site, face-to-face meetings with facility administrators at the 49 sites. Tables and appendixes