skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 242314 Find in a Library
Title: Anti-Fraternization Policies and Their Utility in Preventing Staff Sexual Abuse in Custody
Author(s): Brenda V. Smith; Melissa C. Loomis
Corporate Author: American University, Washington College of Law
United States of America
Date Published: May 2013
Page Count: 19
Sponsoring Agency: American University, Washington College of Law
Washington, DC 20016
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, DC 20531
National Council on Crime and Delinquency
Washington, DC 20005
National PREA Resource Ctr
Grant Number: 2010-RP-BX-K001
Sale Source: National PREA Resource Ctr
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Report (Grant Sponsored)
Format: Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This report from the National PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) Resource Center presents summaries of cases in which prison anti-fraternization policies were both upheld and not upheld by the courts.
Abstract: Anti-fraternization policies have been established by correctional authorities to ensure the safety of corrections officers and the overall safety and security of correctional facilities. This report presents summaries of cases in which prison anti-fraternization policies were both upheld and not upheld by the courts. The policies are aimed at prohibiting correctional employees from “engaging in relationships, romantic, financial, or otherwise, with current or former inmates and their families.” When employees challenge these policies, they usually do so under their first amendment right to freedom of association, claiming that these policies violate their constitutional right to freedom of association or privacy. As reflected in the cases highlighted in this report, the courts usually find that the anti-fraternization policies do not violate correctional employees’ constitutional rights, and that correctional facilities’ interests in preserving security and order are of greater importance than protecting the romantic relationships of their employees. The report presents an overview of 23 cases from 10 of the 12 circuit courts in which the anti-fraternization policies of correctional agencies were upheld, and 3 cases from 3 of the 12 circuit courts in which the courts did not uphold the anti-fraternization policies of correctional agencies.
Main Term(s): Corrections policies
Index Term(s): Corrections agencies; Corrections management; Corrections personnel evaluation; Inmate staff relations; Interpersonal relations; Staff client relations
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.