How Does a History of Trauma Affect the Experience of Imprisonment for Individuals in Women’s Prisons: A Qualitative Exploration

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic information about participants.

Demographic characteristic	Number of participants	Percentage
Age
18–25	10	20%
26–30	5	10%
31–35	11	22%
36–40	10	20%
41–45	1	2%
46–50	2	4%
51–55	7	14%
56–60	2	4%
61+	2	4%
Ethnicity
Asian British Pakistani	1	2%
Black British	3	6%
Black British African	1	2%
Black British Caribbean	4	8%
Gypsy or Irish Traveler	1	2%
Mixed White and Black Caribbean	3	6%
White British	35	70%
White Other	2	4%
First time in custody?
Yes	23	46%
No	27	54%

Table 2. The application of trauma responsive principles to the research.

Trauma responsive service principle	Actions taken
Safety	Research locations within each prison were chosen to maximize the extent to which participants felt safe during the interviews: Acknowledging that different areas felt safe to different people. The interviews took place in familiar locations where possible. The rooms were private spaces where the interviews would not be disturbed, interrupted or overheard. The rooms were clean and uncluttered and fit for purpose, with the aim of creating a calm atmosphere. The interview rooms were set up to be comfortable for the participants.
Choice	The participants were given choices about how several aspects of the research interviews happened: They could choose whether they wanted to take part or not. As far as possible the individuals could decide which day and at what time the interviews would take place. At the outset of the interviews, participants were given the choice as to whereabout in the room they sat (whilst adhering to the safety and security principles which requires staff to be located closest to the door).
Collaboration	As far as possible, in order to share power in the process with the participants, they were encouraged to collaborate in how the interview was undertaken: After the interview structure had been explained to then, participants were offered the opportunity to control the order in which they answered each question. It was also explained that they could decide whether they answered each question or not. Participants were told that they could stop at any time, for a break, or because they wanted the process to end. They were also told how they could withdraw their consent later if they changed their mind about engaging.
Trust	From the moment of the first meeting, opportunities were created for trust to be developed between the participants and researcher: Time was spent engaging in introductory discussions with the potential participants. The researcher explained about the research and the process, and answered any questions asked, clearly and openly. The researcher attended all interview appointments at the pre-arranged times and provided a consistent and clear message about the research and about the boundaries of confidentiality and the participant’s anonymity in the process.
Empowerment	The researcher spent time during each interview identifying, highlighting, and reinforcing the strengths and skills that the participants demonstrated and described during their interviews. All participants were thanked for their contribution and praised for their honesty and for the openness with which they gave the accounts of their lives and their prison experiences.

Table 3. Themes and sub-themes.

Theme	Sub-theme
1. The Traumatizing Prison System	1a) The stressful prison environment 1b) Persistent sense of threat 1c) Punitive and unfair practices and procedures 1d) Uncertainty
2. Triggering Power Dynamics	2a) Lack of agency and autonomy 2b) Loss of identity, individuality and humanity
3. Trust in Relationships	3a) Connections with peers 3b) Interactions with staff
4. Surviving and thriving	4a) Survival mode 4b) Support and services 4c) Finding ways to cope and thrive