by Michael Dean Thompson

The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan organization that issues fact-based reports to help guide Congress and federal agencies, was tasked with reviewing the federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) efforts to eliminate sexual assaults via compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).

The resulting report published in May 2026 found three primary challenges in the PREA compliance audit process: audit goals, audit contracts, and auditor success. Substantive change in correctional practices and technologies has occurred since the 2012 implementation of PREA standards, yet there have been no corresponding updates. As such, the report finds that an additional review of the PREA standards could serve to strengthen prevention, detection and response to sexual abuse in correctional facilities across the United States.

PREA Statistics

In order to retrieve data about sexual assaults within the BOP, the GAO pulled information from several sources. Most of the data originated from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics. However, the most recent data available is for 2022. For the years 2021 and 2022, the data is still listed as preliminary and subject to revisions according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, though the GAO report fails to identify why that might be. Additional data was acquired from the BOP Office of Internal Affairs’ case load management system of March 2025. Its data stretched back to 2020.

In general, the number of sexual abuse allegations rose between 2014, the first year of available data, and 2022. That year had the highest number of sexual abuse allegations concerning BOP employees assaulting incarcerated persons (584), which matched the number of allegations of incarcerated persons against other incarcerated persons, in which case was the second highest year (2021 had 603). In all, there were 8,525 allegations during these nine years.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics data segregates allegations into three groups: Substantiated, Unsubstantiated, and Unfounded. The Unsubstantiated allegations relate to those where there was not enough evidence to support whether or not the alleged event occurred. Accordingly, Unfounded claims are those believed to have been a false accusation. There were nearly three times as many Unfounded claims than Substantiated claims (14% versus 5%, respectively). The report sought to explain the discrepancy via a survey question given to a small number of volunteer respondents (44 incarcerated persons and 19 guards).

The report does not give the exact questions asked. However, 86% (38/44) of incarcerated respondents said they believed false reports occurred. They appear to have then asked respondents why they thought a false accusation might be made. No mention was made as to whether any respondents were asked the corresponding negative questions, whether true accusations might have been found false and why.

Interestingly, the number of Unfounded claims against BOP employees was remarkably small. Just 6 of 3,912 claims recorded by the Office of Internal Affairs were Unfounded, roughly 0.15%. Nevertheless, the report says false allegations against employees can be detrimental to facility operations. Furthermore, “Some employees expressed frustration that false allegations waste the resources spent on following the PREA protocols.” An additional contrast between accusations against BOP employees versus other incarcerated persons is that allegations against BOP employees were Substantiated at nearly double the rate of accusations against other incarcerated persons (9% versus 5%, respectively).

Audit Goals

Audits of BOP facilities currently review whether or not the facility is compliant with established PREA standards. As a BOP official who oversees the audit process told GAO representatives, the audit is designed to check to see if the prison has the necessary toolset to detect the abuse. The audit does not detect the abuse itself while the auditors are onsite. Therefore, it is possible to be found fully compliant with PREA standards even as sexual abuse is rampant at the facility.

Audits of the FCI Dublin facility in 2021 and 2022 found it 100% compliant with PREA standards. Yet, as PLN reported, 10 FCI Dublin employees were later charged with sexual abuse for conduct committed during that period. Nine of those employees were convicted. The employees included a Warden and a Chaplain. See: PLN, Aug. 2026, p.24.] In a separate segment, the report points out that one of the employees charged was responsible at the time for training supervisors on federal laws regarding prison rape. At FCC Coleman, the government had to settle a lawsuit brought by 15 women that accused eight employees of sexual abuse, despite the facility’s 100% compliance in audits from 2012 through 2020.

Audit Contracts

Current contracts are awarded on a flat fee basis, irrespective of the size of the facility being audited or the amount of time required to perform the audit. And even though the BOP recommends some units have up to three auditors while others need just one, the current contract pays the same in either case. Neither will the contract pay more if an auditor finds noncompliance issues that require additional work for the auditor, necessitating more time. BOP claims that not paying extra for the noncompliance corrective actions disincentivizes false findings. As such, however, the current policy incentivizes auditors to ignore findings.

BOP has never performed a risk assessment with regard to its auditor contract requirements, incentives, and oversight mechanisms to ensure audits are performed according to the handbook.

Auditor Access

Some auditors have reported they do not have the necessary access to BOP records in order to conduct audits according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and PREA Resource Center. After the PREA Management Office became concerned with the performance of a contractor for PREA audits, Corrections Consulting Services, it reviewed audit information and discovered documentation with critical information redacted and that BOP had not permitted auditors access to the data. The PREA Resource Center reported similar findings that BOP “did not always allow auditors to retain and upload documents.”

According to the BOP, there are legal and ethical requirements that prevent auditors from leaving a site with anything more than their notes after the onsite phase. Such limits, however, prevent reviewers from being able to confirm audit results.

Trends and Culture

One of the more striking revelations from the report is that the BOP does not evaluate trends of sexual assault reports at the facility or system levels. Furthermore, their failure to provide uniform, detailed data prevents further analysis. While the 2024 PREA report provided significant detail regarding sexual assault allegations where another incarcerated person is the perpetrator, very little detail was provided where a BOP employee was the perpetrator even though the office of Internal Affairs collects the relevant data. Publishing more data would increase transparency and simultaneously support trend analysis, which would help prevent and address sexual abuse.

The DOJ began conducting the Women’s Institution Cultural Assessments in 2022. They are conducted every two years and analyze a facility’s operations, programming, and service gaps. In addition, they anonymously survey every incarcerated woman about sexual safety, reporting culture, and employee responsiveness. It is a process that is reported to have positive results. Yet, there are no plans to conduct cultural assessments at men’s facilities.

Conclusion

Based upon their findings, GAO makes the following recommendations for the Attorney General:

1) [I]dentify options that would enhance the ability of PREA audits to detect ongoing sexual abuse.

2) [E]nsure the BOP Director assesses and responds to risks that BOP’s current contracting approach may result in audits that do not meet the requirements of the PREA Auditor Handbook.

3) [E]nsure the BOP Director evaluates BOP’s use of the Justice Enterprise File Sharing system to provide PREA auditors with sufficient access to audit information.

4) [E]nsure the BOP Director routinely analyzes facility-level data to identify trends and other findings that may require targeted action.

5) [E]nsure the BOP Director publishes uniform facility-level data in its Annual PREA Report for allegations where an incarcerated individual was the perpetrator and allegations where a BOP employee was the perpetrator.

6) [E]nsure the BOP Director includes men’s facilities in future cultural assessments.

7) [R]eview the PREA Standards to identify opportunities to strengthen prevention, detection, and response to sexual abuse in correctional facilities.  

Source: Federal Prisons: Improvements Needed to Prevent, Detect, and Address Sexual Abuse (GAO-26-107343)

[Note to Readers: It is curious to note that the report does not mention President Trump’s December 2025 defunding of the National PREA Resource Center, which is charged with providing tools and training, among other things, to the nation’s prisons regarding PREA compliance. It is likely the report was finalized prior to that date, which would somewhat explain the omission. Nevertheless, the National PREA Resource Center was a major contributor to the GAO report. One must wonder how that will change future reports, if any are performed. Likewise, the defunding will likely have negative impact on the ability of prisons and jails to combat sexual assault in the future.]

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login