SELF AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN A WOMENÕS PRISON  By  Michelle L. Malkin                   A THESIS  Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements  for the degree of  Criminal Justice - Master of Science  2016   ABSTRACT  SELF AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN A WOMENÕS PRISON  By  Michelle L. Malkin  Research on womenÕs experiences in prisons still has many areas to explore. This study examines collective and self-efficacy examples from a convict criminology perspective. Unique to criminal justice ethnographic research, this study uses a public blog maintained throughout 10 months of incarceration as the data source. Results show many examples of both collective and self-efficacy within the womenÕs prison. Correctional staff influenced the ways in how women were able to advocate for themselves and each other, which influenced efficacy measures. Prisoner identity factors, race/ethnicity, age, sexual behavior, security classification, and religion also showed influences on prisoner collective and self-efficacy. Sexual orientation and gender identity could not be assessed for efficacy issues based on the data source. This research also provides a glimpse into the lives of prisoners in a medical facility and how collective and self-efficacy issues specifically applied to prisoners based on designation of care level and ability/disability. It was found that medical and ability issues could thwart self-efficacy in the prison, however collective efficacy was strong between prisoners to help each other get through difficult situations. This finding implies that while prisoners effectively advocate for themselves in womenÕs prisons, health and disability issues may lead to lower capacity to meet individual goals.            Copyright by  MICHELLE L. MALKIN  2016     iv                     This thesis is dedicated to Alice L., Dianna R., Karla L., and the ÒCowgirlsÓ for supporting me without question through one of the most difficult experiences of my life.  It is also dedicated to all the women I met and shared conversations with at FMC Carswell; especially Leah W., Kay R., and Linda L., who displayed incredible strength and friendship and taught me the value of collective efficacy.  Thank you all for believing in me, my future and the Dragonfly Hazel blog.    v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS   I would like to thank Dr. Christina DeJong, who stepped up to be my thesis committee chair and has provided me incredible patience and guidance throughout this journey. I would also like to thank Drs. Chris Smith, Charles Corley and Jennifer Cobbina for offering me support and feedback as I went from a basic abstract to this full thesis. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Dr. William Terrill, who gave me the initial idea and support for this thesis research when he asked me, Òwhat are you going to do with that ethnography?Ó  vi TABLE OF CONTENTS   LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii  LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix  KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ..........................................................................................................x  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1  CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..........................................................................4 Collective Efficacy in Prison ...............................................................................................4 Self-Efficacy in the Prison Context .....................................................................................5 Prison Staff and Efficacy Issues ..........................................................................................7 WomenÕs Prison Experience ................................................................................................9 Convict Criminology .........................................................................................................13  CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................19 FMC Carswell ....................................................................................................................19 One Year and One Day Blog .............................................................................................21 Coding Process...................................................................................................................26  CHAPTER 4: COLLECTIVE AND SELF-EFFICACY IN A WOMENÕS PRISON ..................29 Collective Efficacy .............................................................................................................29 Tutoring ..................................................................................................................29 Food and Dining ....................................................................................................30 Cleaning .................................................................................................................32 Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................33 Release ...................................................................................................................33 Education ...............................................................................................................34 Programming ..........................................................................................................36  CHAPTER 5: INFLUENCE OF CORRECTIONAL STAFF .......................................................39 Inspection ...........................................................................................................................39 Encouraging Group Behavior ............................................................................................41 Bureaucracy .......................................................................................................................43 Punishment .........................................................................................................................44 Treatment of Prisoners .......................................................................................................45  CHAPTER 6: INFLUENCE OF IDENTITY ................................................................................47 Race and Ethnicity .............................................................................................................47 Age .....................................................................................................................................53 Sexual Behavior and Intimate Relationships .....................................................................55 Security Classifications ......................................................................................................61 vii Religion ..............................................................................................................................65  CHAPTER 7: COLLECTIVE AND SELF-EFFICACY IN A PRISON MEDICAL CENTER ...69 Designated Care Level .......................................................................................................69 Ability/Disability ...............................................................................................................77  CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................84 Summary of Findings .........................................................................................................84 Limitations .........................................................................................................................90 Future Research .................................................................................................................91  REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................92      viii LIST OF TABLES  Table 1: Demographic Breakdown of Prisoners at FMC Carswell as of October 2013 ................20 Table 2: Description of Primary Blog Post Purpose ......................................................................22 Table 3: General Content of Blog Posts ........................................................................................23 Table 4: Number of Posts Showing Staff Interaction with collective and self-efficacy ................39     ix LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1: Number of Blog Posts by Month ....................................................................................24 Figure 2: Number of Posts by Code ...............................................................................................27 x KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS  ACA Affordable Care Act ACE Adult Continuing Education CO Correctional Officer DF Dragonfly FMC Federal Medical Center GED General Education Development PSI Pre-Sentence Investigation (Report) RDAP Residential Drug and Alcohol Program SHU Special Housing Unit   1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Over the past decade, there has been an increase on the amount of research conducted on the experiences of women in prison. (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016; Drake, Earle, & Sloan, 2015; Lahm, 2015, 2016; Pelissier & Jones, 2006; Rowe, 2015; Smoyer, 2015; Sumner & Sexton, 2015; Terry, 2016; Trammel, Wulf-Ludden & Mowder, 2015; Willingham, 2011; Willison, 2016; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014). Early prison research tended to focus more on men or comparing male and female prisoners, rather than focus on womenÕs experiences and womenÕs prisons as their own entities (Bosworth, Campbell, Demby, Ferranti, & Santos, 2005; Drake et al., 2015; Pelissier & Jones, 2006; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014). As explained by Drake et al., (2015), early studies compared and contrasted womenÕs prison experiences with studies of menÕs prisons. While comparison research is useful for some purposes, womenÕs lives in prisons are unique from menÕs and deserve their own research lens (Drake et al., 2015; Bauman, Voorhis, Wright, & Salisbury, 2014; Sumner & Sexton, 2015; Wright, Salisbury, Voorhis, 2007). More recent studies have been broadening the scope of womenÕs prison research, but there are a vast range of topics still to be explored (Drake et al., 2015).  Moreover, the population of women in prison has been growing steadily for over a decade (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014; Lahm, 2016). Between 2000 and 2010, the total growth of females under state or federal prison jurisdiction grew by 21%, compared to 15% for men (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014, p. 6). Since 2010, females have been the fastest growing population in jails and prisons, growing at an average of 3.4% annually (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014, p. 1). At the end of 2014, over 112,000 women in the United States were incarcerated (Lahm, 2016), and a total of 1,256,500 women were involved with the correctional system in some way (probation, parole, local jail, or prison (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014, p. 6). Recently, unlike menÕs prisons, there has been  2 a racial shift in womenÕs prisons with a decline of African Americans being incarcerated and an increase of incarceration of Caucasian/Latina women (Mauer, 2013). Given the increased numbers of female inmates and their evolving needs, there is great value to trying to continue to understand the experiences of imprisonment from womenÕs perspectives.  Another issue in prior prison research is the lack of research conducted in federal prisons (Cislo & Trestman, 2013). The barriers to prison research become even more burdensome with the federal system, due to the ethical and legal standards that must be overcome (Cislo & Trestman, 2013; Kalmback & Lyons, 2003). It is nearly impossible to gain access to federal prisoners until they are on supervision or release. Female prisoners under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities have experiences and stories that may be unique from the women in state prison facilities, yet few studies have examined the lives of women in federal prisons from inside the prison walls (Bosworth et al., 2005; Pelissier & Jones, 2006; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2014). This study sought to fill that gap by providing much needed research on womenÕs lives in the federal prison system. Educated ex-prisoners offer a unique perspective into criminal justice research that combines subjectivity with a critical eye to better inform an autoethnographic methodological approach (Jones, Ross, Richards, & Murphy, 2009; Newbold, Ross, Jones, Richards, & Lenza, 2014; Richards, 2013). According to Richards (2013), convict criminology  is a Òtheoretical perspective that uses direct observation, face-to-face interviews, autoethnography, and retrospective analysis to penetrate the reality of distant social worldsÓ (p. 380). Current and ex-prisoner autoethnography is the mainstay of convict criminology.  Convict criminologists and are not particularly unified in one school of thought, rather:  3 Òit consists of a collection of PhD-trained former prisoners, prison workers, and others who share a belief that in order to be a fully rounded discipline, mainstream criminology needs to be informed by input from those with personal experience of life in correctional institutions.Ó (Ross, Darke, Aresti, Newbold, & Earle, 2014, p. 121). What materializes from convict criminology is the unique methodology offered by its scholars. As stated by Richards et al. (2008), ÒThe convict perspective isÉ based on perceptions, experiences, and analytical ideas that originate with defendants and prisoners, and then developed by critical scholarsÓ (p. 122). Convict criminologists build off the scholarly approaches of critical criminology and ethnographic qualitative methods (Jones et al., 2013; Newbold and Ross, 2012; Ross et al., 2014). There are few examples of convict criminology focused on womenÕs experiences or federal prisons. This research provides an example of autoethnographic convict criminology research in a federal womenÕs prison. Therefore, this research offers an opportunity to study an important and under-researched population utilizing a methodology that offers unique insights and understandings of prison experiences. The primary research questions were whether prisoners demonstrated self-efficacy and/or collective efficacy efforts. The data were then to be analyzed for how correctional staff affected collective and self-efficacy efforts. Individual and collective identities were also examined to assess whether such identity assisted with or detracted from such efforts. This research is unique in looking at both collective and self-efficacy from the lived experiences within a womenÕs prison. It also adds to the body of research by providing additional analysis into the unique environment of a federal medical center.    4 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE   This literature review begins by exploring collective efficacy and its application within the prison context. Self-efficacy is then explored in the prison environment. A brief overview of relevant findings from recent research within womenÕs prisons is surveyed. Finally, convict criminology is further discussed. Collective Efficacy in Prison  Researchers have oftrn regarded the prison environment as a world unto itself (Cunha, 2008; 2014). CunhaÕs (2008) ethnographic study of a Portugese womenÕs prison led her to reconsider the prison as a total institution with kinship, neighborhood, and normalcy. Prisons can be seen as their own interlocked communities just as seen in other contexts.   According to Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) collective efficacy is Òthe fusion of social cohesion with shared expectations for the active social control of public spaceÓ (p. 637). In the context of prisons, Draus and Lempert (2013) offered an evaluation of collective efficacy in a prison theory group. Collective efficacy among the men developed as Òtrust and greater cohesiveness as an allied unit,Ó (Draus & Lempert, 2013, p. 140), which could be utilized toward a common good. The cohesiveness for collective efficacy efforts could be built through symbols, such as shared clothing, words, and signs (Gau, 2014; Wickes, 2010). While collective efficacy is typically applied to neighborhoods in the context that a community with common values can self-regulate to prevent disorder and crime, especially among disadvantaged neighborhoods (Gau, 2014; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), Draus and LempertÕs (2013) application to a Detroit theory group applied well in the context of a womenÕs prison. Mutual acceptance and support, an ethic of  5 caring for one another, and striving toward common goals can all generate examples of collective efficacy (Draus & Lempert, 2013; DeGraaf & Kilty, 2016). Self-Efficacy in the Prison Context   The concept of prisoner self-efficacy is more common in prison related research (Allred, Harrison, & OÕConnell, 2013; Friestad & Hansen, 2005; Jonesa, Mangerb, Eikeland, & Asbiornsen, 2013; Loeb, Steffensmeier, & Kassab, 2010; Pelissier & Jones, 2006). Much of this research is focused on the psychology of helping prisoners build self-efficacy skills prior to release and reducing recidivism, drug dependency, and prisoner mental illness. Self-efficacy is defined as an individualÕs belief that they have the ability to accomplish their goals (Bandura, 1978). The basic premise of the theory is that people are able to produce what they hope to accomplish through their own actions and make appropriate behavioral decisions. This is based on the personÕs ability to cope, put in effort, self-advocate, and sustain adverse obstacles without defensive behavior. Self-efficacy connects a personÕs thoughts to their behavior.  The major sources of self-efficacy, according to Bandura (1978), are performance accomplishments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. Performance accomplishments connect a personÕs learning and successes to their own behaviors. Vicarious experiences are lessons learned through the consequences of another. Verbal persuasion is the influence of behavior through suggestive communication. Finally, emotional arousal is how emotional highs and lows can affect progress.  There are potential positive and negative effects of each of these sources (Bandura 1978). For example, in performance accomplishments, repeated success can form mastery and positive outcomes. However, repeated failures will lower expectations and self-efficacy. For vicarious experiences, if people observe negative behaviors with little or no consequences, this can result  6 in a negative lesson. However, if someone who models something positive has a positive outcome, this could result in a good lesson. Verbal persuasion has been shown to help people believe in themselves and accomplish something they did not know they could do. At the same time, if the person in fact fails at the task, it can Òdiscredit the persuaders and further undermine the recipientsÕ perceived self-efficacyÓ (Bandura, 1978, p. 146). Finally, emotional arousal has the ability to desensitize emotions in order to assist in reducing fear, anxiety, and other barriers to success. Manipulations of emotions, though, is often very complex, short-lived, and can be controversial.  Displays of self-efficacy are unique in the prison environment (Allred et al., 2013; Friestad & Hansen, 2005; Loeb, Steffensmeier, & Kassab, 2010; Pelissier & Jones, 2006). According to Allred et al. (2013) Òin the context of a prison culture, normal life challenges that may thwart self-efficacy among incarcerated individuals are of a different form and may assume a different meaningÓ (p. 215). Pelissier and Jones (2006) simplified the definition of self-efficacy in the prison context to a ÒpersonÕs sense of successful determination in relationship to reaching his or her general goalsÓ (p. 116). Difficult prison experiences must be taken in context in determining whether the prisoner is self-advocating and making healthy choices (Loeb, Steffensmeier & Kassab, 2010). Loeb et al. (2010) found that while prisoners have reduced Òdecision-making opportunity or control over day-to-day life,Ó (p. 817), they are able to engage in positive forms of self-efficacy in making healthy decision. Rowe (2015) looked at agency and power in womenÕs prisons in Britain. Much of her discussion of agency is applicable to self-efficacy issue. Similar to the above definition of self-efficacy in prison, she defined power and agency as the Òability to achieved desired and intended  7 outcomesÓ (Rowe, 2015, p. 333). Her definition is helpful in the analysis of self-efficacy in prisons. Most researchers use established surveys to measure prisoner self-efficacy (Allred et al., 2013; Loeb et al., 2010; Jonesa et al., 2013), making it rather unique to measure the existence of self-efficacy through qualitative or ethnographic research. There is much value to studying experiences through a purely qualitative lens. As stated by Smoyer (2015), Òqualitative literature about incarcerated women promotes a visibility of womenÕs everyday carceral experienceÓ (p. 27). Often surveys are based on judgement of what a prisoner would do in a specific context, however in an ethnographic study self-efficacy can refer to the actual acts of an individual. As stated by Friestad and Hansen (2005) in their study looking at mental health problems, drug use and self-efficacy among prisoners, self-efficacy is more than perception, but should relate to real life circumstances. It may still include perceived self-efficacy so that goals and plans can be accomplished by the belief that the prisoner can make it happen, such as advocating for oneself to achieve the goal. According to Friedstad and Hansen (2005) perceived self-efficacy leads to Ògoal-setting, effort investment, persistence in the face of barriersÓ (p. 186). Since self-efficacy is task specific, an individual may show high self-efficacy in one context, but low in a different context (Allred et al., 2013). Prison Staff and Efficacy Issues Prison staff can have a significant impact on the perceptions of prison conditions by inmates. Molleman and Leeuw (2011) conducted a study in a Dutch prison comparing inmate and staff perceptions of prison conditions based on staff orientation toward inmates. The authors found that staff that were seen as supportive resulted in more positive values about prison conditions. According to Trammel et al., (2015), positive staff relationships could influence  8 positive decision making in prison. Staff who were more rule-oriented were respected for their clarity and helpfulnesss (Molleman & Leeuw, 2011). As stated by Molleman and Leeuw (2011), Òthe orientation of staff seems to be associated with an inmateÕs ability to satisfy his/her needs, such as realizing autonomy, having amenities, and engaging in activitiesÓ (p. 229). These are similar factors to the effect of prison staff also apply to both collective and self-efficacy. In RoweÕs (2015) study of power and agency in a womenÕs prison, she found that staff had an important role in the ability for prisonerÕs to show self-agency and build collective relationships. One way she found that prison officers have an impact is through the disciplinary environment. Discipline in itself was a burden, but those officers that abused their power in the discipline of prisoners was an even larger burden. She found that prisoners were successful at practicing a degree of agency in the prison system, however, Òprisoners remained dependent on staff to meet a very broad range of very basic needs and functions: from bringing a new toilet roll, through being let in out of the rain, to arranging medical appointmentsÓ (Rowe, 2015, p. 339). For prisoners who faced prison staff that failed to their jobs, self-agency was lower as women lacked many outlets, other than seeking someone else to do the job on staff, to continue toward their intended goals. Persistence in breaking down prison officerÕs denial of request was one way women would attempt to get goals met. As stated by Rowe (2015), wearing Òdown officersÕ resistance to acting on a request, or ensure it was not forgotten, by means of persistent approachesÑa tactic variously termed Ôbeing a painÕ...Ó (p. 340). Pushing too much or seeking help from superior officers risked not only not getting needs met for prisoners, but discipline for not following proper channels. Based on the research of prison staffÕs role in prisoner collective and self-efficacy, it is apparent that the power lies with the officer and the amount of self-agency  9 and goal achieving is dependent on the amount of latitude offered to the prisoner and the willingness by staff to do their job. WomenÕs Prison Experience There has been a rise in research considering womenÕs prison experiences (Lahm, 2015, 2016; Rowe, 2015; Terry, 2016; Willingham, 2011). According to Lahm (2016), Òan inmateÕs adaptation to prison life is a result of his or her social background, personal experiences, and socialization that occurred prior to prisonÓ (p. 215). Beyond adaptation, though, research on women has shown evidence of self-efficacy within prison (Pelissier & Jones, 2006; Rowe, 2015). In looking at how prisoners solve problems within the prison system, Rowe (2015) found that many prisoners were tactical based on the complexity of the issue and the constraints of the prison system. Such tactics often would lead to positive outcomes for the prisoner.  Pelissier and Jones (2006) found that women that were successful in legally mandated drug and alcohol treatment programs also showed high levels of self-efficacy. As Willingham (2011) showed, prison can be a place of positive efficacy toward addiction recovery. Harlow (2003) points out, however, that only about half of women with addiction problems receive treatment while in prison (see also Lahm, 2016).  Nuytiens and Christians (2016), in looking at a Belgium womenÕs prison, expanded on womenÕs pathways to crime theories to include vulnerabilities of thee possible domains, Òindividual, rational, and societal/socialÓ (p. 200). Their research indicates that negative life relationships may lead to offending and that women bring these past experiences with them into the prison environment. Women experience such things as low self-esteem, mental health issues, and addiction as a result of past experiences (Lahm, 2016; Nutiens & Christians, 2016). These  10 factors are important to consider in understanding why some women may be less likely to self-advocate or form healthy relationships while in prison. The age of mass incarceration in the United States has resulted in a large surge of female prisoners and overcrowded prisons (Thomson, 2016; Willingham, 2011; Willison, 2016). African American women are incarcerated at higher rates than other ethnic or racial groups (Willingham, 2011; Harlow, 2003). Most women are imprisoned for nonviolent offenses (Terry, 2016; Willison, 2016). Most violent offenses by women are the result of prior unhealthy relationships with men and the victim tends to be a present or former intimate partner (Willison, 2016). Nonlethal and nonintimate violence by women are usually between women of the same racial background and against women they knew (Willison, 2016). First time offenders are less likely to engage in violent or severe nonviolent offenses compared to habitual offenders (Thomson et al., 2016). Mental health issues, such as callous psychopathic traits, are a large factor in whether a woman may be a violent offender (Lahm, 2016; Thomson et al., 2016; Harlow, 2003). Female prisoners are much more likely than male prisoners to have mental health issues (Harlow, 2003). These factors often lead to prison misconduct and further violence once in prison. According to Lahm (2016), Òwomen inmates active on the mental health caseload and those with prior violent disciplinary offenses on their record had an increased likelihood being a perpetratorÓ (Lahm, 2016). At the same time, prior violence against a female does not necessarily lead them to be more violent, as more than 80% of female prisoners have been victimized in the past (Harlow, 2003). Higher security levels, however, may increase the propensity for violence in prison, with lower security levels falling victim (Lahm, 2016). According to Lahm (2016), mixed security levels is an issue in the womenÕs state prison system because many states only have one prison for females.  11 In looking at intimate partner violence within a womenÕs prison, Trammell et al., (2015) found that sexual relationships is the most common cause of fighting. These fights are usually over Òbetrayal, jealousy, and verbal fights that escalateÓ (Trammell et al., 2015, p. 263). While many of the sexual relations were found to be interracial, the violence did not tend to stem from interracial issues. Sometimes these fights were started merely by rumors about one of the girlfriends among the prisoners. Violence between girlfriends often resulted in their relationship going public to the authorities and both women would go to segregation because intimate relationships, as well as violence, were not allowed in the prison environment.  Outside of intimate relationship violence, certain characteristics of women could make them more of a target for violence and in-prison theft (Lahm, 2015, 2016). According to Lahm (2016), prison conditions do not lead to violence, rather its dependent on the Òpersonal characteristicsÓ (p. 215) of the prisoners. Prisoners with prior employment and/or resources coming into the prison could be a target for theft (Lahm, 2015). Additionally, women that tended to practice higher levels of self-efficacy, through programming and education in prison, were more likely to be seen as targets. Recently, there have been interesting studies looking at the connection between food and prison relationships between women (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016; Smoyer, 2015). This research takes an intriguing look at collective efficacy type issues, as access to food, the making of meals with others, and emotional bonds over food for female prisoners can lead to significant types of between women relationships. De Graaf and Kilty (2016) looked at womenÕs relations around food and the meaning food had to the women in a Canadian prison. They found that the strict meal management of food within the prison context increased the meaning women gave to food in their lives and relationships, which would be intensified by overcrowded prisons and how  12 much connection women could still make with their families back home. Food often was used to replace negative feelings and emotions among the women. ÒThe use of comfort food inside prison helped the women to temper the pains of imprisonmentÓ (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016, p. 39). Food also was used as a replacement for addictive actions prior to prison (such as drugs and alcohol). Food for prisoners also holds high symbolic value due to its limitations within the prison context. It is the way that women showed how they cared for others, Òincarcerated women would take care of and support their fellow cell- or dorm-mates through general social inclusion and by sharing food, a limited and restricted commodity in prisonÓ (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016, p. 38). As stated by Smoyer (2015), prisoners would Ònegotiate and construct individual relationshipsÓ (p. 30) through food. The sharing of snacks and meals was a way of consoling one another during difficult times (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016; Smoyer, 2015). This is similar to collective efficacy, in that prisoners showed Òan ethic of care through mutually sharing food [that] helped to generate a sense of togetherness that made incarceration more manageable for allÓ (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016, p. 38). Also, eating in the prison chow hall could result in increased collective efficacy, Òboth the walk to the cafeteria and the meal time itself offered opportunity for fellowshipÓ (Smoyer, 2015, p. 33). Trading and sharing food was additionally a large commodity in the womenÕs prison (De Graaf & Kilty, 2016; Smoyer, 2015). It was also a form of resistance against the strict commissary and dietary rules. Food could also be smuggled out of the kitchen and commissary to assist through individual influence, which could lead to increased comradery (Smoyer, 2015). Based on the forgoing research, the meaning women gave to food appears to potentially lead to  13 low self-efficacy decisions (theft and violation of prison rules) and for high collective efficacy (shared experiences and friendships).  Women in prison tend to form pseudo family relationships (Harlow, 2003). These are different from the intimate relationships formed by many incarcerated women. Within prison, women will try to bond with one another and build family structures that mimic the outside world in order Òto help ease the pains of imprisonmentÓ (Harlow, 2003, p. 556). These pseudo families help with emotional issues associated with being away from families on the outside and also support each other and have one anotherÕs backs on the inside of prison. This type of support can influence positive behavior change within the prison. Harlow (2003) reported that while males prioritize safety issues in prison, women prioritize relationships and intimacy with others. These factors can in turn influence efficacy issues. Convict Criminology  Recent inquiries have challenged the automatic distrust of self in ethnographic methodological studies and embraced the ability to obtain enhanced knowledge, context, and insider status that comes through them (Anderson, 2006; Jewkes, 2011; Richie, 2004; Wakeman, 2014). Autoethnography falls within a type of methodology, wherein the self is a known entity and part of the research. Ethnographic studies offer a unique window into understanding the complexity of prisoner lives, whereas mainstream research is often Òconfined by official data sets and crime reportsÓ (Leyva & Bickel, 2010, p. 58), which can limit full understanding of the experiences.    In the context of prisons, emotional responsiveness is a natural experience that should not be ignored in the ethnographic experience. According to Jewkes (2011), criminology should not conceal the Òanger, frustration, fear, and outrage,Ó (p. 72), that prisoners feel at times during their  14 imprisonment, and these emotions should be revealed by the researcher as well. Confessing these feelings within epistemological and theoretical scholarship should not diminish its worthiness as research, but rather make it more disclosing toward the process of understanding the ethnographic insider status of the researcher (Jewkes, 2011; Newbold et al., 2014).  When the ethnographer is an ex-prisoner, JewkesÕ (2011) inclusion of emotional experience in prison research becomes even more important (Newbold et al., 2014). For many who experience time in prison, their desire to produce academic scholarship in criminal justice is often out of a frustration in finding that criminal justice academic literature lacks many prison realities (Jones et al., 2009; Richards, 2013; Richards et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2015). According to Richards (2013), this frustration became the impetus for developing the theoretical perspective of convict criminology: ÒIn our view, most academic textbooks and journal articles reflected the ideas of prison administrators, while largely ignoring what convicts knew about the day-to-day realities of imprisonment. Instead, these works tended to gloss over the horrors of prison, inventing a sanitized presentation, without the smell of fear and noise of desperation ÉÓ (p. 377). Convict criminology was birthed by a group of ex-prisoner academic scholars at an American Society of Criminology conference in 1997 (Jones et al., 2009; Richards, 2013). Quality academic work is necessary to build credibility in the convict criminology perspective given its novelty (Newbold & Ross, 2012; Ross, Zaldivar, & Tewsbury, 2015). In order for convict criminology to effect change in policy and practice among criminal justice practitioners and agencies, it is important that researchers Òresist the tendency to proselytize [and instead] focus on  15 producing information derived from research that is careful, disciplined and robustÓ (Newbold & Ross, 2012, p. 8.). Convict criminology is practiced by academic scholars, as it Òrepresents the works of convicts or ex-convicts who are in possession of a PhD or on their way to completing one, É led by former prisoners who are now among the ranks of academic facultyÓ (Jones et al., 2009, p. 152). Convict criminology is not merely giving a prisoner perspective, like narratives often provide in research (Richards et al., 2008). While a Òconvict perspective is that of a person in prison, in contrast the convict criminology perspective is that of a former prisoner who uses his or her experience to better inform the study of prisonsÓ (Richards et al., 2008, p. 122). As stated by Ross et al. (2013), convict criminology researchers Òshare a belief that in order to be a fully rounded discipline, mainstream criminology needs to be informed by input from those with personal experience of life in correctional institutionsÓ (p. 121). Terry (2003) believes that ex-prisoners are ideal for conducting research and that their data from their lives inside the prison were of value because, Òconvicts are first hand witnesses to what takes place in their closed-off worlds of endemic injusticeÓ (p. 47).   The use of direct observation and personal experience is part of the process in understanding the criminal justice system (Jones et al., 2009). Methodology can include personal correspondence, interviews, retrospective interpretation of experiences, and current observations and writings (Jones et al., 2009; Richards, 2013). As described by Jones et al. (2009) conducting serious research among the prisoner writings avoids the potential critique that convict criminology researchers Òare just whining, overeducated consÓ (p. 162).  Convict criminology encourages writing in the first person and the use of empowering terms (Jewkes, 2011; Jones et al., 2009; Richards, 2013). It is recommended that authors in the  16 field stop using ÒoffenderÓ or ÒinmateÓ as they refer to terms of the establishment (Jones et al., 2009; Richards, 2013). Instead, terms that humanize individuals, such as convict, defendant, prisoner, or a pronoun are preferred. Convict criminology authors also admit to their subjectivity and use their experience with a critical eye to better inform meaning (Jones et al., 2009). As stated by Terry (2003) in his convict criminology study, Òlike other ethnographies, what is expressed here may be viewed as anecdotal and not generalizable. However, it does demonstrate natural and recurring situations I am privy to because of who I am, where IÕve been, who I know, and what I doÓ (p. 44). The generalizability of convict criminology is sometimes a limitation of such studies (Terry, 2003). Objectivity is also often raised as a limitation (Leyva & Bickel, 2010). At the same time, convict criminology researchers can offer deeper meaning in prison ethnography, since they fully pass as prisoners, know the language, and are/were part of the prison culture. The value of this reality cannot be understated when it comes to understanding the lives of prisoners through their own experiences.  Convict criminology is in its second wave, called the New School of Convict Criminology (Leyva & Bickel, 2010; Richards, 2013). Mass incarceration led to this new wave as there was an increased Òneed for more in-depth, first-hand accountsÓ (Leyva & Bickel, 2010, p. 50). According to Richards (2013), ÒAny research article that includes discussion of convict voices, and relates it to the convict criminology literature, may be interpreted as part of the New School of Convict CriminologyÓ (p. 380). It is important to note the importance of using convict criminology literature and voices in the research. While convict criminology may sound somewhat political or activist in nature, new wave academic convict criminologists are clear that the goal is to produce high quality academic research that achieves these goals, not the other way around (Jones et al., 2013; Newbold & Ross, 2012; Richards, 2013; Richards et al., 2008)  17  The biggest arguments against convict criminology are that researchers have the inability to do unbiased work (Jones et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2015). As Ross et al. (2015) suggest, these arguments are Òakin to someone saying that women cannot be unbiased authors in the field of feminist studies, African-Americans cannot be objective in the field of Race and Ethnic students, or former police officers cannot be objective when studying and teaching about law enforcementÓ (p. 75). Being a part of a group does not necessitate bias, rather reflexive writings can be a valuable part of scholarship in bringing about understanding in the academic field of study (Jones et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2015).  Personal writing may form important meaning for the person in prison (Willingham, 2011). Writing can help some prisoners better come with the emotional realities of prison. Prisoner writing is important to analyze as it may better help understand concepts of Òcaptivity, racism, classism and oppressionÓ (Willingham, 2011, p. 57) among other prison experiences.   There are a many examples convict criminology in research. For example, Terry (2003) used his personal prison experience and letters he received after release by other prisoners to examine how male prisons were managing difficult prisoners. Williams et al. (2014) used convict criminology to examine capital punishment. There is limited convict criminology research on womenÕs prison experiences, as well as within federal prisons. This literature review introduced the concepts necessary to understand the research for this thesis. The current study involved the analysis of convict criminology blog entries (and transcribed personal letters later added to the blog) while incarcerated in a womenÕs federal prison to explore how collective and/or self-efficacy exists in the prison population. Prison staff interaction is also analyzed to see whether staff influenced efficacy efforts. Some relevant prior  18 research on womenÕs prisons is examined to provide context for analysis of the findings. A convict criminology theoretical perspective is introduced to help frame this research. For the purpose of this study, self-efficacy is defined to include those instances where a prisoner takes appropriate steps toward accomplishing a goal through their own actions and self-advocacy, making decisions that appear healthy given the obstacles that lay before them in the context of imprisonment. As emphasized in BanduraÕs (1978) theory, self-efficacy is about a personÕs ability to cope, facing such adverse obstacles, without defensive or unhealthy behavior. Collective efficacy includes prisoner experiences with others that aid in the emotional well-being of the individual or group, as well as group activities that promote positive self-worth or experiences. The methodology section follows this section.      19 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY  The primary research objective was to explore whether self or collective efficacy exists in a womenÕs prison. This paper examines individual and group identities as they relate to the complexities surrounding collective and self-efficacy, as well as how staff interaction may directly or indirectly affect collect efficacy decisions and efforts, within a womenÕs prison. The data for this research were drawn from the ÒOne Year and One DayÓ blog maintained by the author under the pseudonym Dragonfly Hazel during my incarceration at FMC Carswell, in Fort Worth, TX between August 19, 2013 through May 28, 2014.   This methodology section is broken into four sections. The first section describes the location (FMC Carswell) of data collection. The next section explores the methodology toward the writing of ÒOne Year and One Day.Ó The third section provides the coding process. The final section explains the data analysis process. FMC Carswell FMC Carswell is the only federal security administrative prison for female inmates in the United States (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d.) and serves as a maximum security prison, medium security general population prison, residential drug and alcohol program for English and Spanish speakers, dual-diagnosis drug abuse treatment program, sex offender management program, administrative prison (escapees, chronic behavior problems, assaultive/predatory behavior, and other special populations), psychiatric referral center, faith-based residential program, and medical center for all security level prisoners. It also has a 250-bed separate minimum-security satellite camp adjacent to its property (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d; FMC Carswell, 2015). It houses up to 1,870 inmates and is located on an active U.S. Naval Air Station (FMC Carswell, 2015).  20 Apart from the maximum security prisoners (24 beds), all other people at FMC Carswell are housed among eight general population housing units (FMC Carswell, 2015). Four housing units are in a large separate building from the medical center and houses over 1,000 prisoners in mixed security-level and care-level units. They are referred to as 1 South, 2 South, 1 North, and 2 North. Within the medical center, 3 South is a smaller unit with general population prisoners. The Residential Drug and Alcohol Program (RDAP) is considered its own housing unit as it houses all current participants throughout their program and is on the second floor of the medical center. Med-Surge is a unit within the hospital for those that have recently undergone surgery, are no longer able to care for themselves, and/or need 24-hour healthcare/nurse support. There is a mental health unit with a locked section for those that are a danger to themselves and/or others and an outpatient mental health unit that joins the general population for meals and activities. While FMC Carswell does not appear to release the statistics on the breakdown of percentage of inmates based on care level or security level, there is some demographic information available (Table 1). Table 1: Demographic Breakdown of Prisoners at FMC Carswell as of October 2013  Race/Ethnicity*  White (Not Hispanic) 37.5% Hispanic/Latino 36.0% African-American Native Am., Asian, etc. (other category) 22.5% 3.6% Age  Average Age 41.4 Age Range 19-88 Citizenship  U.S. Citizen 78% Non U.S. Citizen** 22% Crime Type***  Drug offenses 54.3% Extortion, bribery, fraud 12.9% Immigration 10.5% Weapons, explosives, arson 2.3%  21 Table 1 (contÕd):   Banking, counterfeit, extortion 1.9% Sentence Length  Mean sentence 91.3 months Median sentence 64.0 months Sentences over 20 years 5.2%   n=96 Life sentences 1.3%   n=24 *Source did not appear to consider multi-racial identity. **Likely to be deported at end of incarceration. ***Non-exclusive Ð does not equal 100%. (FMC Carswell, 2015).  One Year and One Day Blog  Blog entries were primarily written through the Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer System (TRULINCS) application offered throughout the federal prison system (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d.). Access to TRULINCS is controlled, and costs prisoners five cents per minute. As part of the service, prisoners must consent to having all incoming and outgoing messages monitored. People are not allowed direct access to the Internet, so all blog entries were written and sent to a personal outside email address. An academic colleague (aka Traveler) volunteered to check the email regularly and post all received messages to the blog upon receipt. Periodically, a short time would lapse between the date message were sent and the blog posting due to the TRULINCS system or the volunteer not checking messages. Generally, messages were posted within 48 hours of initial writing. Due to the lapse in time, several posts (two to three) would appear on the same day, although they often were written on separate days, and not necessarily on the date that they were posted. Included in the blog are also seven personal letters and two personal notes written during the same time period that were added post-incarceration and posted to the dates they were dated.  Although this methodology is autoethnographic in nature, I choose to refer to the author of the posts as ÒDragonfly Hazel,Ó in order to stay consistent and avoid adding additional details or context not provided directly through the blogÕs analysis. Although uncommon, some  22 autobiographical ethnographers make the methodological decision to write in the third person in order to avoid the risk of attachment and adding of specific memories (Caulley, 2008; Denshire, 2013; Mendez, 2015). Using a third person point of view, additionally helps avoid reader confusion of first person accounts from multiple writers of blog posts provided as examples. Liberty beyond what is provided within the blog was taken only to explain how the data were initially observed, collected and written.  Initial writing on the blog started on June 25, 2013, four days after Dragonfly Hazel (herein ÒDF HazelÓ) was sentenced to federal prison for one count of wire fraud. The initial intention of the blog was to create place to help other women who may also need to learn about preparing for federal prison, ÒI looked all over online and found very little real information about preparing to go inside for women,Ó (6/25/2013). The blog became a place for Dragonfly Hazel to share her experiences, observations, reflections, hopes, and goals as she prepared for prison, did her time, and settled into life after incarceration on supervision. Posts generally broke down into focusing on life in prison (75%), personal reflections applicable primarily to DF Hazel (10%), and a combination of both (15%) (See Table 2). Table 2: Description of Primary Blog Post Purpose Blog Post Type Percent About Prison 75% Personal Reflections 10% Combination 15%   Blog posts primarily include the personal observations and experiences of DF Hazel and a group of other prisoners with whom she interacted on a daily basis. She spent between ten  23 minutes to one hour daily on the TRULINCS application and wrote one or more messages for the blog. She frequently carried a notebook and wrote notes throughout the day, in order to prepare for her next post. On several occasions, DF Hazel would spend time with other women, and pose a question in order to have everyone discuss the topic together; and then she would prepare a blog post from their responses. During meals, she would engage in conversations or spend time observing the behavior of prisoners and write about those experiences. Posts include a combination of daily experiences, focused topics, humorous anecdotes, prison metaphors, advice for those facing similar situations or those who are supporting someone who happens to be in prison, and emotional realism. DF Hazel is also in recovery from compulsive gambling and many posts include her hope, strength, and challenges as she sought serenity inside a medium security prison as a minimum-security prisoner. Additional posts have observations from some of her prison colleagues, most of whom were also educated, who shared their direct observations and experiences. Table 3 breaks down the general content of the blog posts, with about 50% being primarily descriptive about experience, 43% describing DF Hazel or her life and 7% focusing on the lives of specific prisoners other than DF Hazel. Table 3: General Content of Blog Posts Content of Blog Percent Mostly Decriptive 50% Mostly about Dragonfly Hazel 43% Mostly about Others 7%   Over the course of her time in prison, DF Hazel wrote 278 blog posts, averaging nearly one post per day. Figure 1 (below) displays the number of blog posts by month between the dates  24 of imprisonment. Posts ranged greatly in length, with most posts several paragraphs long. The shortest post was in March, 2014 called, ÒA Visit from Sporty,Ó with 898 words; and the longest post occurred in September, 2013 entitled, ÒLogging a Full Day at FMC Carswell,Ó with 35,949 words. This latter post was written as a personal note and added post-incarceration to the blog. The mean post length is 3,967.3 words and the median length of the posts is 3,618 words.  Figure 1: Number of Blog Posts by Month  Writing on the blog included not only the subjective cynicism that some might anticipate from a first timer in prison, but complex observations, insights, and experiences. Throughout the time of DF HazelÕs incarceration, the blog was an interactive form of communication, primarily with her writing daily on one or more subjects that became important for her to share. Sometimes, she would learn of questions or comments from outside readers and give responses to those as well. These came to her in personal TRULINKS emails from Traveler and she either responded privately or through the blog. Dragonfly Hazel found the interactive parts of the blog a great way to think reflexively about past writings or to think about new issues. While !"#$%!#&#'#"#&&"%(%%)!)#)%)&)")!"#$#%&'%(")$*+,-,#$%./0%12.34(5'%160%12.7 25 incarcerated, she engaged with readers from throughout the world, many of whom shared that they found reading about DF HazelÕs experience enlightening. Individuals referred to by name in the blog were given pseudonyms. DF Hazel allowed acquaintances to select their own pseudonym when they agreed to be an active part of the blog. Assigned pseudonyms were based on an observational characteristic or trait. No personal information of any participant was revealed, other than her own, and she selectively chose what information to reveal throughout her postings.  Dragonfly Hazel knew she was identifiable, as she shared traits of her background on the blog; such as her educational level of having obtained a Juris Doctorate and current status as a doctoral student, her Jewish religious affiliation, her 5Õ short stature, her age of 40 years old, the crime she pleaded to (wire fraud), her sentence length (one year and one day), her gambling addiction history and 5 years of recovery at that point, her Caucasian racial identity, her chronic health issues and medications that resulted in her placement in a federal medical center and more. She selected to not identity the exact location of where she was from online, but otherwise, if anyone were to read the ÒOne Year and One DayÓ blog and also know the prisoners within FMC Carswell, DF Hazel knew she could and would likely be identifiable. She selected to be open in this way to be as real and honest on the blog as possible in order to meet the original goals and objectives of providing a real look at what life is like and to prepare others for the experience.  Since, FMC Carswell was the only federal prison that could house DF Hazel based on her medical issues, DF Hazel chose to not make the location anonymous within the blog. Therefore, she was aware that she could be identified by staff or others if they happened to read the blog; and she was made aware fairly early in her imprisonment that staff members were aware of the  26 blog. Additionally, she experienced threats and harassment by several inmates due to the existence of this blog, which peaked in mid-January 2014, resulting in a short break from writing. DF Hazel started writing again a week later due to realizing how important her observational writing and blog became to her: ÒIt's my reflection on the world and the world's reflection on me. It keeps me sane and lets me share the insane. It is how I think, learn, reflect, share, find substance, care, and pay everything forward. I need to keep writing.Ó (DF Hazel, 1/30/14). These experiences inevitably affected how and what she was able to write at times. This was an unfortunate limitation of the data.  The data for this research went through Human Subject Research review by Michigan State UniversityÕs IRB process. Due to the nature of the publically available data already existing, it was determined the this research was exempt. Therefore, this study was allowed to proceed without requirement of further IRB review. Coding Process All blog posts between the time of self-surrender until release were uploaded to the computer-based qualitative analysis program, Dedoose, to aid in the data analysis process. This software stored the data and helped facilitate the process of thematic coding and theoretical analysis. Dedoose is a web-based qualitative research online application (Dedoose, n.d.). It contains a variety of interactive data visualization to help with coding and theme development. Each post was coded several times using the tools offered by Dedoose. Initially, each post was coded for the month written, any specific location, author, and type of post (blog post, letter, or note). Next, each post was coded for whether it contained evidence of self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and/or staff interaction that may influence self or collective efficacy. Each post was  27 then coded for evidence of personal and group identity. Another layer of coding was later conducted to assess a more descriptive background on the posts. Each post was coded for whether it was primarily about prison life, a personal reflection of DF Hazel, or a combination. It was also coded to assess whether the post was mostly a descriptive post, mostly about DF Hazel or her life, or if it was mostly about someone else. This additional layer of coding allowed for a greater understanding of a specific blog posts purpose.  Initially, the identity sub-codes were under each of the higher level codes of collective efficacy and self-efficacy. Later, it appeared redundant to have two ÒraceÓ codes, two Òsecurity classificationÓ codes, and so on. After the coding process was complete, the duplicated codes were combined on Microsoft Excel to allow each post to be analyzed individually for the codes of self-efficacy and/or collective-efficacy with each of the identity codes just once. Figure 2 displays the number of posts by code once the duplicative process was combined. Evidence and quotes were then gathered from the coding process completed on Dedoose.  Figure 2: Number of Posts by Code  .22.681.99/./139683.3.2317.::)")!))!")#))#")*+,+*,--.*/01.2.334.-32.3356*../780*0/96:.5.-0:0,86;0-0/9<=046;0-0/9.=>*6/0,84.?>6-2,50.8/6/0,8:.8=.52,50.8/6/0,808@A504,825.-6/0,8470A4.*>50/92*-644030*6/0,8=.40:86/.=2*65.2-.1.-;,<&=>%"?%!"#$#!>@<5>'%A"B=# 28 Throughout the process of coding the ÒOne Year and One DayÓ blog posts, it was necessary for me to take breaks when I would start to imagine myself once again back in prison and wishing I had the opportunity to expand on a writing because of the limitations I felt while I was there. No posts have been edited to accomplish this desire. It does provide an opening however to the limitations of the dataset that must be emphasized. There were many observations and experiences that Dragonfly Hazel was unable to write, threatened that she would face terrible consequences if she shared, or simply was too scared to write. While what she wrote was honest, she sometimes had to leave out details or never wrote of an important incident due to fear. Had she done so, it is possible that the data for this research could be richer. I hope that what Dragonfly Hazel was able to provide over her time at FMC Carswell is enough of a portrait to give criminal justice researchers, students, professionals, and others a chance to reflect on what transpires within a federal womenÕs prison.    29 CHAPTER 4: COLLECTIVE AND SELF-EFFICACY IN A WOMENÕS PRISON ÒWe can do time, or we can let time do us. We can humbly face each day, knowing that this will be just one of those times of struggle, or we can keep a Ôwhy meÕ attitude. We can help others, or we can think we are better than others. We can be victims, or we can be survivors.Ó (11/29/13).  In the interest of application of analysis and findings to a broader context, data were provided separately for those issues that apply to a womenÕs prison and those that are specific to a womenÕs medical center. This chapter provides analysis of collective and self-efficacy within a womenÕs prison and the influence of correctional staff on efficacy issues.  Collective Efficacy  There is much evidence that collective efficacy exists in the womenÕs prison. This section will highlight three examples of collective efficacy that appeared frequently in the data. One example is the role of prison tutors. Another example is through food and dining. Finally, this section will consider cleaning as an act of collective efficacy. Tutoring  Academic tutoring occurs formally and informally in the prison environment. The official job of being a Tutor in the Education Department is highly sought after by educated prisoners, yet can be difficult to obtain. Tutors work directly with students in General Education Development (GED) classes and also teach Adult Continuing Education (ACE) courses. They take their roles and jobs seriously and appear to enjoy helping other prisoners succeed academically: ÒI got the best feeling yesterday when one of my students and I learned that she had passed her GED. She thanked and hugged me over and over again. It was just wonderful.  30 She didn't think she could pass the math test. She passed the whole test on her first tryÓ (11/22/13). Tutors often worked three shifts during the day Ð morning and afternoon GED courses and ACE courses in the evening. They worked this because it made them feel good and it utilized their skills, despite the fact that they were paid lower than most jobs on the compound, including in the kitchen and dishwashing. Helping others and working collectively in their classrooms helped give them purpose.  Once a prisoner was identified as someone who may be able to assist others in their studies, they were also informally requested to assist outside of their job. DF Hazel was asked on numerous occasions to tutor students in the housing unit at night. Freckles often volunteered her time to tutor others as well. The smile on a studentÕs face when they passed their test was enough to encourage the tutors to keep helping others. Food and Dining  Another form of collective efficacy between the women was through food and dining together. While it was against the rules technically, many women shared the food they bought in commissary in order to consolidate funds and have better food options. Prisoners often ate meals together in their housing units. Eating meals in the chow hall with friends was also an important collective activity.  DF Hazel often wrote about how food was shared between inmates. On one occasion, she made herself and her friend Lola tuna roll-ups one Friday afternoon, because she did not like the fish and chips in the dining hall. She shared similar stories of sharing meals with South and Freckles. The data also share evidence of girlfriends cooking for one another as a common occurrence.   31  When friends were separated, food and dining was often the shared experience to suffer. DF Hazel appeared to feel loss when Lola was transferred to another housing unit. Lola was her meal companion and they would often share their commissary food:  ÒI am devastated that we are no longer on the same unit. ÉDifferent units means that we can no longer eat our meals in together. She literally has the peanut butter to my jelly. We would share our commissary and eat together. I have the BBQ sauce, she has the packaged beef. I have the tortilla wraps, she has the stuff that goes inside them.Ó (2/23/14). Meals and food was the way friendships formed and remained strong. When Freckles was moved out of DF HazelÕs housing unit, the two women met every morning for breakfast to share stories and show support to one another. DF Hazel would secretly share her commissary bought cereal with Freckles; and, in return, Freckles would split her breakfast pastry with DF Hazel.  More evidence of collective efficacy surrounding food was during the Passover Seders that DF Hazel attended. On the first day of Passover, there was much drama Ð including the prison not ordering enough Matzah (traditional food eated during Passover) and the Passover Seder dinner not being traditional. The small Jewish community tried to get through the night, but the leader wanted to cancel the next nightÕs Seder in defiance of the failure of the prison to provide them with proper and well-made celebratory fare. DF Hazel and her friend Red refused to allow for the second nightÕs Seder to be cancelled, and instead Red (who worked in the kitchen) cooked all day (after her shift ended) using recipes provided by DF Hazel to make the traditional fare that Red had never before eaten; and would not have the opportunity to do so that night either since she was not Jewish. As DF Hazel wrote (4/16/14), Òeverything was fresh, tasty, and even the salad had vegetables in it besides iceberg lettuce!!!Ó DF Hazel reflected later, ÒI  32 was so happy to be able to do something, here, for the small Jewish community. It just felt good!Ó (4/16/14). Cleaning  Perhaps the strongest evidence of collective efficacy was around the need for preparing for inspection. It was left to each set of roommates to set up a cleaning schedule to ensure all rooms were inspection ready every day and every roommate must help with cleaning. ÒWe all have our cleaning days and we are serious about making sure everything gets done - window, bars, lockers, floor, lining things at the back wall, desk, stool, dusting, etc.Ó (4/25/14). Orderlies (employed within the housing units) work hard to ensure all public places are always inspection ready. Everyone must trust one another to do their job because the risk of failing the cleanliness inspection falls on everyone. ÒWe must all trust in each other, especially our roommates, that the cleaning will be done (thoroughly) every day. If not, we are risking not only ourselves, but each other, and the entire unit.Ó (3/18/14).  A positive inspection could lead to earlier release for meals, television benefits, and increased use of housing unit public space and resources. A failed inspection could lead to extra duty, loss of privileges, and shortened meal times. Everyone in a room and in the housing unit would face consequences together, even if just one person or one room failed in their cleaning duties. With housing units sleeping up to 300 prisoners, it was always a collective effort to maintain cleanliness and the privileges that were associated with positive inspections.  As this section on collective efficacy shows, there are many examples of prisoners working together for the betterment of themselves and for reaching collective goals. Tutors helped students who were motivated gain increased educational knowledge. Food and dining  33 provided ways to share finances and support each other. Group cleaning provided important benefits when successful during inspections. Self-Efficacy   The data also show a variety of evidence of self-efficacy in the prison. While women advocated for themselves toward their goals in a variety of ways, this section will highlight just a few of them. First self-efficacy toward release is considered. Next, prisoner education is shown as an example. Finally, participation in prison programming is highlighted.  Release  Self-efficacy was evident in prisonersÕ consistent work toward their own releases and transfers from the prison. Prisoners learned that the idea that releases or transfers would just occur based on dates on paperwork was a fallacy. According to the data, self-efficacy was the only way to potentially be transferred or released, Ò[m]any inmates believe the prison will just do the paperwork,Ó (2/8/14) yet the experiences of other prisoners showed that failure to act on behalf of oneself meant not getting out of prison on time. The data showed that prisoners advocated for themselves toward these goals on a regular basis. Failure to practice such self-efficacy would result in longer time within the prison and failure to obtain benefits such as time in halfway house or home confinement. Prisoners would spend hours each day to try to get the system to work in their favor: ÒIt is truly a full time job to try to get yourself OUT of prison. As you know, I've been struggling with getting them to complete my exit paperwork. Yesterday, I went to my case worker and my unit manager, during their office hours, in order to get assistance. My case worker's hands are tied now, she's done everything on her part. My unit manager  34 was busy and didn't come to his office hours, so I filled out a cop-out and brought it directly to him this morningÓ (3/22/14). As the above quote shows, often prisoners had to seek out assistance from people in higher and higher positions, even the warden:  ÒLast week I went right up to the prison warden and told him about my ÔcampÕ transfer approval from October and that I was repeatedly told that clearance had never occurred. Well, I guess that got things moving, because I just received an email from the Warden's email letting me know that my ÔexitÕ paperwork (i.e. transfer to the camp) is being processed. Looks like I will actually be going there to finish out my sentence.Ó (2/8/14). DF Hazel first learned about transferring to the minimum-security camp across from the medium-security prison from her caseworker a few months into her imprisonment, but she was never actually transferred to the camp, as it was later stalled by the medical department. She later wrote that when the Regional Office was doing a visit, they were getting an earful of complaints by individual prisoners of transfer and halfway house denials. Education  The choice to participate in prison education programs was not always a personal choice. Prisoners without record of a high school diploma or General Education Development (GED) were mandated to attend GED classes (or put on the long waiting list for such courses). Failure to participate could mean time in the SHU and/or loss of good time on the prisonerÕs record. It was very individual on who seemed most motivated in the GED courses to work hard and try to learn and want to test. These self-motivated individuals showed a lot of self-efficacy toward their own future. There were even people in maximum security who DF Hazel prepared packets for, and  35 the prison teachers brought over, that studied for GED testing. Self-efficacy with GED education occurred at all security within the womenÕs prison.  In addition to GED courses, there were additional educational opportunities available. The prison offered Adult Continuing Education (ACE) courses on a six-week schedule. Other than a few courses required in sentencing reports (parenting, financial, etc.), most ACE courses were voluntary. ACE courses were intended to enhance womenÕs knowledge based on their general interest and could include special interests, healthy lifestyle, adult education, and preparation for release. The range of courses included U.S. Politics, Jacque Cousteau (taught through videos), Essay Writing, Preparing a Resume and Cover Letter, Personal Finance, Life Under the Sea (taught through videos), Spanish I and II, Math Tricks (taught through videos), and the history of U.S. Presidents. ACE courses were taught in the Education Department and at Inside Recreation; the courses taught at Inside Recreation included painting, drawing, knitting, crocheting, and other crafts. Prisoners completed the ACE classes by passing the final test in each of the courses at the end of the six weeks based on the standards established for the course.  The certification and Century points earned show evidence of self-efficacy: ÒPeople take 6 weeks in a subject they sign up for. If they complete it, they get a certificate and century points. Century points can actually decrease a person's security level over time. The certificate is good to bring home and show our probation supervisors. Shows we did something productive in prison.Ó (11/22/13) There were also apprenticeships that required hard work and educational courses. Apprenticeship courses (haircare, custodial maintenance, electrician, HVAC, carpentry, plumbing, and landscape architecture) with job training were available for individuals who were seeking training for new careers once released from prison. Prisoners with long enough sentences could choose one of the  36 apprenticeships that were self-study two afternoons per week. According to the data, there were Òinmates apprenticing in many of the traditional blue collar roles,Ó which resulted in them Òready for a [new] careerÓ (11/22/13).  Also, as long as women could afford the cost of the courses by support from home, a limited number of correspondence college courses were offered, but the number of courses were falling as colleges were offering most distance courses online (such an option was not an option since internet could not be accessed) and less through correspondence alone. The choice to take education seriously while in prison can be difficult, as prisoners must still maintain their jobs and the remainder of their prison schedule: ÒThere are many women trying to get through school - GED, cosmetology, apprenticeship, college courses... They are learning concepts that are foreign to them in order to get a step up in life. They need to balance their school with the demands of work, a tight schedule, and maintain some social life.Ó (2/7/14). For many prisoners the pursuit of education was a positive way to pass time and advocate for earlier release and a new future. Programming  Participating in prison program was sometimes by choice and mandatory at other times. While prisoner pre-sentence or judicial reports had to recommend the Residential Drug and Alcohol Program (RDAP) for an individual to gain acceptance into the program, many prisoners refused the program or were intentional to get kicked out. Even with the court recommendation of RDAP, recommended prisoners had to be interviewed and assessed after imprisonment began. The waiting list for RDAP was long and number of spots available for each program start  37 limited. Participation, however, resulted in earlier release from prison. RDAP was seen as a benefit for those who fought to be part of it:  ÒPeople who qualify for the program can receive up to 9 months off their time in prison (they receive extra halfway house time). Their "out date" is changed as soon as they start the program. If they finish it, and don't quit or get into trouble, they are guaranteed that new out date. For those who come into prison with a history of drug or alcohol abuse, it's a great way to change your thinking, yourself, and hope for a different future.Ó (2/16/14). Prisoners practiced self-efficacy to get into RDAP, stay in RDAP, and advocate for the maximum time off off their sentence: ÒFreckles is now trying desperately to jump through those same hoops I did, as she was denied halfway house for no reason and doing RDAP, she is guaranteed halfway house. Even staff look at her record and do not understand why she's been denied the halfway house, but it's the team that does our exit summaries that needs to make the changeÉÓ (4-5-14). Freckles consistently fought staff on every level for her halfway house time and was successful in gaining the maximum amount of time offered to RDAP graduates.  Some prison programming was entirely voluntary, but still led to positive results for the participants. For example, Life Connections was an 18-month religious program that women would participate in to build self-esteem and make healthier decisions. Women with prison sentences long enough for participation would move into a special programming housing unit and agree to live under stricter rules. In return, prisoners would earn Century points and the potential for increased halfway house time. There was also voluntary day drug and alcohol  38 treatment and other programs (Resolve program, 12-step groups, mental health programming) that prisoners could choose to participate in to better their lives for their future.  This section provided evidence of self-efficacy within the womenÕs prison. Prisoners worked hard toward obtaining timely releases and transfers. Educational opportunities gave prisoners a chance to obtain a GED, apprenticeship, or Century points, which would not only help them while in prison, but after release. Participation in voluntary prison programs helped prisoners earn increased good time on their sentence and reduce their likelihood for recidivism.     39 CHAPTER 5: INFLUENCE OF CORRECTIONAL STAFF  ÒThe teacher I am referring to here is all Ôpolice,Õ as we say. He follows the rules. He started as a correctional officer. He takes down the largest inmates who are fighting in pill line. He screams at people who violate the rules. He expects perfection, not ÔI'll do my best.Õ He treats everyone the same, yet helps those who want to help themselves.Ó (12/13/13). Correctional staff appeared to influence prisonersÕcollective and self-efficacy in many ways. Depending on the staff member and their role, they may have had a positive or negative influence on prisonersÕ efficacy. Table 4 demonstrates the number of posts within the dataset that included evidence of staff interaction on collective and self-efficacy. This section will highlight two ways correctional staff influenced collective efficacy (inspection and encouraging group behavior), two ways they influenced self-efficacy (bureaucracy and punishment), and one way (prisoner treatment) they influenced both. Table 4: Number of Posts Showing Staff Interaction with collective and self-efficacy Type of Post # / N=278 Staff Interaction with Self-Efficacy 78 Staff Interaction with Collectice Efficacy 67  Inspection  Correctional staff had an influence on collective efficacy was through the inspection process. Correctional officers rotated every three months, and depending on who was in charge during the day in the housing unit, it impacted how the unitÕs prisoners interacted with the cleaning and inspection rules. One correctional officer chose to inspect every room each morning as part of his routine, which influenced the collective behavior of the prisoners:  40 ÒEvery morning, our current daytime C.O. yells, "get ready for inspection!" We are supposed to be inspection ready from 7:30am-4:00pm every day, but not every officer does rounds. Our current officer is serious about doing his rounds, taking anything anyone has out that does not belong - even a mug someone is drinking from but not at that second.Ó (4/25/14). As the officer did his rounds, the prisoners were expected to be outside their rooms, often sitting for hours on the concrete floor while waiting for their roomÕs inspection to occur. Failure to be outside of the room would result in the officer screaming at them and potentially be given extra cleaning duty in the unit. Prisoners would look out for one another and tell when the officer was nearing their room.  ÒHis favorite phrase, Ôget your mind right,Õ is constantly heard as he talks to folks that are in the way of his job. Most of us avoid that, so we tell our neighbor, Ôget me up when he comes upstairs...Õ We always do - inmates protecting each other.Ó (4/25/14). Prisoners would also let each other know what the officer is specifically checking in each room (dust at tops of lockers, cleanliness of the bars in the windows, clothes hanging neatly on the side of the locker with a hanger, etc.), so they could prepare for the officerÕs inspection.  Another daytime officer did daily checks for cleanliness and if anything was out of place, prisoners risked having their locker checked for contraband. Most contraband was not illegal per se, but against prison rules. This inspired the prisoners to work together for cleanliness and meeting inspection guidelines: Ò(Locker check) is a very scary thought for many inmates. They may have food they didn't purchase, craft projects without permission, food from the kitchen, weapons (hopefully not), too many books (yes, we are limited), too many shorts/tshirts (we are  41 limited there as well), etc. If she finds something we are not supposed to have, she confiscates them. If we can't prove we are supposed to have the item(s), they are gone forever. Therefore, a good inspection is important every day.Ó (10/24/13). The officers did not just encourage the cleaning for their own inspections, but it benefited them for their unit to do well with the formal inspection. They received more time with an unlocked unit if the unit is early on the meal rotation and can receive awards from their peers for having the top unit. When the correctional staff was happy, it was easier on the prisoners in their unit. Ultimately, though, cleanliness was a subjective perception and process, which often dictated what units were awarded more cleanliness points than others. Nonetheless, prisoners worked together to try to please their correctional officer and be as high on the meal rotation list as possible. Encouraging Group Behavior Another way staff influenced collective efficacy was through encouraging group behavior. One time group behavior was encouraged was during the holiday season. One form of collective efficacy that seemed to energize many people into working together was the unit decorating competition. Each housing unit would be allowed to decorate for Christmas in any way it wanted, usually using a theme. Instead of being judged based on cleanliness for that week, the entire upper staff of the prison would walk to all the units and judge the units on their decor. ÒSometime between today and Monday, our decor will be compared to all the other units, and the winning unit will eat first next week. Yes, we still have to be tidy, but this week our inspection is really about the decorations.Ó (12/19/13). For the only time in the year, the prisoners would also have a chance (over a 2 hour period) to walk through the other housing units (everything but maximum security and the SHU) and see the Christmas decor. Prisoners spent weeks in the unit  42 deciding on the theme, finding people to join the decorating committee, asking all rooms to be involved and decorate outside their doors in some way, and creating the quite extravagant thematic decor. The unit staff would help by providing cardboard and paper, but prisoners had to use their own paint and supplies where needed to create the scenes. In Unit 1 South, the theme was ÒThe Grinch Who Stole ChristmasÓ (12/19/13): Ò[T]here is decor in the unit from the tall ceilings to under the stairwells. The creativity is amazing and everyone seems to be joining in. We have a sled coming down the stairs with a Grinch on it, carrying presents to Whoville (just like the end of the book). There are "who people" all over the place, on walls, on columns, in doorways. They are by themselves, gathered with family, carrying who babies, all the people, just like the book. There are snowflakes hanging from up above - 3D paper snowflakes at that! There are two Christmas trees, a fake chimney with the Grinch coming down it and stealing all the Christmas presents from under one of the trees, and a cardboard one-room Who house - built to size. It says, ÔMerry ChristmasÕ everywhere - including in letters written like the book - where some of them are backwards.Ó (12/19/13) DF Hazel observed the collective efficacy of how the Christmas competition brought people together, ÒI was watching many of my friends get into the spirit and it was nice seeing people smiling, working well together, and the large unit come together.Ó (12/19/13). The prisoners received a special bag of treats and egg nog from the prison staff, as well as a special meal in the dining hall, for the celebration of Christmas. They also received the holiday off from their jobs and education requirements.    43 Bureaucracy  Staff also influenced self-efficacy efforts in several ways. The bureaucratic nature of the prison appeared to be one of the most significant barriers to self-efficacy. It was sometimes frustrating for prisoners to advocate for themselves due to staff refusing to discuss everything at one meeting. When talking with her counselor about her required Financial Restitution Payment, DF Hazel wanted to also talk about changing rooms, the feather pillow she was allergic to, and visitation approval, yet he refused to talk with her about anything but FRP and told her to come back during other office hours and wait in another long line.  DF Hazel also faced continual bureaucracy when she was trying to prove to the prison that she had her high school diploma. Her counselorÕs failure to upload her pre-sentence report into the computer led to DF Hazel having to be tested for entry into GED courses (even though she was a GED tutor) and being denied her 3 cent per hour raise. It was not until a teacher advocated for her that things were fixed: ÒThat leads the teacher to then walk me directly to my Ôcounselor'sÕ office. The same counselor that would not allow me to speak with him about this about 2 hours prior. So, the teacher ÔinformsÕ the counselor that my education has been verified and that he has to press a couple keys in the computer, so I am able to get my promotion. Additionally, he informs the counselor that my PSI has never been uploaded into the system. The counselor looks funny at the teacher and says, "really??!??!," knowing full well it was his job upon my arrival to do so.Ó (12/13/13). Like in this scenario, it sometimes took one staff member doing the job that another should have done for prisoners to achieve their goals. Another example was when a social worker refused to look up information about insurance availability upon release (their job), which led DF Hazel to  44 self-advocate to her caseworker that she really needed the information for her exit paperwork to be completed. The caseworker went beyond her duties to help DF Hazel since the social worker refused to look up the information. Often, self-efficacy was dependent on having staff do their job and in a timely manner Ð to which prison bureaucracy did not always lend itself. Punishment  Another way staff interacted with prisonerÕs self-efficacy was through punishment. Sometimes the punishment was severe, which resulted in a womanÕs ability to act on her own behalf halted for a time (such as when they were sent to the Special Housing Unit) and at other times it was more brief. A brief punishment was given for people when they did a full prison count and Òmany people received ÔshotsÕ for being where they shouldnÕt be and most of them received Ôextra dutyÕ as punishment (extra work)Ó (9/9/13). Extra duty was a very common punishment and it was not uncommon for 18 or more women to have extra duty in the housing unit on a single day. Going to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) was much more severe, it included the officer inventorying the prisonerÕs entire locker contents and packing them away for the time the prisoner was gone. Using some prisoners as examples, through punishment, was enough to stop other prisoners from acting out.   During a Christmas Raid (12/26/13), many rooms were searched and prisoners were hauled off to the SHU for things the officers found. Even on such a festive evening as Christmas Eve, prisoners had to be on guard about the potential for punishment. Seeing people get punished, though, seemed to only stop those that were not likely to do something wrong to begin with, though, as other prisoners who wanted to do something unlawful would just come up with more creative ways of hiding the behavior (more lookouts, other peopleÕs mattresses for hidden drugs, and staying out of staffÕs way).  45 Treatment of Prisoners  While some staff were able to see that not all prisoners were the sameÑthey had different backgrounds, different crimes, different security levels, and different needsÑthere were several staff members who simply saw women in greys or khaki and decided to treat the prisoners all the same no matter who they were. Sometimes that was good for collective efficacy purposes, but sometimes it caused prisoners to feel belittled and treated as if they were far worse people than they actually were. For example, one staff member told his students, ÒYou are all inmates. Inmates lie. I am not going to believe your stories, even if you say you are not lying, because you are manipulative and criminalsÓ (12/13/13). Statements such as these made some prisoners feel disempowered from acts of self-efficacy: Ò...I realized that I don't have a ÔvoiceÕ in prison. As long as I wear the prison uniform, I am just the same as anyone else. If some inmates lie, we all lie. If some inmates are bad, we are all bad. If some inmates steal, we all steal. It is not the truth, but that's the way we are treated. When something bad happens, all the inmates are punished - either as a compound or as a unit. One inmate will cause trouble over a television and the televisions are cut off from the entire unit for days. One inmate leaves food in a microwave, and the microwave is taken away from everyone. One inmate doesn't go to the lieutenant's office on time and the entire compound is closed and all inmates have to stay in their units. That is how a large place like Carswell controls 1800 inmates. They just see us all as the same.Ó (11/24/13). For DF Hazel, her role as an educator outside of prison caused trouble when she attempted to teach beyond the GED book as a Tutor in the classroom:  46 ÒI must remember, always, I am just an inmate. Here, I am not a college graduate. I do not have a juris doctorate and I certainly am not studying toward a PhD in education. I do not know how to teach, here. I have no authority, here. I can be belittled in front of a classroom of students, here. I am an inmate.Ó (10/1/13). While this treatment by staff of treating all prisoners the same could encourage larger collective efficacy, such disempowerment affected the attitude and ability at times for people to work toward their own goals or smaller group collective efficacy.  Staff seemed to generally show consistency around establishing prison hierarchy with prisoners being reminded of their place. One of the teachers that DF Hazel worked for refused to call her by name and instead would scream ÒÔHeyÕ and/or snap her fingerÓ (9/24/13) when she wanted her. DF Hazel wrote that she felt a bit like a dog and when she tried to have a conversation with the teacher, the teacher walked away from her. Another staff member walked around the compound consistently screaming at different prisoners, ÒÔtuck in your shirt,Õ Ôbutton your shirt,Õ or Ôwhere is your uniformÕÓ (12/13/13). At the same time, most staff members appeared to know who caused trouble in the prison and who was disrespectful. Staff would act differently depending on the history they had with the prisoner, Òif the person is a troublemaker, they will be listened to less often and with more skepticism. If you are kind and respectful to the staff, especially the C.O.Õs, you will be treated with some respect backÓ (8/31/13). Following the rules and being respectful helped prisoners achieve self-efficacy more than those that found themselves in more trouble.     47 CHAPTER 6: INFLUENCE OF IDENTITY   Some identity factors had a larger influence on collective and self-efficacy than others. Race/ethnicity, age, sexual behavior, religion, and security classification each showed evidence of influence on collective and/or self-efficacy. The data did not show as much evidence of identity influences on self or collective efficacy based on sexual orientation, prior educational attainment, and gender. This section looks specifically at identity factors that appeared to influence collective and self-efficacy. Race and Ethnicity  Racial and ethnic identity within the womenÕs prison was diverse and the staff routinely encouraged interaction between different identities. Rooms were assigned by unit staff to ensure racial diversity with Hispanic/Latina ethnicity equated with race: ÒIn our assigned rooms, it is a requirement that every room be racially diverse. For example, my room has one African American woman, a Native American woman, a Caucasian Christian woman, and me. Some rooms have two Caucasian women and two Latina women. It's all different - but no rooms are all of any racial background.Ó (11/17/13).   In addition to roommates, recreational sport teams also have forced diversity, Òsoftball teams must be racially diverse or cannot play. Same with the volleyball, soccer, or anything else they have.Ó (11/17/13). While it is unknown whether the prison policies on mandatory racial and ethnic interactions reduce racial tensions among prisoners, the data showed evidence of positive and negative collective and self-efficacy based on racial and ethnic identity.  DF Hazel often wrote of the chow halls limited size and long lines outside once units were called for their meal. Once inside the hall, tables were usually filled by people who planned  48 to eat together, yet race and ethnicity was not a factor in who sat at the community dining tables. As explored in the post ÒRacial DiversityÓ (11/17/13),  ÒI was just at breakfast and four Latina women sat down with me. I do not know them, but there were four open seats, and they needed seats. That is the ultimate factor in the chow hall - where is there an open seat. ... Race does not matter on where we eat in the chow hall.Ó  DF Hazel believed that the overcrowded quarters and diversity among the prisoners made it impossible for racial or ethnic separation as prisoners were consistently, Òliving, eating, and ÔplayingÕ together.Ó This would be evidence of collective efficacy, as the female prisoners are able to get along with each other on teams, in their housing rooms, and with strangers in dining halls, regardless of race or ethnicity, even when there may be some among the population who may not be as comfortable with certain racial/ethnic populations or people.    With an overall mixture of racial and ethnic identities among the prisoners and how they appeared to get along on the surface, DF Hazel found it concerning at the amount of bigotry, intolerance and prejudice she heard. ÒThere is racism,Ó wrote DF Hazel (11/17/13), ÒI hear slurs out of people's mouths ALL the time. It is overwhelming and horrifying to see people I thought were ÔcoolÕ use such derogatory terms.Ó She found that some prisoners had a superficial or shallow acceptance of some people from different races/ethnicities, but once in a more homogeneous group, they would be more open to share their feeling about other identity groups. During open times in the unit, prisoners would gather at one of the tables based on friendships that often led to racial/ethnic separation and televisions or television rooms were frequently reserved down similar racial/ethnic lines.   49 DF Hazel also wrote of a situation where she and a group of other women started to sign-up for a tv room, where many African American young prisoners would watch television and braid hair, with sound one night per week to watch their favorite shows. After three weeks of having the room for one hour with push back from the group of African American women who did not like having to share the room, it became ÒunavailableÓ for sign-up. An African American orderly pre-signed up the African American group for the room for every day of the week, blocking anyone else from using the only television with sound. After complaints were made to the CO on duty, it resulted in everyone in the unit punished as a whole by the televisions no longer being available for sign-up. These stories show collective efficacy between the prisoners based on racial identity and the negative consequences of collective violation of prison rules. The racism and/or disagreement between different racial/ethnic groups often resulted in everyone failing to obtain any goals. With 36% of the prison inmates Latina and 22% not U.S. Citizens (many prisoners overlapped in terms of being from Central/South America and of Latino descent), there was a large population of Spanish speakers in the prison population. While some of the prisoners of Latino descent were U.S. citizens and/or lived in the United States most or all of their lives and knew English well, many in the prison knew little or no English. Prison policies did not require anyone to speak English or anyone interacting with Spanish-only inmates to speak Spanish, although one prison staff member frequently made speeches that included the importance for learning both English and Spanish (those who only spoke Spanish should learn English and those who knew no Spanish should start to learn it as well). Lack of ability to communicate and the reality of being a non-U.S. citizen affected many of these womenÕs ability toward self-efficacy. The ability to advocate on their own behalf was  50 limited by their ability to communicate with staff. While nearly 40% of inmates spoke Spanish as their first language, only one television in each unit (out of six) was designated for Spanish television sign-up. The amount of people who would watch that television compared to the 4-5 other TVÕs per unit was overwhelming to DF Hazel. When a small group of prisoners from Mexico tried to touch snow for the first time during a major storm, they are given extra duty for walking off the main path that had been shoveled (a rule they were not aware of). Another issue with some of the Latina prisoners, was that those who were not U.S. Citizens would generally be facing deportation once they left prison, no matter how long they lived in the United State or what their crime might have been. Some prisoners facting deportation found that advocating for quick release was not always in their self-interest, so they actively chose to stay as long as possible. Being out of prison was not something they really looked forward to, as freedom would mean leaving the United States and often being deported to a country they would not choose to live in, away from their entire family. Prolonging their stay in prison, on the other hand, allowed them visits from their family and less fear of the unknown. In fact, it was a form of self-efficacy to drag out their stay. DF HazelÕs last group of roommates included Mexico, a woman who would be deported once her prison sentence ended. As DF Hazel (4/9/14) explained: ÒShe moved here with her parents when she was a teen and lived at a border town, ... She's had five children, all American citizens, the youngest is only 1 year old. However, she was only here on a visa, and being in prison takes away that visa, so she is forced back to Mexico. Her children will remain here É [She] will likely never be able to come back into the U.S. again.Ó   51 The motivation or ability for Mexico or others in her similar position to engage in activities of self-efficacy were limited. Yet, DF Hazel wrote many times that Mexico was preparing for her out date, so she did appear to keep herself out of trouble and had come toward acceptance of what would be in her future. The large Spanish speaking population resulted in additional evidence of collective and self-efficacy, which DF Hazel experienced in her room. When Mexico became the fourth roommate, DF Hazel was the only English as a first language speaker in her room. Once Mexico moved in, the roommates began to primarily converse in Spanish, which consequently left DF Hazel out of most conversations. As described in ÒNo Habla EspanolÓ (4/9/14), Ò...95% of everything said in my room is in Spanish. I am able to pick up a word here and there, but generally speaking, I just am not part of the conversations. I know that they are not being rude, as some of my fellow inmates would claim, they are just leaning on a language they are comfortable with - why should I be accommodated when there's another woman in the room who can not understand the English as well? Whenever they need me, they speak to me in English, and we all get along pretty well. Longwinded often acts as a translator for the new woman to me, ... as Mexico has difficulty with many words.Ó This passage shows an example of collective efficacy. The roommates are accommodating MexicoÕs inability to understand English, plus Spanish is their first language as well. Longwinded brought DF Hazel into conversations as a translator and translates directly between Mexico and DF Hazel. These acts allow for the roommates to continue to communicate, even with language barriers present.  52 Ongoing relationships between people of diverse identities, such as DF Hazel and her roommates, appeared to happen based on the comfort level of the individuals involved and where the affiliation exists within the prison environment. The required racial and ethnic diversity among roommates may have been more agreeable to some prisoners than others. It appeared the women were much more concerned about roommate attitudes, security levels, crime type (many did not want to room with child molesters), cleanliness, and rule following than roommate race or ethnicity (as displayed when prisoners worry about who will be their new roommates each time the units are going through a large change). Within the education department, most students learned together and supported one another toward GED completion regardless of race or ethnicity. When a student passed a unit, a star was added to a board in the classroom and all the students celebrated their victory. The classroom diversity exception was for prisoners who were learning in the Spanish-only classrooms, where all the students and tutors were Latina and the group encouragement and motivation was high among the students.  The data also provided evidence of collective efficacy based on individual interactions between people of different races. One example contains evidence of a positive relationship between two older prisoners with different racial identities, ÒI saw an African American older woman fixing the hair of a Caucasian older woman sitting next to her in the clinic. She had made her hair into a fancy bun and kept doing it until it was perfect with a smile on her face the entire timeÓ (12/18/13). The data do not provide enough evidence on whether advanced age may help establish positive opportunities for collective efficacy among racially diverse prisoners, however some evidence, such as this interaction in the clinic, does show the propensity for that possibility.  Similarly, while it appeared that racial and ethnic identity may have been a factor for individuals forming in-prison relationships, Òmost people who do the dating thing, here, are with  53 people of their same raceÉÓ (11/17/13), interracial prison relationships were common and generally protected by the collective prisoner climate:   ÒMany people seem to ÔdateÕ people of racial differences. You will see an African American woman dating a Caucasian woman, a Native American woman dating a Latino woman, etc. In fact, some people ÔplayÕ the dating game here in a way that they have SEVERAL girlfriends - and they are of all different racial backgrounds.Ó (11/17/13). These activities would generally fall under the greater category of in-prison relationships, however, which usually negatively impacted collective efficacy for the people involved in the relationship and the people who protected the relationships as they risked punishment for themselves, including the possibility of time in the SHU.   As shown throughout this section on race and ethnicity, prisoners generally got along well across differences. Underlying racism, however, still existed. When it came to collective efficacy, the prisoners worked together fairly well across race and ethnicity. One area where collective efficacy was low was among the women who did not speak English well and while they supported each other, they had difficulty getting their needs met. As for self-efficacy issues, race did not seem to affect womenÕs ability to act on their own behalf, except when language again became a barrier. Age  With the average age of a prisoner being just over 41, aging in prison appears to have an impact on both self and collective efficacies. DF Hazel frequently wrote of the older inmates spending their days in pill line, often spending one to two hours as many as three times per day in their sitting walkers or wheelchairs. Many of these individuals were not in need of these  54 walking devices except for the fact that they have long lines for pharmacy, meals, commissary, and more. Many older inmates were automatic targets for hustling. DF HazelÕs friend and early roommate South was a short-term inmate that became a target of hustling due to her older age.  ÒShe is older and people immediately gravitated to her and called her, Ôgrandma.Õ They played nice and told her that they have her back. Then, they would say, ÔGrandma, do you have any cookies?Õ South would go to her locker and give them some cookies. They'd say, ÔGrandma, can you get me some ice cream?Õ She'd do it. She didn't realize she was being played until no one gave anything back.Ó (12/16/13). For older women, ÒGrandma,Ó was the name of respect and a sign that they can be taken advantage of due to their age. ÒGoing to the chow hall you hear ÔgrandmaÕ frequently toward anyone a little olderÓ (9/9/13).  While older age may have a negative effect on self-efficacy in prison, it appeared to have a positive effect on collective efficacy. DF Hazel shared a story of ÒTwo Old LadiesÓ who were inseparable by always eating meals, watching television, and looking after one another: ÒIn the outside world, their friendship would be like any two widows, who have formed a friendship so neither is alone in life. They share pictures of grandbabies, stories of ailments, and laughter from tales of woe throughout their lives. There's not a lifetime movie or game show they haven't watched, soaps make up the main part of their afternoons, and they have enough attitude to fight anyone in the unit to be able to watch what they want on television.Ó (4/7/14) When one of the ladies fell ill, it affected the other friend, because prison rules restricted movement in how much she could look in on her friend. Soup was exchanged through  55 roommates and short peeks into the room to give a smile or homemade cards were quickly exchanged. These kinds of friendships were special and real, even if only for the time these women were in prison, as they tried to care for one another as best friends do when age makes living each day, especially in prison, sometimes difficult.  As shown throughout this section, age generally affected self-efficacy, as people were targeted when they were older. Collective efficacy was generally strong based on age, as people tended to form friendships with those closer in age with them. Older prisoners did not tend to get in trouble as much, but became much more of the caregivers of each other and those in need. Sexual Behavior and Intimate Relationships   The data provided the differences between sexual orientation, prisoner gender identity, and intimate relationships between prisoners. Sexual orientation was the prisonerÕs general pattern of attraction toward males, females or both, most often prior to imprisonment. Gender included the internal gender identity of prisoners as well as their outward appearance. Sexual behavior was separate from both sexual orientation and gender (although some gender play overlapped with sexual behavior) and focused on those prisoners who selected to be in same-sex sexual relationships while imprisoned. Based on the data, the majority of issues around collective and self-efficacy were impacted by sexual behavior and not sexual orientation or gender. DF HazelÕs account of in-prison intimate relationships displayed a mostly adverse affect on collective and self-efficacy. FMC Carswell had a policy against any sexual relationships between prisoners, ÒThe Bureau of Prisons had a strict Ôzero toleranceÕ policy concerning sexual relations within the institutionÓ (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011, p. 5). According to disciplinary policy at the prison, a sexual act with another prisoner received a 200 level Òhigh severityÓ shot, which often led to time in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) as well as the loss of  56 other valuable prison privileges. Yet, according to the data, many women in the prison engaged in relationships and sexual acts in prison. In the post on ÒSex and Gender in Prison,Ó DF Hazel (10/15/13), wrote,  ÒWomen have sex here, they do. They sneak around and take chances and act stupid. Sex will get you put in the SHU. It will take away your Ôgood timeÕ so you have to be here longer... They have no regard for the others, having sex in a room while the roommates try to sleep but scared to tell. Having sex in showers, on toilets (not kidding) and in stair wells. Public places. No one wants to walk in on 2 people having sex, or more people which happens too. But, common respect is not a part of the life here in prison. So many inmates disrespect their roommates, their C.O.Õs, their counselors, and themselves!Ó  Risk taking, losing good time, and spending time in the SHU would go against the goals of self-efficacy for prisons.  The data provided many details on intimate relationships. The types of in-prison relationship activities described in the data included disallowed entry into rooms of girlfriends, hidden girlfriends under blankets to not get ÔcaughtÕ by staff, hugs and kisses snuck throughout the prison facilities, and the various locations prisoners found to engage in more distinct sexual activities. Every activity had possible negative consequences; for example The Little One received 50 hours of extra duty (cleaning the housing unit) after she was caught in her girlfriend's room. Other couples were sent to the SHU for being caught in bed together.   Sexual relationships in prison were not associated, usually, with sexual orientation, as the data indicated that the majority of women involved in the relationships identified as heterosexual in orientation. Women were generally assessed for their openness toward an in-prison relationship at various times throughout their prison stays by other prisoners:   57 ÒWhether you are tall or short, thin or heavy, black or white, old or young, gay or straight, in a wheelchair, on a walker, or use your own two feet to get around, you will more than likely be approached, flirted with, wooed, and/or considered by another inmate in a ÔgirlfriendÕ sort of way.Ó (4/10/14) The term given to them, if they were not part of the LGBTQ community generally, was Ògay for the stay.Ó (4/10/14). Not all prisoners waited for someone to approach them to see if they were open to an intimate and/or sexual relationship, there were signals that prisoners gave to indicate they were looking. One such signal was wearing their pants with the pockets hanging inside out. This suggested that the prisoner was looking for someone to engage in some in-prison romance, relationship, and/or sexual experience(s).   While it appeared that in-prison intimate relationships were commonplace, many did not seem to be healthy in nature. Issues with emotional and physical abuse came to be of concern. South and DF Hazel considered The Little One a ÔslaveÕ to her much older girlfriend. The Little One would wash her girlfriendÕs clothes and dishes, make her meals, and do anything she asked her to do. The girlfriend would not return the favors to The Little One, which often made The Little One sad. At times, there would be physical abuse, resulting in a fat lip or black eye on The Little One. When asked, the Little One told officers that they were caused by something else.  In another situation later, DF Hazel described a conversation with her roommates. Her bunkmate stated that she had hit her girlfriend because her girlfriend had pissed her off. When DF Hazel stated, "it is never okay to hit a womanÓ (1/11/14). Her two other roommates chimed in that it was okay to sometimes hit people they were dating. DF Hazel then described what she had been seeing at FMC Carswell:  58 ÒI've seen too many ÔcouplesÕ get into physical fights here. The next day, after swearing they'll never go back with that person, the person abused goes right back to the relationship. I've seen fat lips, bruised arms, knotted heads, black eyes, as well as heard all the made-up excuses: Ômy locker did it,Õ ÔI fell out of bed,Õ ÔI tripped on the sidewalk.Õ Meanwhile, they cry to their closest friends about how ABC punched them because they accused them of cheating or how they both punched each other in the rage of a fight. This happens so often, that I've become desensitized to the reality.Ó (1/11/14). One such incident was when DF Hazel walked in upon a domestic violence incident in the Inside Recreation Building restroom, ÒI saw two inmates who I know to be "dating" having a fight. There was hitting, screaming, crying, ÉÓ (2/26/14).   Early in their prison stay, DF Hazel and South attempted to talk with The Little One about her in-prison relationship, trying to focus on The Little OneÕs self-esteem, cycles of abuse, and what they believed the young woman deserved in a relationship. They had to be careful, however, Òwe were sure not to put down the girlfriend. Doing so could land us on the wrong side of a fist now or in the futureÓ (9/1/13). This attempt to help The Little One was a positive attempt of collective efficacy roommates caring for someone who they see being hurt within the cycle of abuse. The Little One stayed in the relationship and was later put in the SHU due to a fight related to her in-prison relationship.  DF Hazel appeared to become more jaded throughout her stay in prison toward helping those in abusive situations. During the incident in the Recreational Building Bathroom, DF Hazel (2/26/14) wrote: Ò... yet, I was unable to do anything. That's what we learn, here, don't involve yourself in anything that is not about you. Had I tried to intervene, it would have been my head on  59 the floor. Of that, I have no doubt. Had I told a staff member, I would have to look over my shoulder for the remainder of my time here. Don't be a snitch. So, I did nothing as domestic violence was occurring, and it made me sick to my stomach. É I kept worrying about the weaker of the two inmates who were in the midst of their fight. The thing is, these two constantly fight, and it often gets physical. Everyone knows it, yet no one can do anything about it. Bruises are explained away (I hit my face on the upper bunk) and scratches are things that must of occurred while sleeping. É It sickens me that I did nothing and will likely do nothing in the future if I see it again. This is not the person I am. I am an advocate and a feminist and I do not accept violence against women - by men or other women. As I said, I am accepting the unacceptable! Also, just a day later, the two of them were laughing and smiling together, as if the fight had never occurred.Ó DF Hazel wrote that she was too powerless in the prison environment to be able to help those in these types of situations and instead wrote about them in the blog and to friends at home as her outlet and prayed for those who were in need of help. These potential moments for collective efficacy often do not occur for protection of self and fear of unknown.  The in-prison relationships could negatively affect self-efficacy to the point where an individual may choose to extend their prison time in order to remain in prison with their girlfriend, or at the very least their girlfriend may request them to do so. DF Hazel found the request by girlfriends of staying in prison longer to be selfish:  ÒThese women should be happy for their girlfriends. If they really loved them, they would want what is best for them. Being in prison, is not what is best! If for some reason it is meant to be that they are to be together, it will happen, one day, when they are both freeÓ (10/15/13).  60 Some woman nearing release would actively choose to get in trouble or refuse their halfway house to stay longer in prison. The conniving girlfriend would find a way to get their girlfriend in trouble in hopes that it would result in lost good time even when the girlfriend did not actively choose to stay longer. Similarly, when one girlfriend would be sent to the SHU, it was commonplace for the other girlfriend to attempt to be sent to the SHU in solidarity with their girlfriend even though they would not necessarily share the same cell. Even in the SHU, relationships were fostered, some started, and sexual activity occurred (as SHU cells could house up to four inmates at a time).  DF Hazel often wrote her ideas of why prisoners engaged in what she considered unhealthy prison relationships based on her prior experiences and knowledge of LGBTQ relationships and what was different from those relationships from the ones she observed in prison. She wrote about the low self-esteem of some individuals and their need for escape of the prison reality as a motivation of why they may engage in some relationships: Ò[T]hey ... arrive lonely, ashamed, and filled with self-disgust and incredibly low self-esteem. When another woman starts to pay them attention, the attention they crave, they can escape their self-reflection and focus on someone else, anything else, but look at their own painÓ (8/29/13). There was also a sense of action that some of the prisoners sought that in-prison relationships offered: Òit is fun, exciting and risk taking. É  Ò...[M]ost these women love risk in their lives. They ran the streets and snuck around all their lives. Now, why wouldnÕt they do the same thing here, in prison, ... Prison can be boring, but sneaking around and not getting caught is excitingÉÓ (8/29/13).  61 Finally, DF Hazel saw some of the motive by prisoners more of an addiction than an actual relationship. Women would speak of the need to get Òf***edÓ or how much they just needed touch in their lives. They needed escape from reality and their in-prison relationship offered them that escape. For others, the drama and action of hiding was the addictive component they craved.  The prison staff tried discouraging prisoner intimate relations. One staff member made it her mission to make speeches about the negative effects of unprotected sex between inmates, Òthe speech is about the fact that as women, as ladies, we (inmates) are disgracing ourselves with all the crazy relationships, sex and sexually transmitted diseases (STDÕs) that occur as a resultÓ (8/29/13). Speeches about past STD outbreaks and respecting their bodies was a frequent conversation or speech given by the prison staff member.  As this section shows, in-prison relationships rarely led to a positive self or collective efficacy experience. Is not to say that moments of positive collective efficacy between individuals in an in-prison relationship did not exist, as it could be that one could encourage another to do something positive. In-prison relationships mostly impaired self and collective-efficacy. Security Classifications   Self and collective efficacy was evident based on security classification. This section considers just a few of the ways prisoner security classification affected efficacy issues. Prisoners appeared to spend time together trying to understand how their classification was assigned and how to lower it Ð with the ultimate goal of being listed as minimum out. The difference between minimum in and minimum out was described in the data:  62 ÒIt's easy, first, to explain "out." "Out" is that we are camp status, can be in a non-secured environment, and can see medical providers and others off the prison grounds without being handcuffed and shackled when we go. "In," is the opposite of that. "In" means that we are designated to a secured environment, it's a higher level of security, and if we have an appointment off of the facilities grounds, we are shackled and handcuffed.Ó (12/22/13).  Prisoners often received differing stories about why they were designated minimum in vs out. Sharing stories of how to reduce security level classification appeared to be a regular collective activity. Self-efficacy to change security levels whether from medium to low or minimum out to minimum in was commonplace, Òseveral of my friends are trying to figure out how their status can be changed.Ó (12/22/13).  Learning how to navigate a mixed security prison could affect a prisonerÕs ability to engage in self-efficacy. Fear issues sometimes overwhelmed the process: ÒThere is no protection for the non-violent offenders. We must just keep our mouths shut, do as we are told, and try to stay out of the other offenders' ways. I've seen people passing their pills (selling their medication), having sex in their beds, getting into fist fights, beating up their girlfriends, stealing other's goods, and more. I've been here just 2 weeks.Ó (9/2/13). Experiencing these things could stop an individual from feeling safe enough for self-advocacy, Òmy life is engulfed entirely in survivalÓ (11/22/13). As demonstrated in the data, non-violent offenders were sometimes be too scared to act on their own behalf: ÒWhen I was accused of something I didn't do, I should have said, Ôyou have that story all wrong, here's the truth.Õ When my desk was suddenly taken over and my things were  63 being misplaced and thrown out, I should have said, Ôstop.Õ I didn't. I let it happen. I am still afraid of prisoners - of those who get angry and/or violent. Both push me back into my ball.Ó (3/9/14). At the same time, prisoners did not always know whether the person they are interacting with was safe or not. Prisoners learned to try to get along with everyone, Òit's a little different when we are all wearing the same uniforms and have to act under the same set of rulesÓ (1/30/14). Trying to keep safe from violent offenders, though, could result in behavior that went against self-efficacy. For example, DF Hazel frequently shared how much she loved working as a tutor. When she was paired with a new tutor, things were going well, at first. Within weeks, though, DF Hazel realized the new tutor had a violent temper and it started being applied toward her. Instead of standing up for herself, she quit the job that she loved and walked away from all the students she was helping. Her safety concerns resulted in becoming unemployed, which could have resulted in other negative consequences (such as going to the SHU for quitting).  Finding community often occurred among prisoners with similar security levels, especially those at minimum-security who found themselves with people that scared them as they saw themselves different from the Òdrug conspirators, the gang members, the gun slinging folks from their neighborhoods, who are now in Carswell doing their time and trying to survive using the survival skills they know (stealing, cheating, etc.)Ó (9/2/13). Believing they were locked up with people that were violent, lower security prisoners found that they needed Òto always keep aware of who is around.Ó (4/24/14). DF Hazel found the experience of navigating her relationships with roommates from varying security levels difficult at times, ÒI am in a secured lock-up location with people who have violence as part of their records. I have to share my room with people who do not think before acting and who are not afraid of the consequences  64 eitherÓ (8/27/13). She felt that people who were at lower security levels fared worse in the mixed security environment, Òmy life is engulfed entirely in survival. I cannot imagine why this is the punishment for people who are non-violentÓ (11/22/13). The lower level security prisoners often found solace in each other as safe comrades, dinner companions, and support.  On the other hand, the environment made it possible for people that started on different security levels in the prison to become friends. DF Hazel preferred keeping her roommates, who were known to be volatile and violent, than face an unknown new roommate situation. She found that they had established a group camaraderie of trust and acceptance between one another. The data also suggested that once the women were in the same clothes and places, it became easier to let their guard down a little, Òmany people, here, would scare me out on the streets. It's a little different when we are all wearing the same uniforms and have to act under the same set of rulesÓ (1/30/14). Regardless of security level, prisoners ate together, studied together, worked together, and lived together. Living together was not the worse part because the women would open up to their roommates. ÒThe truth is that most people's Ôprison personaÕ starts once they walk outside their room, but their real side shows when they are in the safety of their roomÓ (2/20/14). Roommates tended to look out for one another, especially those weaker, and practiced collective efficacy toward meeting their goals of a safe and trusting roommate situation. For example, when DF Hazel, a minimum-out security level prisoner, was threatened by numerous prisoners just outside her room, it was her roommates that fought the harassers on her behalf and forced them to leave. Also, during a room raid, no one in the room spoke against the other, knowing full well that drugs, hooch, and other contraband could be found among some of the roommates.  A drawback was the fact that higher security women, who had considerably longer sentences and constantly pushed the rules, taught newbies the ropes, especially when it benefited  65 them longer term. Newbies would find they owed someone starting their first night in prison, because they were lent shorts or given some food out of someoneÕs locker. The naive would not understand that everything in prison had a price. In turn, the newbie would be forced to start violating rules immediately for survival (sharing food, buying something in the commissary for another prisoner, or being a lookout). As poignantly stated in ÒAnother WeekÓ (11/22/13), ÒThe more you are in prison, the more likely you are to become hardened and a real criminal!Ó The prison culture among the mixed security prisoners lowered the ability for newbies to practice the self-efficacy of abiding by the rules.  As this section showed, the prisonÕs mixed security levels of women resulted in some positive and negative effects on collective and self-efficacy. While security level prisoners tended to form friendships with those with similar security levels, mixed room situations also resulted in collective efficacy among roommates. Self-efficacy was evident in the ways prisoners attempted to lower their security level through programming and good time served. Self-efficacy, however, was negatively affected by prisoners not always doing what they felt was right for fear of repercussions from more violent prisoners. Religion  There was evidence of collective and self-efficacy in the womenÕs prison based on religious identity. Religious group membership, as well as individual self-concept of religion, appeared important to many prisoners. The prison encouraged collective religious activities for mainline religious faiths, as well as spiritual beliefs connected with ethnicity. Some prisoners found prison a time to reconnect with their religious and/or spiritual beliefs.  Others questioned their beliefs and there was a practice of switching religions and sometimes it was because the religious or spiritual activities appeared attractive to the prisoner.  66 ÒThere are activities exclusively for specific religions, but anyone can register as that religion. The Native Americans have a weekly ÔsweatÕ and smoke traditional tobacco. There are different ÔservicesÕ for different (religious) groups. Today, there will be a Ôgospel showcaseÕ.Ó (11/17/13). Some people claimed a Native American heritage to be able to smoke tobacco during the rituals. All forms of Christianity appeared to dominate the prisonÕs religious culture and allowed for many acts of collective efficacy. During the holiday season, the celebration of Christmas became a collective, prison-sanctioned, act, rather than individual or specific religious group act. A Christmas tree was put up in the main prison foyer and extended visitation hours. As described in the data (11/17/13), ÒChristmas is huge here, and every unit decks out for the holiday, there are special Christmas treats, and even prayer in the unitsÓ (11/17/13). This differs from other religions and their holidays, ÒIf another religion is celebrated, it occurs in the chapel. People are sad. They want to be with their kids, their spouses and others during the holidays. We do what we can to support one anotherÓ (11/29/13). One form of collective efficacy that seemed to energize many people into working together was during the unit decorating competition over Christmas discussed above. For prisoners like DF Hazel, who did not celebrate Christmas due to their minority religious beliefs (she was Jewish), the emphasis on Christianity was difficult and led to acts of self-efficacy or collective efficacy within their religious group. During the Christmas decorating contest, DF Hazel shared (12/19/13):  Òpart of me, was honestly annoyed that so much is being done for Christmas - as a place where the idea of Ôseparation of church and stateÕ should be strong (it is a federal institution). ...One thing still bothered me, though. I was upset that there was no  67 acknowledgement of ÔothersÕ - those who may not celebrate anything or who celebrate other holidays. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and religion.Ó Therefore, she made a sign to put up outside her room that added to the decor, ÔWhoville loves diversity,Õ and then listed ÔMerry ChristmasÕ, ÔHappy HanukkahÕ, ÔHappy SolsticeÕ, ÔHappy KwanzaaÕ, and ÔHappy New YearÕ and drew a Who person to bring the Grinch theme more into the sign. She wrote that she felt better after her small act of self-efficacy.  Recognized minority religious and spiritual groups met in the chapel for regular activities and special events. There was a recognized process for starting a religious or spiritual group and anyone could join. Special privileges, like special meals and activities that cost the prison system money, had to be verified: Ò[W]hen I was with the Chaplain to get approved for Rosh Hashanah activities, she told me that I had no religion listed on my papersÉ But, I am Jewish. I wrote Jewish on all my forms. I started to cite a Hebrew prayer to prove my Jewish identity. She accepted it.Ó (9/6/13). The ability to celebrate Rosh Hashanah included special holiday privileges such as attending group prayer through evening count and access to challah bread, apples, and honey. DF Hazel shared leftovers with her roommates who were curious about the holiday and food. Among the 1,500 or so prisoners that DF Hazel estimated, there was approximately three to five women who were born and raised Jewish (although they were not all raised within the same denomination of Judaism). There were also some women who were converting to Judaism or curious about the faith and joined the Jewish women in worship. The Jewish leader, a woman who was in prison for life for murder, ultimately decided who would be allowed or was ÒJewish enoughÓ to join them for the special activities and holidays.  68  The chaplains and other prison staff saw no difference between faiths that shared common interests, even if there were differences in beliefs. For examples, all religious groups that had special diets, such as no pork (muslim, kosher, mezzonite) shared the same Kosher fare, even if some of the special diets did not require as extensive rules. Since the Kosher fare was much more expensive to the prison than the traditional prisoner meals, the prison did not stock enough Kosher meals for all the prisoners who required them. This shortage led to several days of the same meals, mostly sardines with bread, rather than the 15 day meal rotation that is supposed to be followed. A prisoner was left deciding to eat sardines nearly everyday or forgo their special religious diet as there was no self-efficacy options available to them to change the system:  ÒI went immediately back to the chaplain to once again (3rd time) talk about the lack of meals available for Kosher inmates. But, what can they really do?!?! So, I officially withdrew from the Kosher meals ...Ó (8/30/13). Some prisoners loved the Kosher meals and did not mind the many days of Sardines in a row. Sardines also went for a lot of value on the underground market.  As this section highlighted, religion was an area that impacted prisonerÕs collective and self-efficacy. Collective efficacy among religions and spiritual groups was evident through the religious group activities. Self-efficacy, however, was not always easy within the religious communities, especially minority religions.     69 CHAPTER 7: COLLECTIVE AND SELF-EFFICACY IN A PRISON MEDICAL CENTER  ÒWe may be at a medical center, but people will do anything to avoid being seen medically hereÓ. (10/18/13).  Upon analyzing the text, it became apparent that some forms of collective and self-efficacy were unique to the fact that the prison was also a medical center. This section looks at how the women showed self and collective efficacies while trying to care for themselves and others in the healthcare context. Designated care level is considered first, then ability/ disability. Designated Care Level   The prison population included women at all care levels, from one to four. A prisoner at level one or two could be in any prison, as all prisons were set up to handle general medical needs. Medical centers were the only places where level three and four prisoners could be housed. In the male system, there were many medical centers at all security levels, but in the female system, there was only one. This resulted in women being housed at all security levels, including minimum-security prisoners who were eligible for prison camp, being forced to do their sentence in a medium security prison. FMC Carswell was not just a medical center, but housed non-medical in-custody security (low, medium, high, max) prisoners as well. About half of the prisoners at FMC Carswell were there for healthcare purposes and the others were there for local designation (live within a specific distance), programming (it housed the only Spanish RDAP and only female sex offender programs among others), or administrative purposes (such as death row, mental health, and escape risks). Many women would start their prison term at FMC Carswell if their pre-sentence or sentencing report included anything health related that needed evaluation. Others would start at  70 another prison, but be sent to Carswell if a medical issue occurred during the time of imprisonment. Care levels were decided initially by the central placement offices based on the reading of pre-sentence and sentencing reports. Once a care level was designated, it was usually up to the prisonersÕ self-efficacy to work with the medical team to try and get it lowered. DF Hazel was initially designated a care level four for medical evaluation. After her only meeting with her doctor, about a month into her imprisonment, she successfully advocated for her care level to be lowered to a three. She wrote of the randomness for such a designation:  ÒAccording to BOP policy, I should be a care level 2, but here, for whatever reason they give, I am a care level 3. This extra point in care level could mean, for some people, still being denied home confinement, if the region's doctors (who have never seen you) make a determination that you are not medically qualified.Ó (5/8/14) Upon learning that her medication would always keep her a care level three, DF Hazel continued to question the designation:  Òeven though I am capable of working and taking care of myself, I am seen by the prison as needing medical assistance on a regular basis. Level 3 literally indicates that the person cannot do daily living activities for themselves. Yet, I am. Doesn't seem to matter here.Ó (10/13/13). No matter how much prisoners would self-advocate for a lower care level, most were unsuccessful. In an extreme move, Freckles chose to stop all medication related to her prior broken neck injury in order to lower her care level to a two and become eligible for halfway house and home confinement. She often dealt with unbearable pain, but the potential of release on her halfway house date was enough to help her maintain staying off her medication. DF Hazel considered doing the same at one point:  71 ÒI wish I just stopped all my medication for the time I was here and, somehow, got my medical care level down to a 1 or 2. I have no idea how my body would have fared, but the bureaucracy for people with medical conditions is crazy!Ó (5/8/14). In fact, it took self-efficacy just to obtain the correct medication, Òas of right now, two of my most important medications are denied to me because they are not in the formulary.Ó (9/2/13). She fought to maintain her medications as much as possible while incarcerated, though, and later started receiving one of the medications (an injection given twice per week) authorized after it had already been unauthorized. ÒI have no reference for how the medication finally got approved (as it was denied formally by the DOP central medical offices twice).Ó (9/13/13). She believed her approval for the medication was due to her self-efficacy of having a friend on the outside call a Jewish prisoner rightÕs organization to advocate for her.  DF Hazel was not the only prisoner being denied the medication and medical care that led them to level three or four designations: Ò[Danbury] canÕt figure out why they didnÕt take her cumadin levels Ð the reason sheÕs here Ð typical. South isnÕt being treated for Lupus or COPD and IÕm not getting my most important medication. Chi canÕt get her cast off, even though her arm cast should have been removed last week.Ó (9/9/13) Prisoners often complained and shared with each other that they were designated at care levels higher than they should be and then they were not receiving the health care they needed. The requirement for minimum-security prisoners to stay in a medium-security prison aggravated the medically designated prisoners. During a lunch with several minimum-security prisoners designated as care levels three or four, the prisoners discussed their thoughts on how healthcare needs led to unfair treatment:  72 ÒThere is something just not right about being treated as Ôless thanÕ for the simple reason of health. Many women here also get denied going home or to halfway houses because of their health, which means that the invalids are imprisoned longer than the healthy. Once again, something is wrong about that picture. If I were healthy, I would most likely be at Alderson [a minimum-security prison camp] and be getting ready for time in a halfway house and/or home confinement. Since I happen to have an autoimmune condition, I am in a heavily secured environment and the likelihood of my going to a halfway house and/or home confinement is substantially diminished.Ó (9/2/13). DF Hazel then learned that she was, in fact, denied halfway house due to her designated care level: ÒIt's been about 7 months since I've seen any doctor here, and more than 6 since my new doctor was assigned. For being chronic care, and her making decisions about what I'm ÔeligibleÕ for upon release in terms of community programs, it really bugs me that she's never met me and just makes a decision based on notes in a medical file.Ó (5/22/14) It was not impossible for prisoners over a care level two to receive home confinement or halfway house, but it was up to them and self-efficacy to push the medical department to allow them that right and submit Ôexit summary paperworkÕ that would allow for the process to be completed. Exit summaries generally listed prisonersÕ current and past health problems, their medications, and TB status. According to the woman who completed them, they took less than ten minutes to complete, yet was so difficult to obtain: ÒI fret all the time that I am so powerless to get myself out of here. How is it possible that one piece of paperwork can hold up someone from gaining the access to their right for consideration for halfway house and/or home confinement? How is it possible that the  73 responsibility for doing that paperwork for the number of inmates here all falls on one person?Ó (3/12/14). The process to obtain an exit summary was often self-defeating. One barrier DF Hazel came across in the process, which usually stopped care level three and four prisoners from further pursuing release, was the need to find their own source of health insurance prior to release. It was the responsibility of the care level three or four prisoner to prove health insurance before the possibility of release could occur. The data showed many ÒhoopsÓ prisoners had to hurdle and people they had to persuade to help them figure out the medical insurance requirement; it was like a Òfull time jobÓ (3/22/14). After waiting four and a half hours to see the only person in the medical facility that could upload the exit summary papers to be approved for home confinement, DF Hazel faced this unknown barrier: ÒÔwell, do you have proof of health insurance?Õ Ummm, IÕm a prisoner and have no job... Answer: ÔNO.Õ She said that I have to prove I'll have some health insurance, or they can't recommend me for home confinement. Really??? I can't apply for Obama care until I am home and I am not on disability or anything like that. É She said I had to go to Social Work and have them send her an email saying that I have the medical coverage to go to home confinement.Ó (3/22/14) DF Hazel then sought out a social worker, which required more waiting. While the social worker looked up the new Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) while DF Hazel sat in her office, she did not look any further on the site to see if it would cover DF Hazel when she was released. She told DF Hazel that she Òhad to get printed proof of the state being under the ACA and what it covers,Ó yet, as DF Hazel wrote, ÒItÕs not like I have access to the internet to do this searchÉÓ (3/22/14)  74 DF Hazel turned to another staff member, her unit caseworker, who she sought out nearly every day for updates on how to get herself out of the prison. Her caseworker had never been asked to do that search before, but due to knowing DF Hazel from her nearly daily visits seeking advice on next steps for release, she printed out the proof DF Hazel needed to show she would be eligible for Obamacare upon release. DF Hazel then had to wait for another day during open office hours to seek out the social worker to show the documents she was able to obtain. All this work and self-advocacy was necessary to try and obtain her exit summary:  ÒAfter spending hours in the clinic, nearly stalking the woman who hadn't uploaded my exit summary yet, I caught her in the hall, plead my case, and she said somewhat regretfully, ÔI'll get it done by the end of the day.Õ Later, I headed to my case manager's office and she checked, no exit summary at 2pm. I said I'd check again at 3. Amazingly, she said, Ôokay,Õ even though she doesn't offer open house hours today. She would be leaving by 4pmÉ After months, starting in December, asking for this document, it is there, in my file, saying that I am approved and medically appropriate for home confinement. My knees hurt from jumping through so many hoops, but there it is.Ó (3/22/14) Once the exit summary was completed, the caseworker was able to process DF HazelÕs home confinement. She had to wait in long lines to see her caseworker, the exit summary medical employee, and the social worker multiple times, be prepared for the meetings, negotiate for them to do the work she needed them to do on her behalf, and then see them again to ask them to complete the next step. Simple emails or phone calls between the staff might have been more  75 effective, yet only prisoner self-efficacy would achieve the goals of getting the paperwork uploaded into the system.1 Based on her experiences, every time DF Hazel met someone who started complaining that they were being denied home confinement or halfway house due to their care level, she began telling them how to advocate for themselves and who to see. In order to help others, DF Hazel drafted up eight steps to getting out of prison if a woman was a care level three based on the lessons she learned, ÒI decided to sit down and write the full process of trying to be eligible for community programs (3/22/14) for people who are a Care Level 3 at Carswell. I wrote, and wrote, and wrote - 6 pages worth of steps and information for everyone to considerÓ (3/22/14). They passed it around the prison and it was shared on the blog so families and loved ones could advocate for people they knew. This act of collective efficacy was so that prisoners knew the steps to be successful with their own self-efficacy measures to be released for home confinement or halfway house (3/22/14). If a woman was looking to transfer to a prison closer to home or at a lower security level, they also required medical clearance (called a Ô413Õ) from the one person at the prison who decided if a prisoner was cleared for transfer. The 413 meetings were only available one day per month and people lined up early and waited up to seven hours to be seen. If they were too low on the list, they had to line up again the following month, as there was no guarantee to be seen and when the one employee who completed 413 paperwork was done for the day, everyone left was                                                 1 What was unknown to DF Hazel at the time was that she was the first prisoner to have been successful in that exact process, as most prisoners failed at proving insurance if they did not already have it. The new Affordable Care Act became a way for ex-prisoners to qualify for home confinement who otherwise were denied it in the past, ÒIf it were not for this affordable health insurance, I, along with countless others, would be forced to remain in prison due to our medical and/or medication needsÓ (3/22/14).   76 sent back to their units. Sometimes, the prisoners would be notified that there would be no 413 meetings that month and the women would wait yet again. Women with care level three or four designations often waited in the long line, only to be told that they could not transfer, even to the Carswell camp across the street for minimum-security prisoners (that housed women with level one through three care levels), due to the need for a doctor to approve the transfer or a medical hold. DF Hazel was informed by her caseworker early into her imprisonment that she was being transferred across the street to the minimum-security camp. She waited for the transfer, and waited some more, constantly being told that it would occur. She tried to self-advocate for the move to the camp, however she was informed that she was unable to transfer due to a medical hold for an appointment with an outside rheumatologist that would occur at some point. After so many dead ends, DF Hazel started to concentrate her efforts on getting out of prison by her halfway house date, rather than focus on transferring to the camp. The same medical hold halted DF Hazel from starting the halfway house paperwork: ÒI have a Ômedical hold.Õ If my medical hold is not lifted, I will be ineligible for halfway house or home confinement and will have to stay through the end of my sentence in July. If the hold does get lifted, I could be heading out of here to a halfway house anytime between March and May.Ó (1/6/14) It was later that DF Hazel learned that her doctor would recommend that she not be eligible for halfway house due to medical concerns. About halfway through her imprisonment, the outside appointment with a rheumatologist occurred: Ò[The rheumatologist] was starting to say that she wants to see me in two months, when I told her, Ôno, you don't.Õ I explained that nothing happens in two months... it would be  77 more like 5 (again) and I would not be allowed to be released from my medical hold at Carswell. I explained that I will follow up with my rheumatologist back home. The officer with me verified what I was saying.Ó (1/30/14). It is evident that DF Hazel self-advocated for her freedom over her healthcare needs in order to avoid further medical holds in the prison. After that appointment, the medical hold on DF HazelÕs paperwork was lifted and she was again told that she would be transferred across the street, until she officially learned for herself through another meeting with the 413 personnel that she was denied camp transfer even though her caseworker kept insisting it was to occur: ÒI have officially been DENIED for the camp. I will not be going to the camp. Not even my caseworker (the one who swears I'll be at the camp any day...) knows. The reason is due to my medication regimen. So, no matter what, I am in the medical facility's high security environment for the rest of my incarceration.Ó (3/22/14). No matter how much self-efficacy DF Hazel practiced, arbitrary rules about who could be transferred to the camp and who could not kept her at the medium security prison. She and others stuck in the prison for medical related reasons bonded over their woes and assisted each other where there could to help them achieve their goals of transfer or release. Ability/Disability   While prisoners with disabilities could be at any prison (Danbury spoke of people in wheelchairs at her prior prison) there was a large number of women at FMC Carswell with varying ability levels.  ÒCarswell is filled with people who need assistance with getting around. If you looked at my unit, you would see nearly a walker or wheelchair for just about every first floor room (and some of the upper floor rooms too!). People need them for different reasons -  78 advanced arthritis, autoimmune conditions, diabetes, inability for standing long periods, missing limbs (yes, there are many, many people here with one or both legs amputated), cancer, well, you get the idea. People here have REAL health issues and the devices help make their lives a little easier.Ó (1/15/14).  Health and ability levels appeared to impact bothcollective and self-efficacy efforts within the womenÕs prison.  It seemed that compassion for those with disabilities led to various forms of collective efficacy. For example, in Signs of Compassion (12/18/13), DF Hazel wrote of women would push a woman in a wheelchair across the campus even if they did not know them. Òone thing people are good about here, is helping out those in wheelchairs - especially the elderlyÓ (beep, beep, beep). This was especially true when the prison held its annual Special Olympics for women in wheelchairs. All the women in the wheelchairs became the center of attention with decoration and activities geared just for them. The entire prison celebrated them with a parade and over 30 volunteers helped make the event festive. Offices around the campus were closed for the activities so staff and inmates could show their support for all the women in wheelchairs.  Another sign of collective efficacy was the choice for some women to work as INAÕs (nursing aids). INAÕs were prisoners who selected to work directly with the women who needed the most care in the medical center, ÒINA's help with sponge baths, bathroom visits, etc. It's a very important job, for the people with enough patience, as so many women are agingÓ (wheelchair games). INAÕs were especially important for people who could not push themselves around in wheelchairs because the prison had no accessible doors.  When there was a medical emergency, it depended on the scenario on whether women would come to help. Friends tended to help each other medically where possible, but were  79 limited at times by the prison environment. One day, DF Hazel came to assist a friend who was experiencing an asthma attack: Òshe was unable to breathe in and was coughing if she tried. She fell to the floor and sat against a pillar. I just sat there, telling her to take short breaths, but to try to breathe, while we waited for help to arrive. It took a couple minutes for a couple nurses to arrive with a medical bed to move her. Another friend was searching the unit for the emergency wheelchair, but someone borrowed it to sit in during pill line. That's the way it is here.Ó (10/18/13). On another occasion, it was South with a medical emergency who needed help, and several friends tried their best to do what they could against a CO refusing to help. Prisoners were not afforded easy ways to advocate for their healthcare needs. Prisoners with health care needs often had to wait in long lines and miss work and more to obtain care. The pill line resulted in two hour lines at times, and some women had to get their medication from the pill line two to three times per day. DF Hazel wrote of waiting hours in the medical center to receive her bi-weekly shots, often causing her to miss work. She would sometimes have to choose between her healthcare needs and teaching her classes.  ÒToday, since I couldn't leave my job (no one to take over my class), I have not gotten my shot. I went up there a bit ago, but was told to come back at 12:45... but I start work again at 12:30pm. It's a lose-lose situation and I hate being in it. Plus, the nurses failed to put me on the call-out today, so I can't leave work without an official call-out. So, I will probably not be able to get my shot today.Ó (9/24/14)  80 On a day when the clinic was closed due to weather, DF Hazel spent over eight hours trying to get her injection from the medical floor of the hospital due to faulty record keeping around her medications.  Prisoners did not appear to trust the healthcare system and would make decisions to forgo treatment in order to avoid potential trauma. For example, Danbury talked of ignoring her health needs due to the fact that she did not trust the doctors. The system did not always work efficiently, for example South was once called to have her vitals taken three times in the same day and they were checked 16 times in one month. If a prisonerÕs name was on the medical call-out sheet they had to go, even if it made no sense. South spent hours at medical waiting for her vitals to be taken each time. When DF Hazel first arrived, they ordered 26 vials of blood to be taken during one laboratory visit Ð far more than would be reasonable at most medical appointments. She also experienced substandard nursing, Òthe nurse put the alcohol pad on my stomach to clean the area, but then put the needle in at a different spot. I guess thatÕs better than one of the nurses, here, who uses the alcohol pad to clean the skin surface AFTER pricking me with the needleÓ (3/14/14). There were many instances in the data claiming failures of the medical system, including one woman who lost a leg due to no one taking her complaints seriously. Another woman went into a diabetic coma and was released back to her upper bunk within hours. Other stories included many who prisoners claimed needlessly lost their lives.  Medical emergencies were deemed the worst-case scenario for prisoners who were left to medical care within the prison. South was not getting proper medication and it led to a medical emergency: ÒI found South sitting in a wheelchair (she does not usually have a walking aid of any type) and in the waiting room. I asked what happened, and she told me that she had  81 respiratory issues while in the restroom this morning. She could not walk or talk for several minutes. Scary!!! Anyway, she was brought into the clinic. At the clinic, she was observed and released. They did nothing. They did not put her on oxygen. They did not give her any medication.Ó (10/13/13). South started to have breathing issues again the next day: ÒShe had tears in her eyes. She has NEVER cried before - not even when missing her family. She is a strong woman who tries not to show emotions. But this morning, the tears came. She told me that she is Ôjust done.Õ She had severely labored breathing and had been up since 3:30am without the ability to breath easily.Ó (10/18/13). The CO on duty, however, claimed South was faking her issues (he was not a medical practitioner) and asked DF Hazel what South really wanted, Òdoes she want to be moved? no one needs this much help - especially if they keep sending her back..." (10/18/13). It took DF Hazel on her own to search for a wheelchair in a different unit to help South get to the clinic. South was finally given oxygen and breathing treatments.  Prisoners spoke negatively about having to go to the clinic during open hours if something was wrong: ÒOnce there, you sit from 6am until sometimes noon or after. You get to see a PA - the Docs here are like the Wizard of Oz; you rarely see them. Some of us have restrictions that preclude sitting more than an hour or two - again, no regard, we're treated like cattle. Once the PA sees you and tells you Ôwe are weaning you off your medication,Õ it's shock. This person has NEVER seen me, they have no clue.Ó (10/28/13)  82 When women sought medical care, it was always a long wait in the clinic. The clinic was not set up for the number of prisoners. The clinic was one place where collective efficacy tended to be low as people tended to just look out for their own needs: ÒAt 10:20, someone waiting to be seen had a massive seizure right in front of me. If she is not supposed to be in stressful situations, then not being able to sit for hours in the clinic waiting room would surely bring on the seizure. There's no way of knowing who ÔneedsÕ to sit and who doesn't. The most able body people tend to take up the benches and care not if someone elderly or really ill is standing for hours.Ó (12/18/13). One way older inmates practiced self-efficacy was to request a sittable walker or wheelchair, even if they did not necessarily need it: ÒLuckily, most of the elderly have wheelchairs and walkers - not so much because they need the help walking, but because they can sit during the long waits at pill line, the chow hall, clinic, and just about everywhere else.Ó (12/18/13). After many complaints by prisoners and their families, individuals from the Federal South Central Regional Offices showed up at the prison for an oversight review. One observer was sent to see what the problems were first-hand in the clinic. ÒHe saw how the papers were picked up at 6:15, but no one was seen until after 7. He questioned them, openly, and low and behold, everyone was seen by 10:30am. No 5 hour waits! People have been talking with the regional people about transfers, medical levels, halfway house denials, lack of accessibility, and more. They've gotten an earful.Ó (4/3/14) The changes appeared short-lived and the long waits and failure to obtain adequate medical care persisted. One doctor quit his position at the facility claiming that he was upset that they did not encourage actual health care, but just maintenance saying it went against his doctorÕs oath.  83  Self-efficacy was difficult for those with real health care needs. One woman was in a wheelchair and put on a unit floor where the bathrooms were being remodeled. She urinated on herself because her request to use the elevator for the second floor was ignored by her unit CO. This led to collective efficacy, as her friends carried Òher up the stairs so she could then clean herself off in the showerÓ (4/3/14). The COÕs had a much higher belief in the medical system than the prisonerÕs experienced, except when something happened to someone they had been close to. For example, when a long-term prisoner was near release but kept complaining about pain in her stomach, it was repeatedly ignored by the medical team until it resulted in a ruptured cyst and caused her death. Even the CO was crying as she informed the housing unit of the unjust death and the prisoners were given an opportunity to console with one another about another life lost. Similarly, when a young person died unexpectedly from a lung issue, the entire unit was given the opportunity to mourn together and take care of the shocked and saddened roommates.  It is evident from this section that disability and health care needs mattered in terms of self-efficacy and collective efficacy within the womenÕs prison. Those that could not advocate for themselves were often supported through collective efficacy from other prisoners (friends and strangers). The health care system in the prison, however, made self-efficacy difficult at times and women leaned on each other for support where the prison staff and health care facility failed.    84 CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION  Summary of Findings   The above analysis provides evidence that there are many ways female prisoners exhibit collective and self-efficacy. The findings support much of the womenÕs prison research that currently exists and offers insight into areas not yet fully researched. This section will explore these areas.  There are several important findings on collective efficacy in womenÕs prisons. As Gau (2014) found, there were many symbols that helped build community and collective efficacy in the prison, even among people with differing security classifications, racial backgrounds, and ability levels. The most important of these seemed to be wearing the prison uniform, which DF Hazel often wrote symbolized the prisoners from those in power. Language and other symbolism also appeared to be important.  The various definitions of self-efficacy were also supported through the research. BanduraÕs (1978) ideas of performance accomplishment and vicarious experience both were highlighted throughout the data. Performance accomplishment appeared to keep DF Hazel moving forward toward obtaining her exit summary, despite many obstacles. At the same time, vicarious experiences led to examples of prisoners giving up on goals based on what they learned from other prisoner experiences. An example of this was the decision by several prisoners to forgo health care for fear of negative experiences.  The power differences between staff and prisoners supported much of the existing literature as well. Loeb et al.Õs (2010) finding that even among a powerful staff, prisoners could show high self-efficacy was evident throughout the data. Also supported was the research of Molleman and Leeuw (2011) and Trammel at al. (2015) in that the most respected staff members  85 tended to be those that did their jobs well and were clear on their expectations and values. Rule orientated staff, such as the teacher that assisted DF Hazel and staff consistent with their inspection expectations were the most respected among the prisoners. Also as found by Rowe (2015), the ways that staff disciplined prisoners affected both collective and self-efficacy.  Unique to the current research is the evidence of collective efficacy based on the ways that staff sometimes encouraged group behavior. Competitions, through inspection and the example of annual Christmas decoration led to many examples of collective efficacy among housing units. As evidenced by DF HazelÕs rebellious act of adding a multi-religious sign in protest of the all-Christmas d”cor, some self-efficacy could also come from the forced collective work.  RoweÕs (2015) finding that women may have difficulty getting staff to complete their jobs, was also very evident in the current research. The need for DF Hazel to seek out completion of a task from three different people over several days in order to obtain paperwork that sheÕd been pursuing for months is most supportive of this bureaucratic and often frustrating reality for some prisoners. As DF Hazel found, most women gave up before pursuing so many different staff.  The ability to discipline prisoners fairly and unfairly set a large power differential between the staff and prisoners. DF Hazel often felt belittled by a staff member who refused to learn her name and instead referred to her as Òhey you.Ó Unable to step up, DF Hazel wrote of the need to remind herself that she was Òonly an inmate,Ó multiple times. Any inmate had the power to practice self-efficacy, but there were limits within the power struggle of the prison and staff always won. The fear of discipline often led women to not speak up or do what they believed was right. While most women went to the SHU for drugs or girlfriend issues, the fear of  86 going to the SHU or extra duty was enough to keep most prisoners abiding by the majority of the rules. Even so, there was much evidence that most prisoners violated rules, such as sharing commissary and being more intimate than the prison allowed. Fear of punishment, and even speeches about what could happen, would not stop women from finding creative ways to maintain some power in the prison.  In the context of prison programs, the current research supports Pelissier and Jones (2006) research that those with higher self-efficacy would be more successful in prison treatment programs. FrecklesÕ drug and alcohol treatment program required self-efficacy for gaining admission and for living by the strict rules. As described by Harlow (2003), in the present research many prisoners in need of treatment could not obtain it due to overcrowding issues and lack of prison resources. In pursuing her full halfway house and home confinement time, Freckles again showed strong evidence of self-efficacy.  Lahm (2016) and Nutiens and Christians (2016) research on prisoner mental health issues were also supported by the current research findings. Prisoners with mental health issues were more likely to exhibit violent tendencies. Additionally, a large number of women in the general population had mental health issues. Most prisoners were non-violent, yet prisoners always had to keep aware because violent tendencies among a minority of the women could occur at any time. DF Hazel experienced several violent situations, although she would not display anger or violence in return, which often mitigated the potential damage. There was evidence that first time offenders were less likely to be violent.   As highlighted in WillisonÕs (2016) and Trammell et al.Õs, (2015) research studies, unhealthy relationships seemed synonymous with intimate relationships in prison, as women sought such relationships for the wrong reasons. They were often formed based on low self- 87 esteem and a replacement for something the women felt they were missing in their lives. Most relationships were not among women who identified as gay or lesbian, but rather Ògay for the stay.Ó Violence tended to be based on drug or relationship issues.  An interesting finding in the current research is how often inter-race and ethnic relationships formed. The current prison setting may or may not be unique in its insistence on diversity, such as among roommates and recreational teams. While anti-racial epithets occurred, most violence had nothing to do with issues between individuals or groups of differing racial backgrounds. This is similar to WillisonÕs (2016) recent findings about intra-racial intimate relationships.  Another area where the current research supports existing research is in the realm of the meaning of food in womenÕs prisons. As described by De Graaf and Kilty (2016) and Smoyer (2015), the creation of meals and eating together was an important part of prison culture and comradery. The data showed many instances where friendships were made or lost based on the sharing of food, hiding of non-legal food, and general eating of meals.  In the present analysis, young prisoners often targeted older prisoners for hustling and personal gain. The current findings of older prisoners as targets of younger prisoner hustling differs from prior research by Lahm (2016) claiming that young prisoners were the targets of older prisoners. The current research gave several personal examples of how older inmates could be targeted. This may be confounded when the older prisoner is new in prison and not serving a long sentence. As the research showed, those receiving support from outside the prison became targets as well, which was often the case when someone was first in the prison environment. However, the culture of the current prison appeared to look at all older inmates as similar, calling  88 them, Ògrandma,Ó and trying to manipulate them to care for the younger inmates so the younger inmates could obtain things in return.   Mixed security classifications in womenÕs prisons was not unique to the current research since many states only offer one womenÕs prison (2016). The current research offered a glimpse into the fear that many lower security prisoners may feel being locked up with higher security level inmates. Although the research shows that violent propensity is based much more on prior violent acts (that may or may not equal security levels), minimum-security inmates with no violent tendency can be thwarted from potential self-efficacy for fear of how a higher security inmate may respond. It also limits some potential for collective efficacy, when prisoners are not able to feel trust due to safety concerns. The data did provide interesting insight into how roommates negotiated trust and safety in their rooms, even among different security classifications.  Religious identity had the ability to offer positive instances of collective and self-efficacy. The ability to meet with others with similar spiritual backgrounds and celebrate holiday rituals were evidence of strong collective efficacy. However, some prisoners felt people took advantage of religious programming and this could hurt the collective group. Also, prison limitations often resulted in negative group and individual experiences in the practice of religious traditions (including diet).  Potentially unique to the current research was the ability to look at collective and self-efficacy issues within the context of a medical center. There was strong evidence of self-efficacy among prisoners who tried to lower their designated care levels. At times this was not necessarily in the prisonerÕs long-term self-interest, such as Freckles giving up all medication to qualify as level two.  89  Similarly, levels of ability led to evidence of collect efficacy in the medical center. Individuals would help strangers and friends with medical needs, pushing wheelchairs, and emergencies. Prisoners often had to work around the power system of COÕs and limited ability to use the medical facilities in order to obtain proper care. Prisoners also appeared to feel powerless over the quality of care they could gain and made positive and negative self-efficacy decisions based on that reality. For Danbury, she decided to forgo any medical help while in prison. DF Hazel refused to accept an outside appointment with a rheumatologist due to the medical hold it would place on her file. Yet, prisoners still went through the rituals of attending sick call and other medical meetings knowing that limitations to what would be done for them existed. Some care appeared to be better than no care for several prisoners.  Considered as a whole, there was frequent evidence of collective and self-efficacy among the data. A vast majority of the individual posts included a story that either showed high or low efficacy among the prisoners. The primary author, DF Hazel exemplified a prisoner doing whatever she could to leave the high security environment. Even when her self-efficacy to be transferred across the street failed, she immediately turned her effort toward the paperwork for release. The prisoners built strong relationships with other prisoners and worked with them for their overall good. They shared most meals with other people that were also doing what they believed was in their power for self-improvement and group cohesion. Some gave up, such as South who stopped trying to get out early due to exhaustion and dead ends and maxed out her time. Yet others pursued every avenue for success, such as Freckles choosing the intensive and restrictive RDAP program to reduce her prison time and increase her halfway house and home confinement time. The current data were rich with collective and self-efficacy examples.  90 As part of the New Wave of Convict Criminology, this research provides insight into the daily lives of women in a federal womenÕs prison and medical center. The voices and perspectives of the prisoners provide insight into the realities they faced on a daily basis.collective and self-efficacy was one way to look at the data, and in turn showed a unique perspective of how women did time. Limitations   This study contains a number of limitations that must be considered. As discussed above, DF Hazel was aware that staff and inmates had access to her blog (inmates through outside connections) and she was not anonymous in describing herself. Therefore, writing certain items that could be germane to the intent of this research was impossible at the time due to her fear of violence and/or punishment. That being said, no writing contains every experience a prisoner has and all writing is subjective. However, there are holes in some of the stories told in the data source due to the need to be safe and goal of release.  As is a limitation in most convict criminology work, the data could be questioned for bias. While the writings were primarily from the point of view of one individual, they were not originally written with the goal of academic research. Therefore, the writings contained only what was important at the time and did not contain anything extra to try and come to preconceived desires of what this research could show. In fact, several findings in this study were supported by prior research, which supports the lack of bias in the data. Bias may exist as to what examples from the large dataset were used, yet it is common in qualitative research to use the strongest evidence of findings.   Generalizability could be another limitation to the current research study. The use of a single prison results in the question of whether findings apply across womenÕs prisons. However  91 as noted by Lahm (2016), many women's prisons in the U.S. house women from all security levels and with all types of medical issues. Another generalizability issue is the fact that the primary author and most of the writing was done by first-timer, minimum-security, educated prisoners with healthcare needs. Perspective can mean a lot in prison and the perspective of DF Hazel and her colleagues may not apply across all prisoner backgrounds.  Future Research   The research herein gives rise to many potential future research projects. Further research comparing ethnographic findings from other womenÕs prisons with this blog would help provide more evidence of generalizability. Many of the ideas collected around collective and self-efficacy could be further examined within this data source as well. There was interesting data surrounding collective and self-efficacy based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and education level prior to incarceration, which was not included in this research. Future research could also look further into the role prison staff and policies impact prisoner collective and self-efficacy, as this research only began to delve into those issues.    92 REFERENCES  93 REFERENCES   Allred, S. L., Harrison, L. D., & OÕConnell, D. J. (2013). Self-efficacy: An important aspect of prison-based learning. Prison Journal, 93(2), 211-233.  Anderson, L. (2006). Analytical autoethnography. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 35(4), 373-395.  Bandura, A. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advanced Behavioral Research Theory, 1, 139-161.  Bauman, A., Voorhis, P. V., Wright, E., & Salisbury, E. J. (2014). Assessing the risk and needs of women in jails. Hagerstown: American Jail Association.  Bosworth, M., Campbell, D., Demby, B., Ferranti, S. M., & Santos, M. (2005). Doing prison research: Views from inside. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(2), 249-264.   Cislo, A. M., & Trestman, R. (2013). Challenges and solutions for conducting research in correctional settings: The U.S. experience. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(3-4), 304-310.  Communications (n.d.). Stay in touch. [Website], from http://www.bop.gov/ inmates/communications.jsp  Cunha, M. (2008). Closed circuits: Kinship, neighborhood and incarceration in urban portugal. Ethnography, 9(3), 325-350.   Cunha, M. (2014). The ethnography of prisons and penal confinement. Annual Review of Anthropology, 43, 217-233.  Dedoose (n.d.) Pricing and features. [Website], from http://www.dedoose.com/pricing-and-features/#  De Graaf, K. & Kilty, J. M. (2016). You are what you eat: Exploring the relationship between women, food, and incarceration. Punishment & Society, 18(1), 27-46.  Drake, D. H., Earle, R., & Sloan, J. (2015). Palgrave studies in prisons and penology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  Draus, P. J. & Lempert, L. B. (2013). Growing pains: Developing collective efficacy in the detroit theory group. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 139-162.   94 Ellis, A. (2008). Health care in the federal system. Criminal Justice, 23(2), reprinted by American Bar Association. http://alanellis.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ellisreprint.pdf  Gau, J. M. (2014). Unpacking collective efficacy: The relationship between social cohesion and informal social control. Criminal Justice Studies, 27(2), 210.  Friestad, C., & Hansen, I. S. (2005). Mental health problems among prison inmates: The effect of welfare deficiencies, drug use and self!efficacy. Journal of Scandinavian Studies In Criminology & Crime Prevention, 6(2), 183-196.  Gibson, C. L., Lovrich, N. P., & Gaffney, M. J. (2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19, 537-565.  Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community-oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology,10(4), 399-428.  Glaze, L., & Kaeble, D. (2014, December 1). Correctional populations in the united states, 2013. [Bulletin], from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf  Harlow, C. W. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations (Report No. 195670). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs.  Hazel, D. (2013). One Year and One Day. [Blog], from http://dragonflyhazel.blogspot.com/2013/06/my-name-is-dragonfly-hazel.html  Hazel, D. (2014). One Year and One Day. [Blog], from http://dragonflyhazel. blogspot.com/2013/08/i-meet-my-first-carswell-co.html  Federal Bureau of Prison (n.d.). FMC Carswell. [Website], from http://www.bop.gov/locations/ institutions/crw/  Jewkes, Y. (2012). Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources: Doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(1), 63-75.   Jones, R. S., Ross, J. I., Richards, S. C., & Murphy, D. S. (2009). The first dime: A decade of convict criminology. The Prison Journal,89(2), 151-171.  Jonesa, L. ¯., Mangerb, T., Eikeland, O., & Asbj¯rnsen, A. (2013). Participation in prison education: Is it a question of reading and writing self-efficacy rather than actual skills?. Journal of Correctional Education, 64(2), 41-62.  Kalmbach, K. C., & Lyons, P. M. (2003). Ethical and legal standards for research in prisons. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(5), 671-686.  95  Kochel, T. R. (2012;2011;). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy? Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 384-36.   Lapin, H. G. (2006). Program statement: Designation and custody classification. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, P5100.08. http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5100_008.pdf   Molleman, T., & Leeuw, F. L. (2012;2011;). The influence of prison staff on inmate conditions: A multilevel approach to staff and inmate surveys. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 18(2), 217-233.   Lahm, K. F. (2015). Predictors of violent and nonviolent victimization behind bars: An exploration of women inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(4), 273-291.  Lahm, K. (2016). Official incidents of inmate-on-inmate misconduct at a womenÕs prison: Using importation and deprivation theories to compare perpetrators to victims. Criminal Justice Studies, 29 (3), 214-231.  Leyva, M. & Bickel, C. (2010). From corrections to college: The value of a convictÕs voice. Western Criminology Review, 11 (1), 50-60).  Loeb, S.J., Steffensmeier, D., & Kassab, C. (2010). Predictors of self-efficacy and self-rated health for older male inmates. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 811-820.  Newbold, G., Ross, J. I., Jones, R. S., Richards, S. C., & Lenza, M. (2014). Prison research from the inside: The role of convict autoethnography. Qualitative Inquiry,20(4), 439-448.  Newbold, G., & Ross, J. I. (2013; 2012). Convict criminology at the crossroads: Research note. The Prison Journal, 93(1), 3-10.   Nuytiens, A., & Christiaens, J. (2016). Female pathways to crime and prison: Challenging the (us) gendered pathways perspective. European Journal of Criminology, 13(2), 195-213.  Pelissier, B., & Jones, N. (2006). Differences in motivation, coping style, and self-efficacy among incarcerated male and female drug users. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30(2), 113-120.  Smith, B.V & Yarussi, J. M. (2015). Policy review and development guide: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons in custodial settings, 2nd edition. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. http://info.nicic.gov/sites/info.nicic.gov.lgbti/files/lgbti-policy-review-guide-2_0.pdf  Pelissier, B. & Jones, N. (2006). Differences in motivation, coping style, and self-efficacy among incarcerated male and female drug users. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30, 113-120.  96  Richards, S. C. (2013). The new school of convict criminology thrives and matures. Critical Criminology, 21, 357-387.  Richards, S. C., Faggiani, D., Roffers, J., Hendricksen, R., & Krueger, J. (2008). Convict criminology: Voices from prison. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 2(1), 121-136.  Richards, S. C., & Ross, J. I. (2001). Introducing the new school of convict criminology. Social Justice,28 (1)(83), 177-190.  Richie, B. E. (2004). Feminist ethnographies of women in prison. Feminist Studies [H.W.Wilson - SSA], 30(2), 438.  Ross, J. I., Darke, S., Aresti, A., Newbold, G., & Earle, R. (2014). Developing convict criminology beyond north america. International Criminal Justice Review, 24(2), 121-133.   Ross, J. I., Zaldivar, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2015). Breaking out of prison and into print? rationales and strategies to assist educated convicts conduct scholarly research and writing behind bars. Critical Criminology, 23(1), 73-83.   Rowe, A. (2015). ÔTactics,Õ agency and power in womenÕs prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 332-349.  Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods 1. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603-651.  Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.  Sargeant, E., Wickes, R., & Mazerolle, L. (2013). Policing community problems: Exploring the role of formal social control in shaping collective efficacy.Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 70-87.   Smoyer, A. B. (2015). Feeding relationships: Foodways and social networks in a womenÕs prison. Journal of Women and Social Work, 30(1), 26-39.  Sumner, J. & Sexton, L. (2015). Lost in translation: Looking for transgender identity in womenÕs prisons and locating aggressors in prison culture. Critical Criminology, 23, 1-20.  Swatt, M. L., Varano, S. P, Uchida, C. D., & Solomon, S.E. (2013). Fear of crime, incivilities, and collective efficacy in four miami neighborhoods. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 1-11.   97 Terry, A. (2016). Surveying issues that arise in womenÕs prisons: A content critique of orange is the new black. Sociology Compass, 553-566.  Terry, C. M. (2003). Managing prisoners as problem populations and the evolving nature of imprisonment: A convict perspective. Critical Criminology, 12, 43-66.  Thomson, N. D., Towl, G. J., & Centifanti, L. C. M. (2016). The habitual female offender inside: How psychopathic traits predict chronic prison violence. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 257-269.  Trammell, R., Wulf-Ludden, T., & Mowder, D. (2015). Partner violent in womenÕs prison: The social consequence of girlfriend fights. Women & Criminal Justice, 25(4), 256-272.  Wakeman, S. (2014). Fieldwork, biography and emotion: Doing criminological Autoethnography. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 505-721.  Wickes, R. (2010). Generating action and responding to local issues: Collective efficacy in context. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 423-443.   Willingham, B. C. (2011). Black womenÕs prison narratives and the intersections of race, gender, and sexuality in us prisons. Critical Survey, 23 (3), 55-66.  Willison, J. S. (2016). Characteristics of violent crime committed by female prisoners. Violence and Victims, 31(3), 552-570.  Wooldredge, J., & Steiner, B. (2014). Assessing the need for gender-specific explanations of prisoner victimization. Justice Quarterly, 1-30.   Wright, E. M., Salisbury, E. J., & Voorhis, P. V. (2007). Predicting the prison misconducts of women offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(4), 310.