Women in Solitary Confinement: Relationships,Pseudofamilies,and the Limits of Control

Abstract

Drawing on qualitative data from focus groups with correctional personnel in one of the nation’s largest women’s prisons, this study examines staff perceptions of how incarcerated women cope with long-term solitary confinement. We find that women’s strong ties to other women and their prison pseudofamilies may influence the behaviors that explain their placement and stays in solitary confinement. We find, too, that women are perceived to go to extreme lengths to build and maintain relationships with other women. The findings showcase unintended consequences of solitary confinement, raise questions about its effectiveness, and highlight the limits of institutional control.

Keywords

solitary confinement women pseudofamilies prison management correctional staff

During the get-tough era, correctional systems moved away from reform and rehabilitation and turned to punitive, control-oriented efforts to manage prison populations (King, 1999; Mears, 2016; Pratt, 2019; Ward & Werlich, 2003). A marked example of this shift has been the greater reliance on solitary confinement for establishing prison order and control (Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Kreager & Kruttschnitt, 2018). Solitary confinement was developed as a mechanism to manage the “worst of the worst”—violent individuals thought to pose significant threats to institutional safety and security (Briggs et al., 2003; Mears & Castro, 2006; Riveland, 1999). Yet, it is not always the “worst” people who ultimately end up in solitary housing. Incarcerated persons can instead be segregated for a variety of reasons, including for administrative, disciplinary, or protection purposes. Their medical or mental health conditions may contribute to placements, as can the need for protecting certain at-risk individuals, and, not least, their levels of defiance or violence (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Labrecque & Mears, 2019; Lovell et al., 2000).

Due in no small part to the growth in its use, solitary confinement has become a topic of contentious debate. Although opponents criticize it for being too harsh, isolating, and harmful to the mental health of those placed into the housing (Reiter, 2016; Rhodes, 2004; Shalev, 2014), others have noted that correctional officials find it useful and necessary from a managerial standpoint, and that its harms have been overstated (see, generally, Garcia, 2016; Morgan et al., 2016; Walters, 2018). Scholars have drawn attention to the diverse effects that isolation may have, as well as the limited empirical evidence to support certain critiques of such confinement (Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Mears et al., 2019). Empirical studies in fact provide a mixed portrait—some studies find evidence of adverse impacts on mental health, prison misconduct, and post-release recidivism (e.g., Cloyes et al., 2006; Labrecque et al., 2020; Mears & Bales, 2009), while others do not find statistically or substantively significant differences (Chadick et al., 2018; Clark, 2018; Labrecque, 2019; Lucas & Jones, 2019; Morris, 2016; O’Keefe et al., 2013; see, generally, Labrecque & Smith, 2019; Morgan et al., 2016). Adding to this confusion is a key limitation associated with this body of work: research has been largely conducted on samples exclusively or primarily comprised of men. Women too are subjected to solitary confinement, but their experiences have been almost uniformly overlooked. This oversight is striking given the wealth of research that shows that men and women differ in how they respond to conditions of confinement (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2012).

Perhaps the most salient gendered difference is that women have been found to be more “relational” than their male counterparts—that is, relationships tend to be more central to or hold greater primacy for women (Kolb & Palys, 2018, p. 679). In prisons, that has been found to translate into an emphasis on forming strong interpersonal relationships, or pseudofamilies, with fellow incarcerated women (Giallombardo, 1966; Harner, 2004; Maeve, 1999). Pseudofamilial relationships can be platonic or sexual. They provide support and a sense of belonging to help women adjust to the deprivations of life behind bars (DeBell, 2001; Diaz-Cotto, 2006; Severance, 2005; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). Involvement in pseudofamilies is thereby a means by which women cope with the stresses of incarceration and the painful separation from loved ones on the outside (Greer, 2000; Propper, 1982; Severance, 2004).

Because relationships play such a key role in the lives of incarcerated women, it is unclear how women experience and adapt to solitary confinement—a form of segregation that is, by design, intended to isolate individuals and to disrupt or “knife off” their ties to others. Solitary confinement may therefore be acutely painful for and disruptive to women, for whom relationships can be of primary importance. Although recent estimates suggest that over 20% of incarcerated women in the U.S. spend some time in segregated housing over the course of a given year (relative to 18% of men) (Beck, 2015), we know little about how solitary confinement is used within women’s prison systems, why women are placed into it, how isolation impacts women’s well-being (during their time in prison, as well as post-release), or how women adjust to being cut off from pseudofamilies and other close relationships while spending time in this type of correctional housing. Not least, we know little about what women’s behavior in solitary confinement may reveal about institutional control in prisons from the perspectives of those who work most closely with them—correctional personnel. Correctional personnel spend the vast majority of their workdays observing and interacting with women in solitary confinement, and thus hold a unique vantage point in which they can provide insights into why women are placed into the housing and how they behave during their time in it.

Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to shed light on the ways in which incarcerated women are perceived by correctional personnel to cope with and adapt to solitary confinement. We use qualitative data from prison personnel in one of the largest women’s prisons in the United States. We focus exclusively on long-term solitary confinement, which is reserved for individuals deemed to be too difficult to manage within the broader general population. Long-term solitary confinement is distinct from short-term disciplinary segregation or confinement in protective custody in that it is used for management purposes, and individuals housed there typically stay for a minimum of 6 months.

The study reveals two important findings. First, women’s strong ties to other incarcerated women and pseudofamilies are perceived by personnel to drive many of the behaviors that explain their placement into (and continued stay in) solitary confinement. Second, because isolation can be acutely painful, the staff observe that women rely on diverse strategies to build or maintain relationships with other women, and in so doing, subvert institutional control over their behaviors while in solitary confinement. By bringing incarcerated women to the forefront, this study provides a deeper understanding of the potential impacts of solitary confinement on an overlooked population, and it raises questions about the ability of such confinement to impose order and control within women’s prisons.

The Punitive Turn and the Rise of Solitary Confinement

The punitive era began in the mid-1970s and continues today. It has given rise to an ideological shift in criminal justice and correctional policies. This shift, ignited from political discourse and a growing embrace of retributive and incapacitation-focused responses to offending, introduced tough-on-crime policies, such as three strike laws and determinant sentencing, to reduce crime in communities (Cullen et al., 2000; Pratt, 2019). The result was dramatic growth in the prison population (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018), with much of the rise disproportionately affecting people of color (Carson, 2018). Overlooked has been the fact that women, too, were influenced greatly by the punitive turn—their rate of incarceration rose by 744% between 1980 and 2016 (Carson, 2018; Kruttschnitt, 2010; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019). To deal with the larger population—both male and female—prisons increasingly moved from a rehabilitative ideal to a more managerial one that emphasized the efficient warehousing, order, and control of individuals (Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; Feeley & Simon, 1992; Mears, 2013). The expanded use of solitary confinement—for management, disciplinary, protective, or administrative purposes—is one example of this shift in correctional ideology.

Solitary confinement is not a new phenomenon (Reiter, 2016), yet it is within the punitive era that a sharp increase in its use has occurred (Garcia, 2016). The practice represents one of the most extreme forms of control in the criminal justice system today (Ahalt et al., 2017; King, 1999; Kreager & Kruttschnitt, 2018; Shalev, 2014; Toch, 2003).¹ It attempts to improve prison order by isolating individuals whose behaviors are disruptive, dangerous, or threatening, and by knifing off their communication with others (Butler et al., 2013; Mears & Castro, 2006; Pyrooz, 2016). Scholars have examined the effects of solitary confinement on a range of potential outcomes, including psychological health, in-prison misconduct, and post-release recidivism (Briggs et al., 2003; Clark, 2018; Mears & Bales, 2009). However, perhaps due to the varying levels of methodological rigor, studies have generated mixed results (Morgan et al., 2016). For example, relying on samples composed of men, prior studies have found that solitary confinement does little to reduce prison violence, and in some cases, may even increase violent behavior (Labrecque, 2019; Steiner, 2009; Sundt et al., 2008; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2015).

Some studies that focus on mental health have found that prolonged isolation has the potential to worsen mental health conditions, such as anxiety and psychosis (Haney, 2003), while others suggest that it may not be the housing that worsens mental health conditions, but rather the prison environment in general (Clark, 2018). This can also be seen among studies that have focused on post-release recidivism. Mears & Bales (2009) found that, depending on the type of recidivism (e.g., drug, property, or violent), solitary confinement may have a statistically significant effect on recidivism. In recent years, as a result of these and other study findings, many correctional systems across the United States have eliminated indefinite lengths of stays in the housing and have increasingly made efforts to decrease its use in general (Sullivan, 2020). It remains unclear what the prevalence of solitary confinement is by type of housing (e.g., solitary confinement for punishment, protective, administrative, or management purposes) (Mears et al., 2019).

Although prior studies on solitary confinement have provided valuable insights into its potential impacts, much of what is known is limited almost exclusively to research on men. The emphasis on incarcerated men throughout the literature is not surprising given that solitary confinement was designed primarily with men, rather than women, in mind (Covington & Bloom, 2006; Simon, 2014). One exception is a study by Labrecque and colleagues (2020) that examined whether the effects of disciplinary segregation on prison misconduct differed between men and women. Relying on a large sample of male and females incarcerated in a Midwestern state, the study found that placement in disciplinary segregation increased prison misconduct among men but not among women. The authors suggested that “women may experience the strain of segregation differently and they may adapt to it differently” (Labrecque et al., 2020, p. 17), and called for more research to examine gendered impacts of the housing.

Though women can be placed into solitary confinement, little is known about why they are placed there, or how they adapt and respond to segregation (Garcia, 2016; Mears et al., 2019). The relative inattention paid to incarcerated women is problematic given that women are socialized to rely on close ties to help navigate difficult situations, like that of imprisonment, and they may be uniquely affected when they are physically cut off from relationships with others (Giallombardo, 1966; Kolb & Palys, 2018; Owen, 1998). The separation may have implications for their adjustment to living in isolation. There is a need, then, to examine how incarcerated women experience solitary confinement (Labrecque et al., 2020). To this end, we draw from the broader literature on incarcerated women’s personal histories and their experiences in prison.

Incarcerated Women and Solitary Confinement

Female offending populations are unique from men in several ways (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996; Wright et al., 2012), including their pathways to prison (Bloom et al., 2004; Chesney-Lind, 1997). Women are more often incarcerated for non-violent offenses, such as drug, fraud, and property theft (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Cho & Tasca, 2019; Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003). Prior work suggests that women’s offenses may predominantly be motivated by poverty, substance addiction, or mental health disorders stemming from abuse experienced during childhood (Daly, 1992; Gilfus, 1992; Hale, 2020; McClellan et al., 1997; Wulf-Ludden, 2016). Research finds that incarcerated women report experiencing childhood physical and sexual abuse at disproportionately high rates (Easteal, 2001). For example, in a study of women in prison, Wulf-Ludden (2016) found that 54% reported that they had been sexually victimized and 34% had been physically abused prior to their 18th birthday. Research also finds that prior to incarceration, many of these women were repeated victims of violence, typically of partner abuse or rape, well into adulthood (Gilfus, 1992; McClellan et al., 1997; Wulf-Ludden, 2016).

These pre-prison experiences may affect how women adapt to life in prison (Foster, 2012; Houser et al., 2012; Lahm, 2017). Some research suggests that when incarcerated women engage in misconduct, they often engage in non-violent rule breaking, such as defiance and talking back to officers (Celinska & Sung, 2014; Greer, 2000; Harer & Lagan, 2001; Martel, 2001). One potential reason for engaging in this behavior is that they perceive the prison system as simply another form of oppression in a long line of oppressive figures attempting to control their lives (Easteal, 2001). Therefore, defying authority figures, such as correctional staff, may be one way in which women attempt to gain back some of the control that they perceived was taken from them prior to and during incarceration (Owen, 1998).

Research finds that incarcerated women often negotiate the restrictions of imprisonment in ways that allow them to maintain some agency over their lives (Bosworth, 1996; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Kruttschnitt & Gartner, 2003; Martel, 2001). An early and classic examination of women’s experiences in prison is Giallombardo’s (1966) ethnographic study. She found that women rely heavily on social relationships with other women to help them cope with prison life. One way they do so is through forming prison pseudofamilies, which are similar to the kinships that women have outside of prison. They may include a mother, daughters, sisters, grandparents, and cousins. Some women also become involved in serious intimate relationships in prison with “wives” or “girlfriends.” Giallombardo (1966) argued that these prison relationships are not only in response to the deprivations of incarceration, but they also allow women to preserve socially constructed roles (i.e., mother, sister, wife, girlfriend) formed prior to imprisonment.

Subsequent studies on women’s prison experiences have affirmed Giallombardo’s findings—women tend to form close relationships with other women as a way of coping with life behind bars (Huggins et al., 2006; Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Mahan, 1984; Wulf-Ludden, 2016). Because social support has been found to produce positive outcomes, many early studies concluded that close interpersonal relationships have beneficial effects for women in prison (Forsyth et al., 2002; Giallombardo, 1966; Mahan, 1984, Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). Social relationships can provide women with someone to confide in, keep them out of trouble, and help with self-improvement (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Wulf-Ludden, 2013). However, recent work suggests that participation in intimate or pseudofamilial relationships may also have negative effects (Huggins et al., 2006; Kolb & Palys, 2018; Owen, 1998; Wulf-Ludden, 2013, 2016). For example, Forsyth & Evans’ (2003) study found that, in addition to the benefits provided by close relationships, ties to pseudofamilies can also be toxic or carry consequences. Similarly, Wulf-Ludden (2013) found that a greater proportion of incarcerated women with close friends engaged in violence compared to those who had no close friends.

A more recent qualitative study by Kolb & Palys (2018) also identified positive and negative aspects of pseudofamilial relationships for incarcerated women. Many women reported that the loneliness experienced during imprisonment was alleviated through the support that they received from their “play families” (p. 64). At the same time, they noted that these families were not without conflict. Because of their strong vested ties to family members, many women were willing to do anything—good or bad—to support and protect them. The authors reported that the women sometimes engaged in physical fights to defend a family member, and as a result, were sent to solitary confinement. One woman in the study experienced multiple stays in isolation as a result of attacking someone else on behalf of a family member (Kolb & Palys, 2018, p. 686)—behavior that she felt was necessary and justified. These findings highlight that the bonds between women and their pseudofamily members are strong. They highlight, as well, that because a high value is placed on these bonds, women may be willing to do anything to maintain their relationships with one another—even if it means being placed into solitary confinement.

Although the prison experience by nature separates incarcerated individuals from their usual social networks, solitary confinement constitutes a more extreme form of separation. For women, it means being cut off from all relationships, including their prison families, and so may amount to an especially difficult hardship to negotiate. In particular, they may find it difficult to adapt to the harsh environment and isolation, and especially the lack of social interactions with other women (Cerneka, 2017; Martel, 2001). Indeed, the relationships that women form with other women in prison can provide them with a sense of autonomy and control (Giallombardo, 1966; Owen, 1998; Ward & Kassebaum, 1965). Placement in isolation eliminates their ability to engage in the social roles that have come to define them. Isolation thus may strike at the very core of how incarcerated women view themselves, their self-worth, and their sense of belonging.

It is, however, possible that women do not respond to isolation passively. They may seek ways to regain some of the control that solitary confinement is designed to take away from them. For instance, in Martel’s (2001) field study of 12 women in solitary confinement, it was found that women would sometimes go to extreme lengths to exercise agency while in isolation. One technique they used was to engage in self-harming behaviors, such as self-mutilation and swallowing dangerous items, in order to be transferred out of solitary confinement. By engaging in this maladaptive behavior, women reported feeling a regained sense of agency and, at least temporarily, a reprieve from the loneliness and psychological discomfort of segregation (Martel, 2001). The study drew attention to the salience of individual agency but, at the same time, it did not examine the role of prison social relationships for women while in solitary confinement, or focus on how separation from these relationships influences women and social order in prisons. In short, there is a need to better understand how women deal with being separated from their prison families and intimate relationships, and by extension, how the separation impacts the level of control that prisons can exert over women’s behaviors.

Correctional Personnel and Insights about Solitary Confinement

To aid in efforts to understand how solitary confinement is used in women’s prisons, why women are placed into solitary confinement, and how they respond and adapt to the conditions of such confinement, studies are needed that not only provide insights directly from incarcerated women, but also from those who work within these units. Correctional personnel hold an integral position within the correctional system for gaining valuable insights into the use of solitary confinement (Mears & Castro, 2006), as well as illuminating why women are placed into it and how they adjust. Personnel are stakeholders in the implementation of methods used to manage incarcerated women (Lambert et al., 2018). Their key responsibilities include ensuring the safety and security of incarcerated individuals and others who work within the prison. Their perspectives may help to shape policies for the use of solitary confinement, as well as policies that determine the criteria for placement of women into the units.

A concern in relying on the accounts of correctional staff is that their perceptions may be biased due to their personal beliefs, individual characteristics, or their positions within the prison system. For example, staff with more authoritarian beliefs may be more likely to support punitive policies and perceive individuals who engage in antisocial behavior as deserving of punishment (Gerber & Jackson, 2016; McKelvie, 2013). Other factors, such as work conditions and views toward work, may also affect their attitudes toward incarcerated individuals and punishment (Lambert et al., 2009). Even so, studies often find evidence of congruency in staff and incarcerated individuals’ perceptions (Crewe et al., 2011; Molleman & Leeuw, 2012). For example, Camp et al. (2002) found that staff and incarcerated persons expressed similar views about prison conditions (e.g., gang activity, safety and security, sanitation, and food service delivery). And, in a more recent study, Molleman & Leeuw (2012) found that staff perceptions of prison conditions aligned with those of incarcerated individuals. These findings suggest that, despite potential biases and power imbalances, staff perceptions about solitary confinement may not be entirely dissimilar to those of incarcerated women. Staff may therefore have the potential to illuminate how women respond to solitary confinement, or, at the least, how they are perceived to do so.

Current Focus

Through the viewpoint of those who work directly with incarcerated individuals—correctional personnel—the goals of the current study are: (1) to examine how women respond to extended solitary confinement (i.e., placement in solitary confinement for 6 months or more for management purposes) and (2) to build on prior theory and research on the salience of relationships and pseudofamilies among women in prison. More specifically, we ask the following research question: How do correctional personnel perceive that incarcerated women cope with and adapt to extended solitary confinement? The focus on long-term confinement is because of the greater potential for it—simply because of the longer duration of isolation—to influence relationships among women in prison. We use unique qualitative data compiled from field observations and focus groups with correctional personnel at one of the largest women’s prisons in the United States.

The personnel included in the study spend much of their days working with and directly observing individuals in solitary confinement and are specifically trained to work with such persons, making them the equivalent of “specialized experts” (Blau, 1965) or “knowledgeables” (Patton, 2015). That does not mean that their views are correct, only that they occupy a unique vantage point from which to provide possible insight into both women in solitary confinement and impacts on prisons. By relying on these key informants, we examine how women’s relationships or “pseudofamilies” may shape their behaviors in ways that affect their placement into—and continued stay in—solitary confinement. We also document the strategies that women are perceived to use to build and maintain relationships while in solitary confinement and to overcome institutional constraints on their behaviors. In carrying out this research, our broader purpose is to gain a deeper understanding of the use and impacts of solitary confinement among incarcerated women and the role of such confinement in the broader operations of contemporary correctional systems.

Methodology

Prior to beginning the investigation, the study procedures were reviewed and approved by the university internal review board (IRB). Data for this investigation were collected at a state prison that houses nearly 3,000 women. The facility was considered a high-level security prison, though incarcerated women with varying degrees of custody, ranging from minimum to death row, were imprisoned there. It was the only women’s prison in the state that had a designated long-term solitary confinement unit, and thus incarcerated women from other prisons throughout the state could be transferred to and housed there if needed.

Data were collected through social observations within the prison’s solitary confinement unit and qualitative focus groups with a total of 15 correctional personnel. They were selected through purposive criterion sampling, meaning that they had to meet certain criteria to qualify for participation in the study (Babbie, 2007). Specifically, participants had to be full-time employees with the Department of Corrections (DOC), and they had to either work within the solitary confinement unit or have frequent interactions with the women housed in solitary confinement. We worked with the prison administrators to identify correctional staff who would meet these criteria, and then provided individuals with a consent form and explained the broader purpose of the study. Correctional personnel were also informed that the study was voluntary, that they were not obligated to participate, and they would not be compensated for their participation.

All DOC personnel who were approached agreed to participate in the study. In addition to interviewing two administrators, focus groups were undertaken with seven correctional officers, a classification officer, and five mental health and medical professionals. These DOC personnel had diverse roles and responsibilities within the prison, and all had knowledge from different vantage points about incarcerated women’s experiences in solitary confinement.

For example, the prison’s leadership personnel oversee the daily operations of the prison and participate in regular assessments to determine whether individuals will remain in, or be released from, solitary confinement. In addition, they walk through the units and speak with confined women on nearly a daily basis to ensure that all housing policies are consistently being met. Correctional officers directly supervise individuals in solitary confinement and so can also afford in depth insights into life in solitary. Indeed, a typical workday for the correctional officers in our study is 12 to 16 hr, with most of that time spent in the solitary unit interacting with confined women and observing their behavior. Classification officers are more removed from day-to-day interactions with incarcerated women, yet they make decisions about classification status, including transfers and housing placement, and thus have in-depth knowledge of women’s behaviors and needs. Mental health staff spend more than half of their work time attending to women in solitary confinement and are responsible for the psychological well-being of incarcerated persons. They are familiar with their treatment histories and risks for mental health problems. For that reason, they were important to include given that the women’s prison reportedly housed many mentally ill persons, many of whom may be at increased risk of being placed in solitary confinement (Clark, 2018; Haney, 2003). Medical staff were also included because of the high prevalence of suicides and self-harm incidents that occur in solitary confinement (Haney, 2018; Martel, 2001). They are responsible for the physical well-being of confined individuals, including regular check-ups and responding to suicide attempts and other self-harm emergencies.

The length of correctional work experience for the DOC personnel in our study ranged from 1 year to 25 years. Approximately 75% were women and 25% were men. These percentages were not representative of the entire prison, of which the majority of employees were men. Solitary confinement settings were uniquely staffed in that, by state policy, the units must be “gender specific.” That is, in solitary units, only female staff directly managed confined females and only male staff managed confined males. Correctional supervisors and administrators may be of the opposite gender.

Data were collected in two phases. First, we toured the prison and observed the solitary confinement unit and recreational and visitation areas. Throughout the tour, we conversed with personnel working in these areas. This information allowed us to gain a better understanding of the operations of the prison and the use of solitary confinement in real time. In addition, the discussions aided in the development of questions for the focus groups that we had not considered prior to entering the prison. Second, we conducted two semi-structured focus groups at the prison (with five to eight subjects each), and one interview with two senior administrators. One focus group was comprised of junior ranking correctional officers and one was comprised of senior ranking officers and medical and mental health personnel. Each focus group lasted 1 to 2 hr; the interview with administrators lasted 45 min. The focus groups took place in the prison’s main staff lunchroom, and the interview took place in the administrative building conference room. The focus groups and interviews were guided by broad-level questions (e.g., What are the impacts of solitary confinement on inmates, the personnel, or the prison system? What are the alternative methods for managing difficult-to-manage individuals?) and were followed when necessary by prompts. For example, if personnel did not mention potential impacts on inmate mental health, the researchers would probe to identify participant views about this dimension. We asked open-ended and follow-up questions to elicit elaboration (Kitzinger, 1994; Krueger & Casey, 2014). Given the level of security of the prison, electronic devices were not allowed. Therefore, all responses were handwritten.

A total of three researchers attended the tours and focus groups. One of the researchers moderated the focus groups while the remaining two researchers took notes. After the prison tour, each focus group, and the administrator interview, the research team debriefed to compare and clarify written notes. Within 24 hr, each researcher individually transcribed their handwritten notes, which then were synthesized into one document. Team members met to discuss discrepancies or omissions and to ensure that all descriptions were accurate.

The qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis (Bryman & Burgess, 2002; Krueger & Casey, 2014). We took care to ensure that the findings typified common themes from the write-up. Interrater reliability was achieved by having three members of the research team independently code the data for themes related to women’s experiences in and adjustment to solitary confinement.

Study Setting

There was one long-term solitary confinement unit in the prison that contained 44 cells that could be used for segregation. On a given day, the number of women housed within the solitary confinement unit ranged between 25 and 44. According to administrative records, women remain in the long-term solitary confinement unit for a minimum of 6 months. The purpose of this type of confinement is to manage and isolate women whom correctional officials have deemed too difficult to safely manage within the general population. There are many reasons why women may be placed into the housing unit. Criteria for placement ranges from engaging in multiple infractions over a period of time (e.g., repeated or escalating instances of defiance toward staff, consistently not following the rules of the prison) to attempted escapes or violent incidents against other incarcerated women or staff. In the prison of focus, the long-term solitary confinement unit was distinct from restrictive housing used for punishment, protective, or administrative purposes that typically allowed for the confinement of two individuals per cell.

The solitary confinement cells were approximately 12 feet by 9 feet in size and were covered by a thick blue metal door with a small window and a narrow port only large enough to accommodate transfer of a food tray. Each cell contained a small twin-size metal bed frame topped with a thin plastic mattress, one sheet, one blanket, and one pillow. The cells were also equipped with a small metal sink, a toilet, and a desk. All cells contained overhead florescent lighting and one small window to the outside that allowed in natural light.

Although solitary confinement often connotes an image of a darkened cell where individuals experience total sensory deprivation, we instead observed a busy, noisy unit where multiple staff frequently moved in and out. The women confined there appeared to be aware of what went on in the unit, and they could see who was coming and going through the small windows in their cell doors. While housed within the solitary unit, women remained in their cells for 22 to 24 hr per day and were required to eat all of their meals inside of their cells alone. When women left their cells, wrist and ankle restraints were used and two correctional officers escorted them throughout the prison. Typically, women were escorted out of their cells only for scheduled medical appointments, showers (up to three times per week), and solitary recreation in an outdoor cage (for 1 hr, three times per week).

Cells were configured in three separate wings with a command center in the middle (referred to as “the bubble”) where officers were stationed. There were a minimum of three officers working at a time—one stationed in the bubble and two who would patrol the units. These conditions of confinement are similar to many solitary confinement housing units found within male and female prisons throughout the United States (Garcia, 2016; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Reiter, 2012; Riveland, 1999).

Findings

Consistent with much of the research on female prisoners (Giallombardo, 1966; Kolb & Palys, 2018), the staff with whom we spoke stated that incarcerated women placed a high value on forming close relationships with other incarcerated women. Many women in prison were mothers (Cho & Tasca, 2019); notably, we were told that the greatest pain of imprisonment was the separation from family and that this was the most frequent complaint voiced by incarcerated women. Staff recognized that many women formed tightknit friendships or pseudofamilies with other women to cope with or make up for these losses. Some of these relationships were romantic or sexual and some were not, yet the bonds between prison family members were thought to be as strong—and sometimes stronger—than bonds with outside family members.

A striking theme underlying nearly all of our conversations with staff was the perception that women’s pseudofamilial relationships shaped their behaviors. In fact, we were told that these “relationships drive behaviors throughout the entire prison.” Women’s relationships with other women thus emerged as central to understanding how women ended up in solitary confinement, as well as how women were affected by and adapted to the environment once they were segregated there. In what follows, we describe how women’s pseudofamilies may influence their behavior and placement into solitary confinement. Then, we describe how women are observed to cope with serving time in solitary confinement, including the various strategies that they use to build and/or maintain relationships with other women while segregated.

Women’s Relationships and Reasons for Going to Solitary

The women incarcerated in the prison we visited could be placed into long-term solitary confinement for various reasons, including engaging in violent acts against correctional staff or other women, or by threatening the security of the institution, such as by attempting to escape or inciting a riot. Although correctional staff reported that a few of the women in solitary confinement could be perceived as “dangerous,” they noted that this was rare. When questioned about why women ended up in solitary confinement, staff routinely reported that most women were placed there as a result of their behavioral misconduct that stemmed from their pseudofamilial ties, either through: (1) acting out on behalf of family or (2) through following family members into solitary confinement. These themes are described below.

Acting out on behalf of “family.”

It was not uncommon for women to end up in solitary confinement due to their “acting out” on behalf of family. Correctional staff relayed that when women join pseudofamilies, their defiance against staff often increases. Prison family members are expected to protect and stand up for one another, and they often band together in solidarity against other incarcerated women and correctional staff. For instance, one staff member told us that when women perceive that a family member is being “unjustly picked on” by DOC staff, her family members will usually “defend her” by “talking back to staff or refusing to obey orders.” As a result, these women will accumulate multiple disciplinary reports. Someone who accumulates multiple disciplinary reports becomes classified as “difficult to manage” and is thus, we were told, more likely to be placed into solitary confinement. In turn, it can be inferred that women who engage in misconduct or defiance on behalf of their prison families may be more likely to serve time in solitary.

Following family members into solitary confinement

Staff also perceived that some women deliberately act out to “follow” their prison family members into solitary confinement. When one of their own is removed from the general population and placed into solitary confinement, prison family members perceive it as “tearing apart the family.” We were told that, in response, one or more of the remaining family members may engage in violent misconduct so that they too may be placed into the solitary unit to be near their loved one. This behavior reportedly was most common for women in romantic partnerships with other women.

Staff expressed their frustration over such behaviors given that there were few options for keeping women apart from each other, such as in separate prisons. They explained that with incarcerated men, for example, options exist for transfer to other prisons in the state if their ties to other incarcerated persons contribute to violence or disruptions. But because this state prison system has few female facilities and only one long-term solitary confinement unit for women, prison transfers typically were not an option. Staff perceived that the incarcerated women were well aware of the dilemma that the system faced with respect to housing placement options, and they knew that if they engaged in sufficiently dangerous or serious actions, they would ultimately be placed in the prison’s only solitary confinement unit. This finding stands in contrast to how solitary confinement is often depicted—as an environment that individuals try to avoid. This speaks to the primacy of relationships to women in prison, where some women may seek to be placed into segregation to be near someone with whom they feel bonded. It also points, as we elaborate below, to the potential limits of institutional control over incarcerated individuals.

Building and Maintaining Relationships in Solitary Confinement

Once women were placed into solitary confinement, their interpersonal relationships with other women did not cease to exist, as we were told by many of the respondents. In fact, we learned that interpersonal relationships remained central to understanding how women responded to and adapted to their time in segregation. Staff observed that women not only followed their partners or pseudofamily members into the solitary confinement unit, but that they also actively built relationships with other confined women while housed there. Indeed, despite the segregated environment, staff recognized that many close relationships persisted—and many new ones were formed—throughout women’s time in solitary confinement. Through our observations and our focus groups with staff, we found that women seek to build and maintain relationships with other confined women. A number of strategies were used to achieve that goal, and simultaneously, subvert the institutional controls of the prison. These included: (1) chatting, (2) passing kites, (3) staying up late together, (4) moving to observation cells, and (5) taking “vacation” together. Below, we discuss each of these strategies.

Chatting

Staff perceived that the most common ways women built or maintained relationships with one another in solitary confinement was through “chatting,” whereby they talk to each other at length through their cell doors. Although the concrete cell walls often muffled conversations, there was a narrow space at the bottom of every cell door though which sound could carry enough for women to talk, sometimes for hours on end. These conversations focused on a variety of topics, but, typically centered on women’s future lives after incarceration.

For women who did not already have intimate partners or pseudofamily members within the solitary confinement unit, staff recognized that non-physical intimate relationships could be formed with women in adjacent or nearby cells through conversations alone. Such relationships could develop quickly and were described as intense. As one staff member told us, two women confined in neighboring cells may start talking to one another and, within just a few days, “declare their love and commitment to each other, make plans to move in together, and even have names picked out for their future children.” The women sometimes also discussed their intentions of being released from solitary housing at the same time or remaining there together. Staff perceived that focusing on relationships and options for the future thus allowed women to exercise agency and reduce feelings of isolation while in solitary housing (Bosworth, 1999).

Passing kites

According to staff, it was important for the women in solitary confinement to remain in constant communication with one another. They placed a high value on being able to maintain some intimacy and privacy in their communication, especially as relationships deepened. Nonetheless, engaging in private conversations was difficult within the unit. The unit was equipped with audio and video surveillance and there were a lot of correctional staff going in and out of the unit throughout the day. We were told that the women therefore “get creative” to communicate with one another without correctional staff listening to them.

One way that they do so is through “passing kites.” These are written notes, called kites for the ways in which they are passed from person to person until they reach their intended recipient. Within the unit, these notes were slid underneath the cell doors or passed by food service, commissary, or library delivery workers. They were sometimes discovered and confiscated, although staff did not know how many were confiscated compared to those that were not. Staff stated that the majority of prison kites confiscated included declarations of love, plans for the future, and plans to leave solitary confinement together. Some also included information about prison staff (e.g., which staff were easy to manipulate, or which staff were preoccupied by personal problems) as well as various “tips and tricks” for how to get certain medications prescribed. But for the most part, kites were a way for women to communicate with each other in confidence and deepen relationships while in solitary confinement.

Staying up late together

Another way for women to connect more privately was through staying up all night talking together. During the daytime, the solitary confinement unit was busy. Officers walked by to check on each individual every 30 min, and every day there were women who had various appointments—such as mental health, medical, or classification appointments—where a range of staff would be in and out of the unit. At night, the unit was much quieter and the only individuals walking around were the 1 to 2 staff on the floor who passed by cells every 30 min.

Staff said that the women would often make plans to stay up at night together, either during their daytime chats through their cell doors or the passing of kites. What was concerning to staff, however, was that the women would seek to use psychotropic medications to help them carry out their plans to stay up all night by taking several doses of medication to sleep the day away. We were told that sleepiness was a noted side effect of the psychotropic drugs that were commonly prescribed. Inmates sometimes reportedly would hoard their medication and then consume heavy doses of it to help them sleep during the day and stay awake at night to talk and have private, intimate conversations. Personnel viewed this as planned, coordinated behavior between women who wanted to build or maintain relationships with each other while in solitary.

Moving to observation cells

Due to the passing of kites and behaviors like the coordinated heavy dosing on psychotropic medications, DOC staff often perceived women’s “prison relationships” to be toxic and disruptive within the solitary confinement unit. Accordingly, attempts were made to separate women to “cut off” their relationships by moving them to cells as far apart as possible within the unit. But rather than make things better, staff told us that when they moved women away from their partners, the women became distressed and “acted out” to be placed close together again.

As described by the staff, one of the ways in which women were perceived to act out in this regard was by threatening to self-harm at the same time as one another. DOC policies state that incarcerated persons who threaten to self-harm must be placed into self-harm observation (SHO) cells for 24 to 48 hr. There were only four SHO cells in the solitary confinement unit, and they were adjacent to each another. Thus, women who were confined at opposite ends of the unit could be in much closer proximity if they were placed into SHO cells. The SHO cells were similar to the regular cells in the solitary confinement unit, but they lacked any bedding or personal items that women might use to harm themselves.

If two women in a partnership threatened to self-harm at the same time, staff said that they had no choice but to move them each into an SHO cell. The women communicated their plans of entering the self-harm observation cells by yelling across the unit to one another. As noted by multiple staff, women would yell across the unit to their partners, “Hey, go into SHO and I will too!” By synchronizing their threats of self-harm, women appeared able to undermine institutional controls within the unit to be placed in close proximity to a partner, even if only temporarily.

Taking “vacation” together

Staff were troubled by women’s synchronized threats of self-harm and reiterated that some women went to extreme lengths to build or maintain their partnerships with other women in solitary confinement. We were told that some women not only threatened self-harm, but also that they made plans with their partners to carry out self-harm at the same time. According to staff, women did this to be transferred to the mental health unit together. DOC policies require that individuals who self-harm be transferred to the mental health unit temporarily until they are stable enough to return to solitary confinement.

The mental health unit was made up of single-bed cells which were similar to the solitary confinement cells, except larger. This unit provided more privileges to the women housed there, including 15 hr a week of out-of-cell time, which could be spent in an open lounging area with other women in the unit. To spend quality time with one another, some women and their partners in solitary confinement would therefore make plans to be sent to the mental health unit together. We were apprised that confined women refer to the temporary transfer to the mental health unit as a “vacation.”

Plans for “taking vacation” were often laid out in kites passed between partners, or were made while women were in close proximity in the SHO cells. Women’s plans for self-harm typically included, we were told, a set time for when it was going to happen and how it was going to be carried out to ensure that they could be sent to the mental health unit at the same time. Self-harming behaviors most commonly were said to include overdosing on hoarded medications, swallowing objects in cells such as radio batteries, or self-mutilation. Carrying out such well-coordinated plans of self-harm perhaps provides an indicator of the lengths that some women in solitary confinement may go to build and maintain relationships with other women.

Summary of Results

Three key patterns emerge from these analyses. First, pseudofamilial relationships may influence women’s behavior and increase placement in solitary confinement. Second, some women seek placement into such confinement to be near their pseudofamily members. Third, once in solitary, women are able to build and maintain relationships with other confined women by using a variety of strategies, ranging from chatting and passing kites to coordinating acts of self-harm. The interpersonal relationships that women form in prison may serve as a source of emotional support for adapting to the oppressive nature of the correctional setting. Their importance can be seen in the lengths to which women may go to subvert the total control that solitary confinement is designed to impose, so that they can develop and sustain relationships with other confined women. The findings and their implications are discussed below.

Discussion

With its expansion in the punitive era, a growing body of research examining the effects of long-term solitary confinement has emerged (see, generally, Garcia, 2016; Lovell et al., 2007; Walters, 2018). Despite recent advances in the literature, studies have focused almost exclusively on men in prison, and little empirical attention has been devoted to incarcerated women (Cerneka, 2017). This study sought to address this gap and to contribute to scholarship on prison order and control by examining the experiences of incarcerated women in long-term solitary confinement through the lens of correctional personnel. Although their perceptions do not necessarily fully reflect the experiences of the women in the prison, which we discuss further below, they work closely with them day in and day out and thus are uniquely positioned to offer insights. We turn now to discussion of the findings and their implications.

First, relationships and pseudofamilies are highly valued among incarcerated women—and a central finding of the present study is that this observation holds even in solitary confinement. The need to maintain and form these ties is so strong that it places limits on how much control prisons can have over them. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Kolb & Palys, 2018), we found that incarcerated women are willing to go to great lengths to maintain their relationships with other incarcerated women, including being sent to solitary confinement. However, we also found several ways in which women reportedly maintain and form ties while in solitary confinement. For example, they continue to communicate with one another through the cell doors, they pass notes to one another, and they threaten to harm themselves so that they may be placed into adjacent self-harm observation cells where they may be close to one another. And the women find ways to spend “quality” time together, such as by taking high doses of psychotropic medications so they may sleep throughout the day and stay awake at night, when conversations feel more private; or, they coordinate acts of self-harm so that they may temporarily be transferred to a mental health unit together. This behavior reveals the extremes that some women will go to maintain their highly valued relationships, indicating that solitary confinement does not appear to operate as a deterrent to women in these circumstances.

Second, our findings challenge some assumptions about solitary confinement. At least in the prison that we visited, we found that such confinement may not be as “solitary” as is often described by prior literature and the media. Accounts of solitary often paint a picture of complete isolation. We found, however, that women housed in solitary continue to engage in frequent communication with other women, so much so that some develop new, close relationships with one another. We also found that the units were busy. Multiple staff routinely go in and out of the unit for various reasons, and confined women are often escorted out of their cells to attend appointments multiple times a week. Of course, what “solitary” means can vary given that the structure of solitary units may differ across prison systems. That is true as well of “restrictive housing,” a phrase sometimes used to describe solitary confinement but that includes a variety of housing conditions, such as variation in the privileges and duration of confinement (Mears et al., 2019). Such variation may explain some of the inconsistencies in research on solitary confinement in general—the studies may be describing what amount to fundamentally different types of housing. Future research on the consequences of solitary confinement should therefore consider the degree to which individuals are isolated from one another.

Third, our findings raise questions about the use of solitary confinement in women’s prisons, particularly since it may not always be used for the “worst of the worst.” Prior studies have found that incarcerated women tend to be less violent than men (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2009), and the findings here revealed that some women may be placed into solitary confinement for engaging in non-violent behaviors. Specifically, staff reported that some women were placed into solitary confinement for an accumulation of nonviolent infractions, such as continual defiance or talking back to staff. And some women engaged in isolated violent incidents simply to follow a prison family member into the isolation unit. This study did not determine the prevalence of these occurrences. However, such findings point to the possibility that solitary confinement is inconsistently used to manage the types of dangerous individuals for which it was designed. Furthermore, regardless of the reasons for being segregated, it was reported that many women’s behaviors did not seem to improve once they were placed into solitary. Instead, the strategies that the women used to maintain connections and build relationships with other women within the unit were reportedly health damaging, and likely served to prolong their time in segregation. Self-harming and deliberately overdosing on medications, for instance, constitute maladaptive coping strategies that are deserving of greater attention in future research on solitary confinement.

Fourth, the findings suggest that correctional systems more broadly need to adopt gender-responsive practices to address women’s complex mental health and behavioral needs. Incarcerated women differ significantly from their male counterparts in terms of prior histories and pathways to crime (Belknap, 2014; Bloom et al., 2004; Daly, 1992). They are more likely to have experienced physical or sexual abuse, have substance abuse problems, or to be incarcerated for non-violent offenses (see, e.g., Chesney-Lind, 1997; Cho & Tasca, 2019; DeHart et al., 2013). Because female offenders face gender-specific adversities, they require treatment strategies that are specifically designed to address their needs (Covington & Bloom, 2006; Pollack, 2005; Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014). For example, feminist-informed, holistic treatment approaches that can account for gendered pathways to crime—including needs related to trauma, anger and hostility, family support, mental health, and troubled relationships (Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Van Voorhis et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2012)—may hold greater promise than the use of solitary confinement in managing and treating women in prison. There is, then, a need for correctional systems to use classification tools that account for the contexts of female crime and that do not overclassify women as “high risk”; this approach may reduce overreliance on social control and increase reliance on appropriate treatment options (Holtfreter & Cupp, 2007; Reisig et al., 2006; Van Voorhis et al., 2010).

Fifth, the study points to several avenues for future research. A limitation of the study is that we focused on only one women’s prison in one state. Although it is one of the largest women’s prisons in the country, the use and conditions of isolation may vary significantly between states and jurisdictions (Mears et al., 2019). Future studies should examine whether similar behaviors occur among women in solitary confinement in other correctional systems. Contextual differences, such as management and facility characteristics, including the extent to which pseudofamilies serve as an adaptive mechanism, should also be examined. A second limitation is that qualitative data from incarcerated women were not included in the study and only personnel accounts were examined. Prior studies have found that correctional staff perceptions about prison conditions sometimes align with those of inmates (Camp et al., 2002; Molleman & Leeuw, 2012). However, studies also find that various factors, such as job stress and satisfaction, as well as personal beliefs, may influence and possibly distort perceptions about incarcerated individuals (see, e.g., Cheeseman et al., 2011; Farkas, 1999), suggesting that some personnel can have or develop biases about incarcerated persons. As a result, our findings should be interpreted with caution. It is important for future research to include interviews with incarcerated women to examine, in their own words, how they experience segregation, and how it affects their behaviors, mental health, relationships with other women, and identities while in prison (Hale, 2020; Hoskins & Cobbina, 2019).

In relying on narratives from incarcerated persons and staff, future research should also examine the differences in the experiences of solitary confinement between men and women to determine whether our findings are truly unique to women. Prior work has found that violence among men is often related to perceptions of disrespect or retaliation and has little to do with social relationships inside of prison (Wulf-Ludden, 2013), though studies on prison visitation find that when men receive visits from family and friends, they engage in less misconduct while in prison (Siennick et al., 2013) and their rates of recidivism decrease (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran, 2014). Understanding whether relationships, either inside or outside of prison, influence behavior and adaptation to solitary confinement may provide insights into the effects of segregation on individuals and the corrections system more broadly. Last, future research should continue to examine the effects of isolation on the health and well-being of both men and women who are housed there and the staff who work in the environment. Studies should also examine how factors in the rest of the prison and across the prison system contribute to these effects, since solitary confinement is simply an extension of the rest of the prison.

In sum, solitary confinement was designed to establish prison order and to control incarcerated persons—primarily men—who are dangerous and violent (Owen, 1998; Riveland, 1999; Simon, 2000). Yet controlling the most violent and unruly individuals in prison via solitary confinement does not necessarily, as Sparks et al. (1996, p. 313) put it, “magically . . . unlock the problem of order for a prison system.” To the extent that interpersonal relationships hold special salience for women in prison, there may be little that solitary confinement can do to impede its effects in governing women’s behavior. Gender-responsive rehabilitative approaches, such as those informed by a feminist pathways framework (Wattanaporn & Holtfreter, 2014), may instead hold greater promise for treating and managing problem behaviors among incarcerated women and improving successful reentry back into society.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Travis Pratt and the Editor and reviewers for their comments that helped improve this article. We thank, as well, the prison administrators and personnel who participated in this study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Partial support for this article came from a National Institute of Justice Grant (#2016-IJ-CX-0014). Points of view in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the prison system that was the focus of this study.

ORCID iD

Vivian Aranda-Hughes

Notes

Author Biographies

Vivian Aranda-Hughes, MA, is a doctoral student at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Tallahassee, Florida. Her research interests include victimization and offending over the life course, corrections, and family violence. She has published in Criminal Justice and Behavior, Social Problems, and Police Practice and Research.

Jillian J. Turanovic, PhD, is an associate professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Tallahassee, Florida. Her research examines various issues in criminological theory and correctional policy, with a special focus on victimization, violence, and the life course. She is the author of Thinking about Victimization: Context and Consequences (Routledge). Her work has appeared in Criminology, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Justice Quarterly.

Daniel P. Mears, PhD, is a professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Tallahassee, Florida. His research focuses on crime and criminal justice. He is the author of American Criminal Justice Policy (Cambridge University Press), Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration (with Joshua C. Cochran, Sage), and Out-of-Control Criminal Justice (Cambridge University Press).

George B. Pesta, PhD, is the director of the Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Tallahassee, Florida. He conducts research on local, state, and national juvenile and criminal justice programs and policies. His work has appeared in the American Journal of Criminal Justice, Evaluation Review, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and the Journal of Politics and Law.

References

Ahalt

Haney

Rios

Fox

M. P.

Farabee

Williams

(2017). Reducing the use and impact of solitary confinement in corrections. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(1), 41–48.

Babbie

(2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Wadsworth.

Bales

Mears

(2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(3), 287–321.

Beck

A. J.

(2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 2011–12. U.S. Department of Justice.

Belknap

(2014). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Blau

P. M.

(1965). The comparative study of organizations. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 18(3), 323–338.

Bloom

Owen

Covington

(2004). Women offenders and the gendered effects of public policy. Review of Policy Research, 21(1), 31–48.

Bosworth

(1996). Resistance and compliance in women’s prisons: Toward a critique of legitimacy. Critical Criminology, 7(2), 5–19.

Bosworth

(1999). Engendering resistance: Agency and power in women’s prisons. Ashgate.

10.

Briggs

C. S.

Sundt

J. L.

Castellano

T. C.

(2003). The effect of supermaximum security prisons on aggregate levels of institutional violence. Criminology, 41(4), 1341–1376.

11.

Bryman

Burgess

(2002). Analyzing qualitative data. Routledge

12.

Butler

H. D.

Griffin

O. H.

III Johnson

W. W.

(2013). What makes you the “worst of the worst?” An examination of state policies defining supermaximum confinement. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 676–694.

13.

Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

Klein-Saffran

Daggett

D. M.

Saylor

W. G.

(2002). Using inmate survey data in assessing prison performance a case study comparing private and public prisons. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 26–51.

14.

Carson

A. E.

(2018). Prisoners in 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

15.

Chadick

Batastini

A. B.

Levulis

S. J.

Morgan

R. D.

(2018). The psychological impact of solitary: A longitudinal comparison of general population and long-term administrative segregated male inmates. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(2), 101–116.

16.

Cheeseman

K. A.

Kim

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

(2011). Correctional officer perceptions of inmates and overall job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(2), 81–102.

17.

Cho

Tasca

(2019). Disparities in women’s prison sentences: Exploring the nexus between motherhood, drug offense, and sentence length. Feminist Criminology, 14(4), 420–440.

18.

Clark

(2018). The effect of mental illness on segregation following institutional misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(1), 1363–1382.

19.

Cloyes

K. G.

Lovell

Allen

D. G.

Rhodes

L. A.

(2006). Assessment of psychological impairment in a supermaximum security unit sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(6), 760–781.

20.

Celinska

Sung

H. E.

(2014). Gender differences in the determinants of prison rule violations. The Prison Journal, 94(2), 220–241.

21.

Cerneka

(2017). We will not be invisible: Women and solitary confinement in the US. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender, and Society, 32(2), 107–132.

22.

Chesney-Lind

(1997). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Sage.

23.

Cochran

J. C.

(2014). Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(2), 200–229.

24.

Covington

S. S.

Bloom

B. E.

(2006). Gender-responsive treatment and services in correctional settings. Women and Therapy, 29(3–4), 9–33.

25.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Applegate

B. K.

(2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27(2000), 1–79.

26.

Cullen

F. T.

Gendreau

(1989). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation. In Goodstein

MacKenzie

D. L.

(Eds.), American prison: Issues in research and policy (pp. 23–44). Springer.

27.

Crewe

Liebling

Hulley

(2011). Staff culture, use of authority, and prisoner quality of life in public and private sector prisons. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(1), 94–115.

28.

Daly

(1992). Women’s pathways to felony court: Feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of representation. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 2(1), 11–52.

29.

DeBell

(2001). The female offender: Different . . . not difficult. Corrections Today, 63(1), 56–61.

30.

DeHart

Lynch

Belknap

Dass-Brailsford

Green

(2013). Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 138–151.

31.

Diaz-Cotto

(2006). Gender, sexuality, and family kinship networks. In Solinger

Johnson

P. C.

Raimon

M. L.

Reynolds

Tapia

R. C.

(Eds.), Interrupted life: Experiences of incarcerated women in the United States (pp. 131–144). University of California Press.

32.

Easteal

(2001). Women in Australian prisons: The cycle of abuse and dysfunctional environments. The Prison Journal, 81(1), 87–112.

33.

Farkas

M. A.

(1999). Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a “get tough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(6), 495–506.

34.

Feeley

M. M.

Simon

(1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.

35.

Forsyth

Evans

Foster

(2002). An analysis of intimate explanations for lesbian relationships in prison. International Journal of Sociology and the Family, 30(1/2), 67–77.

36.

Forsyth

C. J.

Evans

R. D.

(2003). Reconsidering the pseudo-family/gang gender distinction in prison research. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 18(1), 15–23.

37.

Foster

(2012). The strains of maternal imprisonment: Importation and deprivation stressors for women and children. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 221–229.

38.

Frost

N. A.

Monteiro

C. E.

(2016). Administrative segregation in U.S. prisons. In Garcia

(Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions (pp. 1–43). National Institute of Justice.

39.

Garcia

(Ed.). (2016). Restrictive housing in the U.S.: Issues, challenges, and future directions. National Institute of Justice.

40.

Gerber

M. M.

Jackson

(2016). Authority and punishment: On the ideological basis of punitive attitudes towards criminals. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 23(1), 113–134.

41.

Giallombardo

(1966). Society of women: A study of a women’s prison. Wiley.

42.

Gilfus

M. E.

(1992). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women and Criminal Justice, 4(1), 63–89.

43.

Greer

K. R.

(2000). The changing nature of interpersonal relationships in a women’s prison. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 442–468.

44.

Hale

(2020). Good intentions: Women’s narrative of post-release anticipatory desistance in the context of historical and contemporary disadvantage and trauma. Feminist Criminology, 15(5), 519–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120923403

45.

Haney

(2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156.

46.

Haney

(2018). Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 285–310.

47.

Harner

H. M.

(2004). Relationships between incarcerated women. Moving beyond stereotypes. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 42(1), 38–46.

48.

Harer

M. D.

Langan

N. P.

(2001). Gender differences in predictors of prison violence: Assessing the predictive validity of a risk classification system. Crime & Delinquency, 47(4), 513–536.

49.

Holtfreter

Cupp

(2007). Gender and risk assessment: The empirical status of the LSI-R for women. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 363–382.

50.

Hoskins

K. M.

Cobbina

J. E.

(2019). It depends on the situation: Women’s identity transformation in prison, jail, and substance abuse treatment settings. Feminist Criminology, 15(3), 340–358.

51.

Houser

K. A.

Belenko

Brennan

P. K.

(2012). The effects of mental health and substance abuse disorders on institutional misconduct among female inmates. Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 799–828.

52.

Huggins

Capeheart

Newman

(2006). Deviants or scapegoats: An examination of pseudofamily groups and dyads in two Texas prisons. The Prison Journal, 86(1), 114–139.

53.

Kaeble

Cowhig

(2018). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016. Bureau and Justice Statistics.

54.

King

R. D.

(1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in search of a problem? Punishment and Society, 1(2), 163–186.

55.

Kitzinger

(1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance on interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1), 103–121.

56.

Kolb

Palys

(2018). Playing the part: Pseudo-families, wives, and the politics of relationships in women’s prisons in California. The Prison Journal, 98(2), 678–699.

57.

Kreager

D. A.

Kruttschnitt

(2018). Inmate society in the era of mass incarceration. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 261–286.

58.

Krueger

D. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage.

59.

Kruttschnitt

(2010). The paradox of women’s imprisonment. Daedalus, 139(3), 32–42.

60.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

(2003). Women’s imprisonment. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 55–135). University of Chicago Press.

61.

Kruttschnitt

Gartner

Miller

(2000). Doing her own time? Women’s responses to prison in the context of the old and the new penology. Criminology, 38(3), 681–718.

62.

Kurki

Morris

(2001). Supermax prisons. Crime and Justice, 28(2001), 385–424.

63.

Labrecque

R. M.

(2019). Assessing the impact of time spent in restrictive housing confinement on subsequent measures of institutional adjustment among men in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1445–1455.

64.

Labrecque

R. M.

Mears

D. P.

(2019). Prison system versus critics’ views on the use of restrictive housing: Objective risk classification or ascriptive assignment? The Prison Journal, 99(2), 194–218.

65.

Labrecque

R. M.

Smith

(2019). The impact of restrictive housing on inmate behavior: A systematic review of the evidence. In Huebner

B. M.

Frost

N. A.

(Eds.), Handbook on the consequences of sentencing and punishment decisions (pp. 290–310). Routledge.

66.

Labrecque

R., M.

Mears

D. P.

Smith

. (2020). Gender and the effect of disciplinary segregation on prison misconduct. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(8), 1193–1216.

67.

Lahm

K. F.

(2017). Violent and nonviolent misconduct among female inmates: An exploration of competing theories. Victims and Offenders, 12(2), 175–204.

68.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

Elechi

O. O.

(2009). The impact of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on correctional staff support for rehabilitation and punishment. Criminal Justice Studies, 22(2), 109–122.

69.

Lambert

E. G.

Worley

V. B.

(2018). The effects of perceptions of staff-inmate boundary violations and willingness to follow rules upon work stress. Security Journal, 31(6), 618–644.

70.

Lovell

Cloyes

Allen

Rhodes

(2000). Who lives in super-maximum custody? A Washington state study. Federal Probation, 64(2), 33–46.

71.

Lovell

Johnson

L. C.

Cain

K. C.

(2007). Recidivism of supermax prisoners in Washington State. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 633–656.

72.

Lucas

Jones

(2019). An analysis of the deterrent effects of disciplinary segregation on institutional rule violation rates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 765–787.

73.

Maeve

M. K.

(1999). The social construction of love and sexuality in a women’s prison. Advances in Nursing Science, 21(3), 46–65.

74.

Mahan

(1984). Imposition of despair: An ethnography of women in prison. Justice Quarterly, 1(3), 357–383.

75.

Martel

(2001). Telling the story: A study in the segregation of women prisoners. Social Justice, 28(1), 196–215.

76.

McClellan

D. S.

Farabee

Crouch

B. M.

(1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality: A comparison of male and female prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 455–476.

77.

McKelvie

S. J.

(2013). Are attitude towards capital punishment and right-wing authoritarianism related to capital and non-capital sentencing? Journal of Scientific Psychology, 1, 1–13.

78.

Mears

D. P.

(2016). Critical research gaps in understanding the effects of prolonged time in restrictive housing on inmates and the institutional environment. In Garcia

(Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S. (pp. 233–295). National Institute of Justice.

79.

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology and Public Policy, 12(4), 681–719.

80.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2009). Supermax incarceration and recidivism. Criminology, 47(4), 1131–1166.

81.

Mears

D. P.

Castro

J. L.

(2006). Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax prisons. Crime and Delinquency, 52(3), 398–431.

82.

Mears

D. P.

Hughes

Pesta

G. B.

Bales

W. D.

Brown

J. M.

Cochran

J. C.

Wooldredge

(2019). The new solitary confinement? A conceptual framework for guiding and assessing research and policy on “restrictive housing.” Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1427–1444.

83.

Mears

D. P.

Reisig

(2006). The theory and practice of supermax prisons. Punishment & Society, 8(1), 33–57.

84.

Molleman

Leeuw

F. L.

(2012). The influence of prison staff on inmate conditions: A multilevel approach to staff and inmate surveys. European Journal of Crime Policy Research, 18(2), 217–233.

85.

Morgan

R. D.

Gendreau

Smith

Gray

A. L.

Labrecque

R. M.

MacLean

Van Horn

S. A.

Bolanos

A. D.

Batastini

A. B.

Mills

J. F.

(2016). Quantitative synthesis of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(4), 439–461.

86.

Morris

R. G.

(2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 1–22.

87.

O’Keefe

M. L.

Klebe

K. J.

Metzer

Dvoskin

Fellner

Stucker

(2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 41(1), 49–60.

88.

Owen

B. A.

(1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’s prison. SUNY Press.

89.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage.

90.

Pollack

(2005). Taming the shrew: Regulating prisoners through women-centered mental health programming. Critical Criminology, 13(1), 71–87.

91.

Pratt

(2019). Addicted to incarceration: Corrections policy and the politics of misinformation in the United States (2nd ed.). Sage.

92.

Propper

A. M.

(1982). Make-believe families and homosexuality among imprisoned girls. Criminology, 20(1), 127–138.

93.

Pyrooz

(2016). Gang affiliation and restrictive housing in U.S. prisons. In Garcia

(Ed.), Restrictive housing in the U.S. (117–164). National Institute of Justice.

94.

Reisig

M. D.

Holtfreter

Morash

(2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23(3), 384–405.

95.

Reiter

K. A.

(2012). The most restrictive alternative: A litigation history of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons, 1960–2006. In Studies in Law, Politics and Society. (pp. 71–124). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

96.

Reiter

K. A.

(2016). 23/7: Pelican Bay Prison and the rise of long-term solitary confinement. Yale University Press.

97.

Rhodes

L. A.

(2004). Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum security prison. University of California Press.

98.

Riveland

(1999). Supermax prisons: Overview and general considerations. National Institute of Corrections.

99.

Salisbury

E. J.

Van Voorhis

(2009). Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(6), 541–566.

100.

Sered

S. S.

Norton-Hawk

(2019). Women on the institutional circuit: A 9-year qualitative study. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 25(1), 25–36.

101.

Severance

T. A.

(2004). Concerns and coping strategies of women inmates concerning release: “It’s going to take somebody in my corner.” Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 38(4), 73–97.

102.

Severance

T. A.

(2005). “You know who you can go to”: Cooperation and exchange between incarcerated women. The Prison Journal, 85(3), 343–367.

103.

Shalev

(2014). Solitary confinement as a prison health issue. In Enggist

Moller

Galea

Udesen

(Eds.), Prisons and health (pp. 27–35). World Health Organization.

104.

Siennick

S. E.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

(2013). Here and gone: Anticipation and separation effects of prison visits on inmate infractions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(3), 417–444.

105.

Simon

(2000). The “society of captives” in the era of hyper-incarceration. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 285–308.

106.

Simon

(2014). Mass incarceration on trial: A remarkable court decision and the future of prison in America. The New Press.

107.

Sparks

Bottoms

A. E.

Hay

(1996). Prisons and the problem of order. Oxford University Press.

108.

Steffensmeier

Allan

(1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22(1), 459–487.

109.

Steiner

(2009). Assessing static and dynamic influences on inmate violence levels. Crime and Delinquency, 55(1), 134–161.

110.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2009). Individual and environmental effects on assaults and nonviolent rule breaking by women in prison. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 437–467.

111.

Sullivan

(2020). Reducing segregation. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved October 8, 2020, from https://www.vera.org/projects/reducing-segregation/learn-more

112.

Sundt

J. L.

Castellano

T. C.

Briggs

C. S.

(2008). The sociopolitical context of prison violence and its control: A case study of supermax and its effect in Illinois. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 94–122.

113.

Toch

(2003). The contemporary relevance of early experiments with supermax reform. The Prison Journal, 83(2), 221–228.

114.

Van Voorhis

Wright

E. M.

Salisbury

Bauman

. (2010). Women’s risk factors and their contribution to existing risk/needs assessment: The current status of a gender-responsive supplement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(3), 261–288.

115.

Walters

(2018). Checking the math: Do restrictive housing and mental health need add up to psychological deterioration? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(9), 1347–1362.

116.

Ward

D. A.

Kassebaum

G. G.

(1965). Women’s prison: Sex and social structure. New Transaction.

117.

Ward

D. A.

Werlich

T. G.

(2003). Alcatraz and Marion: Evaluating super-maximum custody. Punishment and Society, 5(1), 53–75.

118.

Wattanaporn

Holtfreter

(2014). The impacts of feminist pathways research on gender-responsive policy and practice. Feminist Criminology, 9(3), 191–207.

119.

Wooldredge

Steiner

(2015). A macro-level perspective on prison inmate deviance. Punishment and Society, 17(2), 230–257.

120.

Wright

E. M.

Van Voorhis

Salisbury

Bauman

(2012). Gender-responsive lessons learned and policy implications for women in prison: A review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(12), 1612–1632.

121.

Wulf-Ludden

(2013). Interpersonal relationships among inmates and prison violence. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(1), 116–136.

122.

Wulf-Ludden

(2016). Pseudofamilies, misconduct, and the utility of general strain theory in women’s prison. Women and Criminal Justice, 26(4), 233–259.