Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While safety is a key consideration in prison management, the empirical literature in this field is underdeveloped in several ways, especially theoretically. In this contribution, we outline a theoretical framework from the criminological literature on safety in non-incarcerated populations, which has extensively examined both objective and subjective safety, as well as their interrelations. This theoretical framework is subsequently applied to the prison literature. We observe that there is an overrepresentation of objective safety parameters like victimization, a lack of consistency across studies measuring subjective safety, and that the link between both objective and subjective safety as well as the links between the different aspects of subjective safety are underexplored. This review concludes with advocating for more comprehensive research on both objective and subjective aspects of safety by means of the proposed framework, in order to get insights into the complex nature of safety in prisons.

Keywords

prison subjective safety fear of crime victimization review

Introduction

Safety and security are a fundamental right for people residing in, working in, and visiting prisons. Not least, they form one of the minimum requirements of imprisonment (van Zyl et al., 2009). Rule 1 of the Nelson Mandela Rules stipulates that “the safety and security of prisoners, staff, service providers and visitors shall be ensured at all times” (UNODC, 2015, p. 2). Many national prison services also posit safety as one of their central pillars (see, e.g., DJI, 2023). Besides safety being relevant from a normative standpoint, safety also forms a key consideration in daily prison management. Imprisoned people and staff both benefit from a safe and orderly prison climate (Gibbons & Debelleville Katzenbach, 2006; McGuire, 2018; Molleman & Leeuw, 2012; van Ginneken et al., 2020). Safety also is a key precondition for the successful execution of the goals of imprisonment (Braga et al., 2019; Daans et al., 2009). After all, reintegration efforts in prison can only come to fruition when undertaken in a safe and trusting environment (Wolff et al., 2007).

It is striking that, while safety considerations dictate many prison processes, the criminological literature on imprisoned people's safety lacks consistency and (theoretical) structure. To date, relatively little has been done to understand the meaning of imprisoned people's safety and how it is experienced (Liebling & Arnold, 2004; Martens & Crewe, 2024). Moreover, research in this field is subject to methodological heterogeneity (Wolff et al., 2024), most prominently in the sense that scholars have employed a range of conceptualizations of safety. Theoretical discussion about how these different conceptualizations are (or ought to be) related is, yet, largely absent. This lack of theoretical development is surprising, given the wealth of studies on safety from crime in non-incarcerated (general) populations.

In the general criminological literature, subjective safety has received substantial attention, leading scholars to conclude that its study has become a discipline in its own right (Lee, 2013). That is not to say, however, that objective safety (i.e., victimization) is deemed less important; many surveys include modules on both victimization experiences as well as feelings of safety (see, e.g., CBS, 2023). The general literature on safety is also characterized by decades of theoretical discussion, which has fostered at least a basic consensus about the distinct elements of safety, and about how different conceptualizations of (especially subjective) safety are related. In addition, the literature on safety in general populations also extensively discusses the link between objective and subjective safety.

In this paper, we aim to (re)structure the literature on imprisoned people's safety by using a framework offered by scholars who have studied safety from crime in general populations.

A Theoretical Understanding of Safety: Lessons From the Literature on Safety in General Populations

The general criminological literature on safety distinguishes several separate but related constituents of safety. These constituents are summarized in Figure 1. A first distinction made is between objective and subjective elements of safety (Bjerkan, 2010; Constable Fernandez et al., 2023; Wilcox et al., 2005). A second distinction is within the subjective element of safety. Scholars distinguish between specific and formless fear, where specific fear relates to the fear of becoming a victim of a specific type of crime (Figgie, 1980; Groof, 2006; Hale, 1996; Lai et al., 2012; van Noije & Iedema, 2018). Formless fear does not stipulate specific offences but rather captures a broader feeling of unsafety regarding crime. Third, a distinction is made between three modalities within the specific, subjective strand: an affective or emotional modality, a cognitive modality, and a behavioral modality (Brands & Spithoven, 2023; Eysink Smeets, 2018b; Gabriel & Greve, 2003; Groof, 2006; Rader et al., 2007). The section below illustrates these constituents.

Figure 1.

A multi-dimensional model of safety.^iv

Subjective Safety

Subjective safety represents the “feeling or belief” that one has about their safety, as opposed to objective or “actual safety” (Möller, 2005, p. 69). Among criminologists, the study of subjective safety has become a discipline of its own, that is, that of fear of crime (Lee, 2013).

The first conceptualization of fear of crime was—as Hale (1996) calls it—“formless” in nature (p. 85) (also see Figgie, 1980). Formless fear is generally measured by (a version of) the “standard question”: “How safe do you feel or would you feel being alone in your neighborhood after dark?” While some recent research still relies on this single question (see, e.g., Allik & Kearns, 2017), scholars have criticized this approach for lacking a specific reference to crime (Hale, 1996). In other words, it is a “semantic trawl” for much broader feelings of insecurity—possibly well beyond the fear of crime (CBS, 2020, para. 3; also see Hinkle, 2015). Fear of crime researchers refer to this conceptualization as the symbolic paradigm, in which broad feelings of insecurity and unease (caused by factors possibly beyond crime or victimization) are projected onto fear of crime (Elchardus et al., 2005).

The second conceptualization is based on the rationalistic paradigm, in which researchers believe that feelings of (un)safety should be directly related to levels of crime. Scholars in this paradigm therefore propose measures of specific fear, that is, the fear of becoming a victim of a specific type of crime (Figgie, 1980; Groof, 2006; Hale, 1996; Noije & Iedema, 2017).

There also has been growing appreciation among scholars that specific fear holds multiple, distinguishable components (Kappes et al., 2013). This insight arose from a second criticism of the formless question, namely, that it would be impossible to distil whether the standard question captured an emotional reaction or a cognitive assessment about the likelihood of victimization (Hale, 1996). As Ferraro and LaGrange (1987) remark, “the perceived risk of victimisation is vastly different from the feeling of fear of victimisation” (p. 283). The distinction between the cognitive (i.e., risk perception) and affective (i.e., emotional fear) elements of fear of crime was later expanded further, when scholars acknowledged that fear is also expressed through behavior (Gabriel & Greve, 2003). As Hale (1996) states: “people who are afraid of being criminally victimized change their habits” (p. 4).

Since then, many have followed suit and suggested that fear of crime holds three dimensions: an affective dimension, a cognitive dimension and a behavioral dimension (Brands & Spithoven, 2023; Eysink Smeets, 2018b; Gabriel & Greve, 2003; Groof, 2006; Rader et al., 2007) (see Figure 1). The affective dimension represents the emotional element of fear (e.g., “how often are you fearful about [certain crimes]?”), whereas the cognitive element relates to risk perception, asking respondents about the chances they would fall victim to a certain crime. As for the behavioral (or conative) dimension, these measures inquire about the types of behaviors that people undertake in response to feelings of unsafety.

Finally, it is worth noting that the different aspects of subjective safety tend to be related; scholars have observed significant positive associations between all three dimensions of specific fear (Armborst, 2017; Bilsky, 2003; Hanslmaier et al., 2016).

Objective Safety

Objective safety is generally understood as the “actual victimization experiences” that one has had over a period of time (Wilcox et al., 2005, p. 5). Möller (2005) posits that objective safety is judged by how it is in reality, regardless of people's feelings, beliefs, opinions or awareness of the matter.

Historically, objective safety was measured using official statistics on crime. However, the substantial “dark figure” of official statistics in general is well-established (Minkler et al., 2022). Therefore, since the 1970s, the use of self-report techniques has become increasingly widespread. These survey instruments have since then been developed to accommodate both more “conventional” (e.g., violence, property crimes) as well as newer forms of crime like cybercrime and hate crimes (Van Dijk et al., 2022, p. 12).

The question could be raised regarding which construct represents “actual safety.” It seems that recent scholars believe that self-reported victimization rates are most fit for purpose. For example, Van Kesteren and colleagues (2014) refer to self-reported victimization rates as “the actual level of victimization” when compared to police-recorded crime (p. 51). Similarly, Wilcox et al. (2005) use the term “actual victimization” for their self-reported victimization measure (p. 11). Certainly, self-reported victimization rates remain a mere approximation of the phenomenon, since it is prone to reporting bias, both in terms of underreporting and overreporting (Lynch & Addington, 2010; Nishina & Parra, 2019).¹ Hence, victimization surveys may be an imperfect measure of objective safety, but they may also arguably be the best measure at hand.

The Paradoxical Relationship Between Objective and Subjective Safety

Finally, a discussion of subjective and objective safety would be incomplete without a reflection on how these concepts may be theoretically related. Scholars have observed that the association between subjective and objective safety is paradoxical, at least at first glance. Researchers generally conclude that “more people worry about crime than are likely to fall victim and the wrong people seem to be worrying” (Jackson et al., 2007, p. 2; also see Noble & Jardin, 2020). Various names have been used to describe this phenomenon. The victimization-fear paradox denotes the phenomenon that victimization rates are often the lowest among the most fearful groups of respondents (i.e., women, elderly, and the poor) (Roccato et al., 2011). Others choose the term risk-fear paradox to denote that “those least at risk (old women) are most fearful and vice versa” (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000, p. 31).

Researchers have put forward different explanations for the apparent paradox. Early explanations came from researchers who pointed out the higher vulnerability of women, elderly and poor people (Hale, 1996), though these characteristics are likely only distal proxies of vulnerability (Jackson, 2009; Robichaud et al., 2003). Others have sought to explain the paradox by looking at contextual moderators. For example, Roccato and colleagues (2011) concluded that environmental factors (e.g., social and physical disorder) moderated the relationship between victimization and fear of crime (Roccato et al., 2011). In high-crime communities, victimization could also become “normalised” by which respondents learn, through victimization, to cope with future experiences—impacting their fear of crime (also known as secondary appraisal) (Jackson et al., 2007, p. 3; also see Eysink Smeets, 2018a).

There are, however, also methodological explanations for the paradox. As Farrall and colleagues (1997) have remarked: “fear of crime is a product of the way it has been researched rather than the way it is” (p. 658). As also elaborated above, subjective safety has been conceptualized and measured in various ways, precluding definite conclusions. Rountree (1998) saw, for example, that when both cognitive and affective measures are taken into account, the paradox seemed to disappear. This makes the need for a reliable and valid instrument focusing on both subjective and objective safety even more pressing. In this paper, we aim to take the first step towards this goal, by examining whether the structure and concepts found in the general literature can also be found in the literature focusing on safety in prisons.

Method

The method of choice is a critical review, the goal of which is to propose a new conceptual insight by critically reviewing the knowledge base (Snyder, 2019). More specifically, we aim to critically appraise the existing research by delving deeper into its conceptual foundations rather than to merely describe its size and scope, as would be common for other types of reviews like scoping reviews (Grant & Booth, 2009). One of the distinguishing features of a critical review is that it generally produces a model rather than an answer, and this model can be a synthesis of previous models or a new interpretation of the data (Grant & Booth, 2009). In our case, the goal was to critically appraise the prison literature on safety and evaluate its fit with the model of objective and subjective safety as suggested in the general criminological literature on safety. As such, the review can serve as a “‘launch pad’ for a new phase of conceptual development and subsequent ‘testing’” (Grant & Booth, 2009, p. 93) in the area of prison research on safety.

A critical review holds five stages: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis, and presentation (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005). For the problem identification step, we depart from the observation that little work has been done among prison scholars to research safety from a theoretical or conceptual point of view. Greater understanding of the theoretical foundations of imprisoned people's safety would be beneficial for more precise and valid measurement of the concept.

For the literature search, critical reviews do not necessarily prescribe a systematic protocol (Grant & Booth, 2009; Snyder, 2019). A fully systematic review was also deemed unsuitable for the current purposes, given our aim to review the work in the broader field of imprisoned people's safety, rather than investigate a narrow research question—which is the purpose of a systematic review (Snyder, 2019). Nevertheless, scholars have recommended writers of a critical review to rely on multiple strategies to find eligible articles, in order to minimize bias and optimize search results (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005).

The search for articles on imprisoned people's safety took place in four steps (see Appendix A).² First, to get an overview of the field, we set out with searching for review articles in Web of Science.³ We built the search string based on previous (systematic) reviews on imprisoned people's safety (Caravaca-Sánchez et al., 2023; Goossens et al., 2023b). Several exclusion criteria were applied: we looked for (both qualitative and quantitative) studies written since 1990 (and up to January 2025), in English, on the experiences of safety in populations in prison (not jails, juvenile detention centers, forensic psychiatric facilities, immigration detention, or halfway houses). We also focused specifically on experiences of currently (not formerly) imprisoned people, not staff. This first search for reviews led to 12 relevant pieces (see Appendix B). These reviews were snowballed using both backward (the studies included in the reviews; N = 177) and forward (the studies which had cited the review; N = 169) searching.

Second, we supplemented these papers with additional (recent) material. For this purpose, we performed two searches, one for pieces on victimization of imprisoned people⁴, and one for pieces on imprisoned people's subjective safety.⁵ The same inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied as in the first search. In total, these two steps led to 2604 articles for title and abstract screening, after removing duplicates. The majority of articles excluded at this step were articles which did not deal with prison settings or did not discuss safety. This step resulted in 353 articles which met the selection criteria.

Third, these 353 full-texts were screened for suitability, of which 189 were found to be relevant. Examples of texts that were not relevant included studies which were not empirical and/or did not conceptualize safety (which was crucial for the subsequent analysis), tapped into experiences of victimization outside of prison, or considered elements of safety beyond the scope of this paper (e.g., safety of information systems or antiviral therapies). Fourth and finally, reference scanning of the included papers led to 8 more suitable articles for inclusion. In total, the final sample consisted of 197 studies.

As for the data evaluation and data analysis, we were specifically interested in the studies’ methodology and conceptualization rather than their empirical findings. For every study, note was taken of the sample sizes and methods (see Appendix C). The data for the analysis was extracted by looking up the definitions and operationalizations in each article, including scale items where available. For qualitative studies, the classification was performed based on imprisoned people's narratives, using the previously suggested framework. As for the presentation, the findings were synthesized using the earlier mentioned framework, and described and portrayed in the results and tables below.

Results

In total, 197 studies were found on imprisoned people's safety, all listed in Appendix C. Roughly two-thirds of studies came from the Anglosphere, with 103 studies from the US, 24 from the UK, 13 from Australia, and 1 from Canada. Other frequently observed countries included the Spain (11), South Korea (6), Taiwan (5), Belgium (4), and Germany (3). We also uncovered six international projects (Brömdal et al., 2023; Hagemann, 2008; Lutz et al., 2019; Martens & Crewe, 2024; Peirce & Fondevila, 2020; Ross et al., 2008). Most studies (147) relied on survey techniques (questionnaires or structured interviews); 27 studies used semi-structured interviewing, observations and/or focus groups; 17 studies performed analyses of administrative data; and 6 studies used a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. In terms of study population, it is worth noting that while most research is performed on adult male incarcerated individuals (78), several studies also looked into the experiences of women (17 focused exclusively on women) and transgender or gender-diverse prison populations (9) (e.g., Hughto et al., 2022; Jenness & Sexton, 2022). The studies widely varied in their respective sample sizes, from case studies of a single individual (Allely & Wood, 2022) to over 40,000 cases (Butler et al., 2023).

In Figures 2 and 3, we have classified all 197 studies using the proposed multidimensional model of safety. There are several observations worth sharing, before discussing the findings per quadrant. First, there is a relative overrepresentation of work on objective versus subjective safety, with 113 out of 197 studies focusing solely on objective safety, and 156 studies including an objective component. Second, what stands out is that the affective aspect of subjective safety has featured most prominently in that body of research. Out of the 84 studies which dealt with subjective safety, 57 discussed an affective element either exclusively or combined with other measures. In general, the largest clusters in the subjective safety literature were formed by studies which measured the affective component and a measure of victimization (17), only an affective component (9), and studies which combined affective and general measures with a measure of victimization (6). Other frequently observed patterns involved studies with formless questions, either solely (5) or in combination with other measures. Still, studies varied considerably in the types of questions they included in their safety scales, and there was little overlap across the questions used between studies, with the exception of different publications within the same project (e.g., works of Wolff and colleagues) and studies relying on standardized prison climate scales like the Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES), Prison Climate Questionnaire (PCQ), or Measuring Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) survey (e.g., Casey et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2008; van Ginneken et al., 2018).

Figure 2.

The literature on imprisoned people's safety classified according to the framework in Figure 1.

Figure 3.

Overview of studies on safety in prison, by type of concepts and measures used.

In the next section, we will highlight the findings regarding each of the respective components of incarcerated individuals’ safety.

Studies on Subjective Safety in Prison

Affective Fear (A)

As mentioned, most studies rely on affective measures for their conceptualization of subjective safety (quadrant A) (e.g., Choi, 2019; Ledet et al., 2024; Shih, 2020). Of the 197 studies, nine studies focused solely on affective measures, while 17 studies included affective measures in combination with other subjective measures. Of the 57 studies on affective fear, 31 also included an objective component. The fact that affective fear is most often used when discussing subjective safety in prisons is interesting, since reviews on fear of crime in general populations have also found affective indicators to dominate the empirical literature (Hart et al., 2022).

Affective measures inquire to what extent participants experience fear, worry, or unsafety with regard to becoming the victim of a specific type of misconduct (e.g., “How safe do you feel from being hurt or injured?”) (Edgar et al., 2003). The type of misconduct that is referred to can vary, although affective fear of physical assault featured most prominently (e.g., de Guzman et al., 2020; Hagemann, 2008; McCorkle, 1993a; Miller, 2010). In that sense, the subjective safety prison literature mirrors the patterns in the objective safety prison literature, which also tends to focus on physical assault victimization.

Nevertheless, a fair share of studies also include other types such as verbal assaults, or bullying, and theft (see, e.g., the works of Wolff and colleagues). Notable in this regard is the recent rise in research specifically related to the (fear of) sexual assault, as a result of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in the US (Ratkalkar & Atkin-Plunk, 2020; Shermer & Sudo, 2017; Shippen et al., 2022). In qualitative accounts, the (affective) fear of victimization is also frequently mentioned, especially with regard to physical (including sexual) assault (e.g., Brömdal et al., 2023; Lindegaard & Gear, 2014).

Cognitive Fear (B)

In total, 20 studies considered the cognitive aspect of subjective safety (quadrant B). There were no papers which exclusively measured cognitive fear, though 14 papers on subjective safety included a cognitive aspect. Cognitive questions were most often observed alongside affective questions and formless questions. Six studies also included objective measures.

It is interesting to note that no studies focused exclusively on cognitive fear. Scholars studying fear of crime in general populations have also argued that a complete measure of fear of crime cannot be solely cognitive, since measures which do not contain “an emotional component […] are inadequate measures of fear” (Hale, 1996, p. 11). In other words, cognitive measures hold their strongest value in conjunction with the other dimensions of fear. The prison literature seems to align with these critiques by applying scales in which multiple dimensions of subjective safety are included. For example, the EssenCES scale includes a dimension on “Experienced Safety,” which is defined as the degree of “tension and perceived threat of aggression and violence” in prison (Casey et al., 2016, p. 287). This definition hints at a more cognitive frame of safety given the mention of perceived threat. Still, both the EssenCES as well as other prison climate scales (e.g., MQPL, PCQ) often include items that measure generalized (formless) as well as multiple types of specific fear (e.g., Casey et al., 2016; Ross et al., 2008; van Ginneken et al., 2018). While it is applaudable that these scales employ multiple components of safety, it remains unclear how the resulting scale scores (often the mean of all the items in the scale) should reflect these different components.

Classic examples of cognitive questions include: “Would you say the chance of being attacked during this sentence is (high/medium/low)?” (McCorkle, 1993b, 1993a). While this question only concerns assaults, others have also asked questions about the perceived risks of other types of victimization (Ireland, 2011; Ratkalkar & Atkin-Plunk, 2020; Shermer & Sudo, 2017). While generally these questions refer to a personal judgement, the referent of the question can vary. For example, Camp et al. (2002) asked respondents how likely they thought it was that “an inmate” (not the respondent personally) would be assaulted in their living unit. There are also studies in which a cognitive component may be implied. For example, several studies include questions which ask imprisoned people for general perceptions of the frequency of aggression. Examples include: “Inmates attack other inmates very often” (Hemmens & Marquart, 1999) and “I believe there is a lot of physical aggression/verbal aggression in this prison” (Goossens et al., 2023a). Others have asked participants for their account of the number of assaults in the past six months, or the prevalence rate of assault (Ross et al., 2008; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000). Here again, there is no reference to personal risk, but rather to the risk level of the environment, more broadly. This approximates what some fear of crime scholars have called the collective rather than personal viewpoint. Scholars use the former term to refer to the degree to which people perceive crime as a social problem (Franken et al., 2024). The term is, however, not easily transferable to the prison context since some authors have argued that violence and victimization is not always problematized in prison (by imprisoned people) (Bottoms, 1999).

The qualitative literature also illustrates some cases of cognitive fear. Different studies have found that imprisoned people report a “risk of serious violence” (Liebling & Arnold, 2012, p. 417), the idea that “potential threat was all around them” (Kelman et al., 2024, p. 178), pointing at the perceived riskiness of day-to-day prison life in Anglo research.

Behavioral Fear (C)

As for the behavioral dimension (quadrant C), it is notable that this dimension featured more often in qualitative than in quantitative research. In total, 24 studies were uncovered which dealt with behavioral fear, of which two studies focused uniquely on this aspect of subjective safety. Half of the studies on behavioral fear (12) also measured objective safety.

The types of precautionary behaviors that were investigated varied between studies. Wolff and Shi (2009a) included a list of concrete precautions, such as joining a gang, carrying a weapon, or avoiding certain areas of the prison (also see McCorkle, 1992; Ireland, 2011). Other studies were less explicit in their behavioral questions. Auty and Liebling (2024), for example, asked “In this prison, I have to be wary of everyone around me” (also see Favril & van Ginneken, 2024). While arguably “being wary of others” could also symbolize a state of mind rather than concrete behavior, other fear of crime researchers have included vigilance as a behavioral aspect of safety (Hardyns & Pauwels, 2012).

There is relatively more qualitative research on behavioral fear. These accounts demonstrate that it is not uncommon for imprisoned people to self-isolate for safety purposes (e.g., Allely & Wood, 2022; Brömdal et al., 2023; Frois, 2016; Wuyts et al., 2023), avoid certain people (e.g., Leban et al., 2016; Trotter & Baidawi, 2015), or get involved in strategic alliances or gangs (e.g., Kelman et al., 2024; Lindegaard & Gear, 2014). More covert behaviors included the idea of always having to look over one's shoulder (Blagden et al., 2016; Martens & Crewe, 2024) and the masking of emotions to prevent showcasing vulnerability (Crewe et al., 2014).

Formless Fear (D)

As for the studies which dealt with formless fear, 43 studies were found. Five studies focused exclusively on a formless conceptualization, while 20 studies combined several elements of subjective safety in their conceptualization (including a formless component). Eighteen out of 43 studies included an objective element in their study.

Examples of formless questions and statements used by prison researchers include: “I am afraid at this institution” (Pérez et al., 2010) or “I feel unsafe in this prison” (Goossens et al., 2023a). These items inquire into a general feeling of safety, leaving it up to the interpretation of the respondent what exactly it is that makes them feel fearful or unsafe (though some studies do ask in which specific places people feel safe or unsafe; O’Donnell & Edgar, 1999; Schappell et al., 2016; Shih, 2020). While the general literature often relies on a single, formless measure of subjective safety, prison scholars generally prefer multi-item scales over single question measures (cf. Muirhead et al., 2023). While such scales are generally applauded for their enhanced reliability and predictive validity (Diamantopoulos et al., 2012), such benefits only apply if content validity is upheld. Most researchers, however, combine formless and specific measures into a single scale (Cheliotis & Liebling, 2006; Goossens et al., 2023a; McWilliam et al., 2015; Warren, 2012). As a result, it is difficult to determine the prevalence of formless fear as a standalone construct.

From a qualitative perspective, scholars have provided several descriptions of formless fear. On the one hand, there are accounts of imprisoned people describing a “persistent and generalized sense that prison was unsafe” (Kelman et al., 2024, p. 178) (see, also Brooke & Rybacka, 2021; Schliehe & Crewe, 2022). On the other hand, others have described prison as being safer than life outside (Aday, 1994; Bradley & Davino, 2002), or that at least temporary comfort or ease could be found (Smoyer & Minke, 2019). This discrepancy also demonstrates the inherent methodological complexity of formless fear, namely that it allows respondents to talk about aspects of their safety experience that extend beyond the fear of victimization.

Studies Combining the Subjective Dimensions of Safety

Having discussed these dimensions separately, it is worth discussing examples of studies which have used (versions of) this theoretical model to examine different elements in conjunction. While researchers have often measured various components of safety, these studies rarely discuss how these different elements ought to be related. Most of the prison research on safety relies on scales, in which all components of safety are weighted equally to derive a single score. As a result, most of the scales used in prison research do not reflect the conceptual complexity of safety described above.

There are two examples of research which have relied on a theoretical framework similar to the one we propose in this contribution. McCorkle (1992, 1993a, 1993b) applies a three-dimensional framework to understand imprisoned people's (un)safety. His survey contained three questions with regard to fear: “How safe do you feel in this prison” (formless), “How much do you worry that you’ll be attacked during this sentence?” (affective), and “Would you say the chance of being attacked during your sentence is low, medium, or high?” (cognitive). McCorkle's (1992) work also enquires about “personal precautions to violence,” or behavioral fear, completing the model. In his study, he found that the percentage of incarcerated individuals undertaking behavioral action was larger than the percentage who worried about victimization or thought that victimization was likely to occur. This finding demonstrates the relevance of incorporating behavioral fear in models of incarcerated individuals’ safety. McCorkle (1992, 1993b) also saw that his “fear index” (a combined measure of a formless measure, specific affective measure and cognitive measure) was significantly positively related to both passive and aggressive precautions, highlighting the interrelatedness of each safety component.

The second example can be found in research on prison bullying in UK prisons. In her research, Ireland (2011) asked several questions about fears of victimization (affective), likelihood of bullying (cognitive), and to what extent a range of behaviors would be helpful when one felt at risk of victimization (behavioral). In doing so, she departed from the premise that fear, cognition, and behavior are related. Ireland (2011) observed that higher threat appraisal (cognition) and lower coping abilities (behavior) were significantly related to higher levels of fear. In other words, there are indicators that in the prison literature, too, the different modalities of subjective safety are interrelated. However, in the absence of more studies using a multi-dimensional approach to safety, these insights remain preliminary.

Concluding Remarks on Subjective Safety

Finally, there are two other remarks worth sharing. The first is that imprisoned people may differ in the fear they experience vis-à-vis fellow imprisoned people compared to prison staff (Warren, 2012). Shih (2020) distinguishes between type I fear (fear of other imprisoned people) and type II fear (fear of prison staff) in this regard. Similar to how the prison literature on objective safety does not always clearly distinguish between victimization perpetrated by fellow imprisoned people or staff members, we observe that it is not always clear who the source of fear is in subjective safety studies. Some authors specifically measure fear of other imprisoned people (e.g., Choi & Dulisse, 2021), however most authors leave this unspecified (e.g., “In the last 6 months, have you been beaten?”; Peirce & Fondevila, 2020) or combine fear of other imprisoned people and staff in a single scale (e.g., Goossens et al., 2023a).

Secondly, it should be noted that some questions and statements could not easily be classified under the proposed model. These included questions about security measures, staff supervision, and the handling of incidents. Examples of questions and statements included “Are shakedowns done frequently enough?” (Camp et al., 2002), “There would be fewer fights between inmates if there were more staff” (Pérez et al., 2010), “There are enough staff members in the dorms to keep me safe” (Shippen et al., 2022), “There are enough guards to provide safety and security for the inmates” (Hemmens & Marquart, 1999), and “Victims of bullying get all the help from staff they need” (Cheliotis & Liebling, 2006). While views on security measures, relations with staff, and procedural justice are likely relevant predictors of safety (Martens & Crewe, 2024), they are arguably not direct constituents of safety. In other words, these items may form part of an explanation of why people differ regarding their views on their personal safety, but cannot be classified as elements of safety per se under the current framework.

Studies on Objective Safety in Prison

In the current study, 156 studies were found on objective safety, that is, victimization. Most of these studies focused on objective safety alone, whereas 43 studies combined insights on both objective and subjective safety. Like the general literature on safety, objective imprisoned people's safety has been measured in two ways: through secondary administrative data and through self-reported (victimization) surveys.

Most often, prison researchers using administrative data rely on infraction records maintained by prison officers (e.g., McNeeley, 2022), but other examples include files of internal prison hearings (Morash et al., 2012) and lawsuits (Kubiak et al., 2017). Nevertheless, infraction records suffer from a dark figure like the one observed in general populations, since the recording of offences is dependent on officers’ discretion and detection (Light, 1990) as well as the willingness of imprisoned individuals to officially report incidents (Garland & Wilson, 2013). Byrne and Hummer (2007) have estimated that in the United States, official infraction data capture 10–20% of all victimizations in prison. However, other researchers comparing self-reported and official infraction rates have observed that the discrepancies between these data sources varied for different types of infractions (Braga et al., 2019), with verbal and contraband-related infractions the most under-recorded (Bosma et al., 2019).

Self-report victimization studies are relatively more common. It is notable that all 156 studies on objective safety measured at least an aspect of physical and/or sexual victimization. Some of these studies focus exclusively on physical victimization occurring between incarcerated individuals (e.g., Archer & Southall, 2009; Kerbs & Jolley, 2007; Lahm, 2008; Wooldredge & Steiner, 2012) whereas others include victimization by staff (Caravaca-Sánchez et al., 2019; Pérez et al., 2010; Wolff & Shi, 2009c), and yet others leaving this unspecified (e.g., Daquin & Daigle, 2020; Edison & Haynie, 2023; Meade et al., 2021). Researchers also vary in the types of incidents that are considered violence, and whether this should include sexual violence (Meade et al., 2021). These observations relate to what Wolff et al. (2024) have described as the “methodological heterogeneity” in prison victimization studies (p. 1315).

While arguably physical violence is one of the most relevant types of victimization for prison administrations to curb, scholars have also investigated other forms of victimization. Measures of property victimization and/or verbal and psychological victimization (e.g., threats, bullying) were encountered in 74 out of 156 studies (e.g., Caravaca-Sánchez et al., 2022; Choi & Dulisse, 2021; Cid et al., 2021; Goossens et al., 2023a; Kuo et al., 2022; Woo et al., 2016). There is also growing concern about new forms of victimization fueled by the influx of new psychoactive substances in prison. Gooch and Treadwell (2020) suggest that these substances have fundamentally impacted the social order in English and Welsh facilities. They observed that new psychoactive substances have laid the foundation for the exploitation of vulnerable individuals, on whom psychoactive substances are tested for their quality. This coerced experimenting with drugs was also used as a new form of informal punishment when traditional prison rules were not adhered to, for example when an incarcerated individual could not repay a debt or had snitched on a fellow resident. There were also signs that victims were pushed to perform humiliating tasks when under influence, leading to “shaming and degradation” by other incarcerated individuals and possibly a wider online audience, when degrading videos were uploaded on social media (p. 1274). Nevertheless, this phenomenon is yet to be studied in wider contexts (outside the UK) and quantified.

The Paradoxical Relationship Between Objective and Subjective Safety

As mentioned above, most of the research on safety in prisons concerns objective safety. However, 43 articles were found which studied objective safety and at least one aspect of subjective safety (see Figure 3). Most of these studies focused on the affective component of subjective safety alongside objective measures (17), though others also included formless and behavioral elements.

Similar to the general literature, prison scholars have observed that objective and subjective safety are related in a paradoxical fashion. Wolff and Shi (2009b) have stated “even though prisons are dangerous and violent places (…), the people residing there, for the most part, report feeling safe” (p. 404). Prison scholars tend to refer to this phenomenon as the “safety paradox” (originally coined in Bottoms, 1999). The choice of wording is interesting to note, as it suggests a focus on perceived safety. However, when dissecting the paradox, scholars have consulted empirical research employing a range of conceptualizations, including fear in the formless and specific sense (Wolff & Shi, 2009b). As a result of this conceptual conflation, it remains unclear which exact relationship is thought to be paradoxical.

We have noted above that the safety paradox seems mostly formulated based on research on either emotional (affective) or general (formless) aspects of safety. These measures together may provide an incomplete picture of safety. As for the emotional aspect of safety, research has established that imprisoned male individuals are hesitant to showcase their vulnerability in a masculine culture, and more specifically, one in which looking “weak” may increase the odds of victimization (Bottoms, 1999; Crewe et al., 2014; Pare & Logan, 2011). In this light, a solely affective fear measure is likely subject to reporting bias and therefore may underestimate of feelings of (un)safety, especially in male facilities.

Moreover, formless constructions alone are arguably insufficiently granular to uncover imprisoned people's feelings and perceptions regarding the specific risks they face, which might vary between prisons and wings. Relatedly, scholars have argued that behavioral adaptation is an important explanation for the existence of the safety paradox. Bottoms (1999), for example, argued that incarcerated individuals learn to adapt to unsafety through protective and avoidance strategies (see also, Brömdal et al., 2023; de Guzman et al., 2021; Martens & Crewe, 2024). Important insights could thus be gained if prison scholars adopted a broader perspective of safety, by studying and assessing all its constituent components in conjunction.

Finally, it is worth noting that the safety paradox has mostly been researched and (re-)established in UK and US prison studies, raising questions about its broader generalizability.

Discussion

The aim of this research was to review and (re)structure the literature on imprisoned people's safety whilst relying on existing theoretical models from the general criminological literature on safety. In doing so, we have analyzed, organized, and critically appraised close to 200 articles on the topic. From this body of literature, we have classified the literature on safety in prisons into several categories. First, we distinguished between objective and subjective safety. The latter can be further organized between formless and specific conceptualizations, with the specific strand containing affective, cognitive, and behavioral components.

Conclusions

Several conclusions can be drawn about the prison literature on safety. First, our overview of the prison literature on subjective safety shows that research to date has employed a range of conceptualizations. In most cases, subjective safety was conceptualized using a combination of affective and objective measures, or affective measures alone. The remainder of the scholarship has employed various combinations of subjective and objective measures, often by combining conceptually different questions into a single scale. These findings demonstrate the disjointedness of research on (especially subjective) safety. In this piece, we have offered a terminology to understand and classify different elements of the safety experience, which we hope will help and encourage future scholars to critically assess their conceptualizations of safety.

Relatedly, the review has demonstrated that little prison research has taken a truly multifaceted perspective on safety. Only a single paper considered all elements of safety in our framework. As we have argued above, it is likely that affective measures alone (or any component alone) cannot provide a full picture of subjective safety.

Second, we have observed that there was little theoretical discussion about how different aspects of subjective safety might be related. More generally, the prison literature included little reference to the theoretical models behind the different safety scales. We have discussed two notable exceptions that have laid the groundwork for thinking about safety from a multidimensional approach in prisons (Ireland, 2011; McCorkle, 1992, 1993a, 1993b). The proposed model in this study, based on the victimization and fear of crime literature, has been helpful in showing the foci in the current literature and in providing some, albeit preliminary, hypotheses as to how these dimensions might be related in the prison literature. For instance, Ireland has pointed towards the significant positive relationship between (affective) fear of victimization and risk perception, and McCorkle observed that more fearful imprisoned individuals tended to be more involved in precautionary behaviors; findings which are both in line with the general criminological literature on safety (Rader et al., 2007).

Third, we have seen that the prison research on objective safety (victimization) is overrepresented when compared to research on subjective safety, and thematically focused mainly on physical victimization. Well over half the articles in this review focused exclusively on objective safety. In this case, too, definitional incongruencies and varying study methodologies complicate a direct comparison across studies. It is also necessary to understand how new safety risks (for example, the rise of new psychoactive substances) shape imprisoned people's feelings of safety.

Fourth and finally, we have established that the link between objective and subjective safety in prisons remains elusive. Further insight into how objective safety relates to subjective safety would be interesting, especially given the fact that conceptual inconsistency across studies makes it challenging to draw general conclusions about the nature of unsafety in prisons. Some promising (qualitative) work has begun to explore the complexity of the paradox (Maier & Ricciardelli, 2019; Martens & Crewe, 2024). These studies have shown that, when safety is regarded in broader terms, the paradox “appears to fade” (Maier & Ricciardelli, 2019, p. 235). Hence, an interesting avenue for quantitative researchers would be to explore and evaluate the paradox using a multidimensional approach.

Limitations

There are several limitations to be noted. For this article, we only considered the research on prisons, and not on correctional institutions broadly. Given the heterogeneity observed within and between prison samples regarding safety (also see Martens & Crewe, 2024), it is likely that safety may vary across different types of correctional facilities, like jails or juvenile detention centers. Nevertheless, the framework and terminology offered in this paper could help illustrate these possible differences.

The focus on English language research also exacerbates the observation made earlier about the overrepresentation of Anglo research on imprisoned people's safety. Relatedly, there are several scholars in the field who have published multiple studies on the same sample or different subsets of the same sample. It is logical that these studies use similar methods and produce similar findings, potentially distorting the patterns we described.

Moreover, we have focused our analysis on conceptualization and measurement over empirical findings. In doing so, we have considered the prison population as a whole, though it should be acknowledged that each of the respective study samples is composed of a mosaic of individuals, each with their own characteristics and (prior) experiences. Safety is, by all means, a personal experience, and likely influenced by an array of personal and contextual factors. Empirical research in this field should always account for and control for these factors.

Additionally, we wish to acknowledge that the field of prison safety is not only subject to measurement heterogeneity but also to methodological heterogeneity more generally (Wolff et al., 2024). Researchers have applied varying sampling methods (including convenience sampling), administration methods (self-administered questionnaires versus interviews), and have relied on varying degrees of staff assistance. These circumstances imply that researchers who would wish to compare empirical findings from these studies should do so with caution.

Finally, we have also focused our analysis on conceptualizations offered by academicians, be it in the form of survey items or interview excerpts. As such, these conceptualizations are deducted rather than inducted, and it could be worth exploring further how imprisoned people themselves would conceptualize and subsequently measure their feelings of safety. Initiatives like participatory action research could be suited for this matter.

Implications for Research and Practice

Safety is a central concept in prisons across the globe. Nevertheless, what we talk about when we talk about safety varies widely. There are several implications for future research.

First, it would be a fruitful endeavor for future research to include and separate the dimensions of safety raised in this paper. In doing so, it would expand on the works of McCorkle (1992, 1993a, 1993b), by combining affective, cognitive, and behavioral measures for several types of victimization (not only assault, like McCorkle did), and contrasting these dimensions to a formless measure of safety and to victimization rates. These efforts would ensure that researchers gain a more comprehensive understanding of what safety in prison entails. After all, safety is one of the key elements of prison climate and a core element of many prison surveys (Nieuwbeerta et al., 2025). For a valid measurement of safety and hence of prison climate, a multidimensional approach would be advisable. An empirical validation of the proposed structure would be a logical next step. For qualitative research too, we hope our model illustrates the complexity and comprehensiveness of the safety experience for incarcerated individuals, which could be helpful in designing (semi-)structured topic lists.

Regarding objective safety, we hope the current contribution is an inspiration for future researchers to collect and report statistics on objective safety that are both comprehensive and sufficiently granular, so that an insight can be created into which safety risks are most pressing. The resulting knowledge can then be applied to guide efforts and resources towards critical issues.

Finally, we believe that theoretical refinement of safety measures—like we propose in this paper—and subsequent testing would be beneficial to shed further light on the safety paradox observed in prisons. Additionally, since the safety paradox in prisons has been formulated almost exclusively based on Anglo research, it presents an interesting opportunity for research in non-Anglo contexts to explore whether the same findings hold true there.

The current research also leads to practical implications. To date, many prison safety evaluations are performed based on objective safety statistics, like victimization rates (see, e.g., UK Ministry of Justice, 2024), rather than by understanding the way people feel, perceive their environment, and behave. As per the safety paradox, it is well known that objective and subjective measures of safety do not neatly align. Understanding the specific sources of subjective unsafety (e.g., specific fears), people's risk perception, as well as the consequences of fear (behavioral adaptation) would be beneficial in order to map incarcerated individuals’ safety in a way that does justice to this complexity. Ideally, policy should not only be focused on preventing victimization, but also by creating a prison climate that feels safe. For prison staff, too, a multidimensional model of safety would imply that unsafety can be uncovered through much more than the reporting of events, but also through careful supervision and contact with incarcerated individuals to understand their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors (see, also Kilmer et al., 2023 on dynamic security).

All in all, we have shown in this contribution that safety can be and has been studied in a variety of ways. The most complete insight, in our view, would be gained when those different perspectives are combined and critically contrasted, to shed light on the complex nature of safety and the putative safety paradox. Such a multidimensional approach could subsequently also be used to inform policy and practice, contribute positively to the wellbeing of incarcerated individuals and staff, and help to make prisons a more effective place of reform.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-icj-10.1177_10575677251372901 - Supplemental material for Safety in Prison: A Review of the Literature and Theoretical Exploration

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-icj-10.1177_10575677251372901 for Safety in Prison: A Review of the Literature and Theoretical Exploration by Sophie Martens, Hanneke Palmen and Paul Nieuwbeerta in International Criminal Justice Review

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Sophie Martens

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Sophie Martens is a PhD candidate in Criminology at the University of Leiden (Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology).

Hanneke Palmen is an associate professor in Criminology at the University of Leiden (Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology).

Paul Nieuwbeerta is a full professor in Criminology at the University of Leiden (Institute for Criminal Law and Criminology).

References

* Aday

R. H.

(1994). Aging in prison: A case study of new elderly offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X9403800108

* Allely

C. S.

Wood

(2022). “Cardboard gangsters”, “in crowd” and “no control”: A case study of autism spectrum disorder in the prison environment. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 13(2), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIDOB-02-2022-0002

Allik

Kearns

(2017). “There goes the fear”: Feelings of safety at home and in the neighborhood: The role of personal, social, and service factors. Journal of Community Psychology, 45(4), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21875

* Archer

Southall

(2009). Does cost–benefit analysis or self-control predict involvement in bullying behavior by male prisoners? Aggressive Behavior, 35(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20283

Armborst

(2017). How fear of crime affects punitive attitudes. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23(3), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-017-9342-5

* Auty

K. M.

Liebling

(2024). What is a ‘good enough’ prison? An empirical analysis of key thresholds using prison moral quality data. European Journal of Criminology, 21(5), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708241227693

Bilsky

(2003). Fear of crime, personal safety and well-being: A common frame of reference. In Vanderhallen

Vervaeke

Van Koppen

P. J.

Goethals

(Eds.), Much ado about crime: Chapters on psychology and law (pp. 37–55). Politeia.

Bjerkan

A. M.

(2010). Health, environment, safety culture and climate – analysing the relationships to occupational accidents. Journal of Risk Research, 13(4), 445–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903346386

* Blagden

Winder

Hames

(2016). “They treat us like human beings” – experiencing a therapeutic sex offenders prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(4), 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X14553227

10.

Bosma

A. Q.

Van Ginneken

E. F. J. C.

Sentse

Palmen

(2019). Examining prisoner misconduct: A multilevel test using personal characteristics, prison climate, and prison environment. Crime & Delinquency, 1(34), 2–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128719877347

11.

Bottoms

A. E.

(1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime and Justice, 26, 205–281. https://doi.org/10.1086/449298

12.

* Bradley

R. G.

Davino

K. M.

(2002). Women’s perceptions of the prison environment: When prison is “the safest place I’ve ever been”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.T01-2-00074

13.

* Braga

De Castro-Rodrigues

Di Folca

S. M. S.

Gonçalves

R. A.

(2019). How dark are dark figures? Official and self-report rates of inmate-on-inmate victimization. Victims and Offenders, 14(6), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2019.1627683

14.

Brands

Spithoven

(2023). Angst voor slachtofferschap van criminaliteit? Grip krijgen op de complexiteit tussen situationele angst voor slachtofferschap van criminaliteit en algemene onveiligheidsbeleving. In Van Doorn

Brands

Kunst

M. J. J.

Muller

E. R.

Pemberton

Reemst

(Eds.), Slachtoffers (pp. 705–726). Wolters Kluwer.

15.

* Brömdal

Halliwell

Sanders

Clark

K. A.

Gildersleeve

Mullens

A. B.

Phillips

T. M.

Debattista

du Plessis

Daken

Hughto

J. M. W.

(2023). Navigating intimate trans citizenship while incarcerated in Australia and the United States. Feminism & Psychology, 33(1), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535221102224

16.

* Brooke

Rybacka

(2021). Exploration of older prisoner’s social needs, who attended one of two prison initiatives for older people: An inductive phenomenological study. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 17(2), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-03-2020-0016

17.

* Butler

H. D.

Bouffard

J. A.

Beatty

J. K.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2023). Understanding the decision to officially report sexual assaults in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(6), 849–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231162090

18.

Byrne

J. M.

Hummer

(2007). Myths and realities of prison violence: A review of the evidence. Victims and Offenders, 2(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880601087241

19.

* Camp

S. D.

Gaes

G. G.

Klein-Saffran

Daggett

D. M.

Saylor

W. G.

(2002). Using inmate survey data in assessing prison performance: A case study comparing private and public prisons. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 26–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680202700103

20.

* Caravaca-Sánchez

Aizpurua

Wolff

(2023). The prevalence of prison-based physical and sexual victimization in males and females: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 24(5), 3476–3492. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221130358

21.

* Caravaca-Sánchez

Vidovic

K. R.

Fearn

N. E.

Vaughn

M. G.

(2022). Incarcerated women in Spain: The salience of traumatic exposure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11–12), NP10126–NP10147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520985483

22.

* Caravaca-Sánchez

Wolff

Teasdale

(2019). Exploring associations between interpersonal violence and prison size in Spanish prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 65(14), 2019–2043. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718763134

23.

*Casey

Day

Reynolds

(2016). The influence of incarceration length and protection status on perceptions of prison social climate. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(2), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815603747

24.

CBS . (2020). Veiligheidsbeleving van slachtoffers van criminaliteit. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/statistische-trends/2020/veiligheidsbeleving-van-slachtoffers-van-criminaliteit

25.

CBS . (2023). Veiligheidsmonitor 2023. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2024/09/veiligheidsmonitor-2023

26.

* Cheliotis

L. K.

Liebling

(2006). Race matters in British prisons. The British Journal of Criminology, 46(2), 286–317. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azi058

27.

* Choi

(2019). Victimization, fear of crime, procedural injustice and inmate misconduct: An application of general strain theory in South Korea. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 59, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2019.100346

28.

* Choi

Dulisse

(2021). Behind closed doors: The role of risky lifestyles and victimization experiences on fear of future victimization among South Korean inmates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(21–22), 10817–10841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519888186

29.

* Cid

Pedrosa

Ibàñez

Martí

(2021). Does the experience of imprisonment affect optimism about reentry? The Prison Journal, 101(1), 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520978476

30.

Constable Fernandez

Patalay

Vaughan

Church

Hamer

Maddock

(2023). Subjective and objective indicators of neighbourhood safety and physical activity among UK adolescents. Health and Place, 83(9), 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2023.103050

31.

* Crewe

Warr

Bennett

Smith

(2014). The emotional geography of prison life. Theoretical Criminology, 18(1), 56–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480613497778

32.

Daans

A. J. G.

Van Den Hurk

A. A.

Nelissen

P. P.

(2009). Detentie in Essentie.

33.

* Daquin

Daigle

(2020). The victim–offender overlap in prison: Examining the factors associated with group membership. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(23-24), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519898427

34.

* de Guzman

A. B.

Garcia

A. C. R.

Garcia

M. D.

Garcia

R. J. B.

(2021). Older Filipino prisoners’ fear of other inmates: A grounded theory analysis. Ageing International, 46(4), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12126-020-09397-4

35.

* de Guzman

A. B.

Herrera

Y. P. S.

Hernando

J. E.

Hipe

M. D. A.

Valdez

L. P. M.

(2020). We can be as busy as a bee: A grounded theory study of Filipino elderly prisoners’ engagement. Educational Gerontology, 46(5), 247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601277.2020.1727005

36.

Diamantopoulos

Sarstedt

Fuchs

Wilczynski

Kaiser

(2012). Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0300-3

37.

DJI . (2023). Meerjarenplan DJI 2023-2027. https://www.dji.nl/over-dji/feiten-en-cijfers/cijfers-en-publicaties/meerjarenplan-dji

38.

* Edgar

O’Donnell

Martin

(2003). Prison violence: The dynamics of conflict, fear and power. Willan Publishing.

39.

* Edison

Haynie

D. L.

(2023). Social support, victimization, and stress in a women’s prison: The role of in-prison friendship for reducing perceptions of stress. Women and Criminal Justice, 35(4), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2023.2246955

40.

Elchardus

De Groof

Smits

(2005). Rationele angst of collectieve voorstelling van onbehagen Een vergelijking van twee paradigma’s ter verklaring van onveiligheidsgevoelens. Mens & Maatschappij, 80(1), 48–68.

41.

Eysink Smeets

(2018a). Are fear of crime studies keeping up with the fear of crime? Are fear of crime studies keeping up with the fear of crime? Are fear of crime studies keeping up with the fear of crime? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356360828

42.

Eysink Smeets

(2018b). Waarom het onderzoek naar veiligheidsbeleving een nieuwe impuls nodig heeft. Justitiële Verkenningen, 6(18), 8–24. www.wodc.nl https://doi.org/10.5553/JV/016758502018044006001

43.

Farrall

Bannister

Ditton

Gilchrist

(1997). Questioning the measurement of the ‘Fear of Crime’: Findings from a Major Methodological Study. British Journal of Criminology, 37(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014203

44.

* Favril

van Ginneken

E. F. J. C.

(2024). Individual and environmental contributors to psychological distress during imprisonment. European Journal of Criminology, 21(3), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/14773708231201726

45.

Ferraro

K. F.

LaGrange

(1987). The measurement of fear of crime. In Ditton

Farrall

(Eds.), The fear of crime (pp. 277–308). Routledge.

46.

Figgie

H. E.

(1980). Figgie report on fear of crime: America afraid. Part one: The general public. US National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/figgie-report-fear-crime-america-afraid-part-one-general-public .

47.

Franken

Brands

van Doorn

Kunst

(2024). Door het bos de bomen zien: naar een geïntegreerde en toepasbare classificatie van veiligheidsbeleving. Tijdschrift Voor Veiligheid, 23(3), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.5553/TvV/.000073

48.

* Frois

(2016). Close insecurity: Shifting conceptions of security in prison confinement. Social Anthropology, 24(3), 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12299

49.

Gabriel

Greve

(2003). The psychology of fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 600–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/43.3.600

50.

Garland

Wilson

(2013). Prison inmates’ views of whether reporting rape is the same as snitching: An exploratory study and research agenda. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(6), 1201–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512468238

51.

Gibbons

J. J.

Debelleville Katzenbach

(2006). Confronting confinement: A report of the commission on safety and abuse in American’s prisons. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 22(1), 385–562. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/confronting-confinement-report-commission-safety-and-abuse

52.

* Gooch

Treadwell

(2020). Prisoner society in an era of psychoactive substances, organized crime, new drug markets and austerity. British Journal of Criminology, 60(5), 1260–1281. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa019

53.

* Goossens

Maes

Robert

Daems

Mertens

(2023a). Victimization in prison. A study of victimization and prison climate dimensions in Belgian prisons. Victims and Offenders, 20(2), 487–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2023.2282978

54.

Goossens

Robert

Daems

(2023b). Individual and contextual risk factors of prisoners’ victimization: A best fit framework synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 70(2023), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101826

55.

Grant

M. J.

Booth

(2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

56.

Groof

(2006). Het (on)grijpbare onveiligheidsgevoel: Een exploratie van de structuur binnen het onveiligheidsconcept van mannen en vrouwen. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie, 48(1), 19–34.

57.

* Hagemann

(2008). Conditions of imprisonment—victimization and conflicts in European prisons. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 6(4), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377930802530312

58.

Hale

(1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4(2), 1–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975809600400201

59.

Hanslmaier

Kemme

Baier

(2016). 11. Victimisation, fear of crime and life satisfaction. In Baier

Pfeiffer

(Eds.), Representative studies on victimisation (pp. 251–284). Nomos.

60.

Hardyns

Pauwels

L. J. R.

(2012). Collective efficacy, sociaal kapitaal en “fear of crime”: Een evaluatie van contextuele effecten op drie aspecten van onveiligheidsbeleving. Tijdschrift Voor Criminologie, 54(4), 304–319. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-3087935

61.

Hart

T. C.

Chataway

Mellberg

(2022). Measuring fear of crime during the past 25 years: A systematic quantitative literature review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 1–11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101988

62.

* Hemmens

Marquart

J. W.

(1999). Straight time: Inmates’ perceptions of violence and victimization in the prison environment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(3–4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v28n03_01

63.

Hinkle

J. C.

(2015). Emotional fear of crime vs. perceived safety and risk: Implications for measuring “fear” and testing the broken windows thesis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9243-9

64.

Hollway

Jefferson

(2000). The role of anxiety in fear of crime. In Hope

Sparks

(Eds.), Crime, risk and insecurity (pp. 31–49). Routledge.

65.

Hughto, J. M. W., Clark, K. A., Daken, K., Brömdal, A., Mullens, A. B., Sanders, T., Phillips, T., Mimiaga, M. J., Cahill, S., du Plessis, C., Gildersleeve, J., Halliwell, S. D., & Reisner, S. L. (2022). Victimization within and beyond the prison walls: A latent profile analysis of transgender and gender diverse adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP23075–NP23106. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211073102

66.

* Ireland

J. L.

(2011). The importance of coping, threat appraisal, and beliefs in understanding and responding to fear of victimization: Applications to a male prisoner sample. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9237-1

67.

Jackson

(2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802275797

68.

Jackson

Farrall

Gray

(2007). Theorising the fear of crime: The cultural and social significance of insecurities about crime. SSRN Electronic Journal, 5, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1012393

69.

*Jenness

Sexton

(2022). The centrality of relationships in context: a comparison of factors that predict the sexual and non-sexual victimization of transgender women in prisons for men. Journal of Crime and Justice, 45(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2021.1935298

70.

Kappes

Greve

Hellmers

(2013). Fear of crime in old age: Precautious behaviour and its relation to situational fear. European Journal of Ageing, 10(2), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-012-0255-3

71.

* Kelman

Gribble

Harvey

Palmer

MacManus

(2024). How does a history of trauma affect the experience of imprisonment for individuals in women’s prisons: A qualitative exploration. Women & Criminal Justice, 34(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2022.2071376

72.

* Kerbs

J. J.

Jolley

J. M.

(2007). Inmate-on-inmate victimization among older male prisoners. Crime and Delinquency, 53(2), 187–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706294119

73.

Kilmer

Abdel-Salam

Silver

I. A.

(2023). “The uniform’s in the way”: Navigating the tension between security and therapeutic roles in a rehabilitation-focused prison in Norway. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221143536

74.

* Kubiak

Fedock

Kim

W. J.

Bybee

(2017). Examining perpetration of physical violence by women: The influence of childhood adversity, victimization, mental illness, substance abuse, and anger. Violence and Victims, 32(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00177

75.

* Kuo

S. Y.

Chang

K. M.

Chen

Y. S.

Lai

Y. L.

Chang

Y. S.

(2022). Assessing the victim-offender overlap in prison victimization and misconduct among Taiwanese male inmates. British Journal of Criminology, 62(3), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab066

76.

* Lahm

(2008). Inmate-on-Inmate assault: A multilevel examination of prison violence. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 35(1), 120–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807308730

77.

Lai

Y. L.

Zhao

J. S.

Longmire

D. R.

(2012). Specific crime–fear linkage: The effect of actual burglary incidents reported to the police on residents’ fear of burglary. Journal of Crime and Justice, 35(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.631408

78.

* Leban

Cardwell

S. M.

Copes

Brezina

(2016). Adapting to prison life: A qualitative examination of the coping process among incarcerated offenders. Justice Quarterly, 33(6), 943–969. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1012096

79.

* Ledet

Holland

M. M.

Emeigh

Givens

(2024). Carceral safety in a post-PREA era: An examination of perceptual indicators of safety among incarcerated persons in four southeast prisons. Punishment and Society, 26(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745231173927

80.

Lee

(2013). Inventing Fear of Crime. Willan.

81.

Liebling

Arnold

(2004). Prisons and their moral performance: A study of values, quality, and prison life. Oxford University Press.

82.

* Liebling

Arnold

(2012). Social relationships between prisoners in a maximum security prison: Violence, faith, and the declining nature of trust. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.003

83.

Light

(1990). Measurement error in official statistics: Prison rule infraction data. Federal Probation, 54(4), 63–68. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/measurement-error-official-statistics-prison-rule-infraction-data

84.

* Lindegaard

M. R.

Gear

(2014). Violence makes safe in South African prisons. Focaal, 2014(68), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.3167/fcl.2014.680103

85.

* Lutz

Streb

Dudeck

(2019). Living Conditions Influence Psychological Distress of Migrants in Long-Term Imprisonment. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00818

86.

Lynch

Addington

(2010). Identifying and addressing response errors in self-report surveys. In Piquero

Weisbud

(Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 251–272). Springer.

87.

Maier

K. H.

Ricciardelli

(2019). The prisoner’s dilemma: How male prisoners experience and respond to penal threat while incarcerated. Punishment and Society, 21(2), 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474518757091

88.

* Martens

Crewe

(2024). Feeling (Un)safe in Prison: A Comparative Analysis of England & Wales and Norway. The British Journal of Criminology. 65(3), 541–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azae064

89.

* McCorkle

(1992). Personal precautions to violence in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19(2), 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854892019002004

90.

* McCorkle

(1993a). Fear of victimization and symptoms of psychopathology among prison inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19(1/2), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v19n01_02

91.

* McCorkle

(1993b). Living on the edge: Fear in a maximum-security prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 20(1/2), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v20n01_06

92.

McGuire

(2018). Understanding prison violence: a rapid evidence assessment. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-prison-violence-a-rapid-evidence-assessment

93.

* McNeeley

(2022). Reaffirming the relationship between routine activities and violent victimization in prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101883

94.

* McWilliam

Nielssen

Moore

(2015). Sorting it out: A community mediation training program at a therapeutic prison. Sydney Law Review, 37(1), 69–88.

95.

* Meade

Wasileski

Hunter

(2021). The effects of victimization prior to prison on victimization, misconduct, and sanction severity during incarceration. Crime and Delinquency, 67(12), 1856–1878. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720977440

96.

* Miller

K. L.

(2010). The darkest figure of crime: Perceptions of reasons for male inmates to not report sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 27(5), 692–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820903292284

97.

Minkler

Bonner

DeLisi

Pechorro

Vaughn

M. G.

(2022). The dark figure of delinquency: New evidence and its underlying psychopathology. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 20(4), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/15412040221111328

98.

Molleman

Leeuw

F. L.

(2012). 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-011-9158-7

99.

Möller

(2005). Analysing safety: Epistemic uncertainty and the limits of objective safety. Safety and Security Engineering, 82, 63–72. www.witpress.com ,

100.

* Morash

Jeong

Bohmert

M. N.

Bush

D. R.

(2012). Men’s vulnerability to prisoner-on-prisoner sexual violence: A state correctional system case study. Prison Journal, 92(2), 290–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885512439185

101.

* Muirhead

Butler

Davidson

(2023). Behind closed doors: An exploration of cell-sharing and its relationship with wellbeing. European Journal of Criminology, 20(1), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370821996905

102.

Nieuwbeerta

Palmen

van Ravenstein

Martens

(2025). Een sociaal, veilig, gezond en activerend leefklimaat in detentie. PROCES, 2025(104-1), 50–60.

103.

Nishina

Parra

L. A.

(2019). Discrepancies between retrospective and actual self-reports of peer victimization six years earlier. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(3), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12410

104.

Noble

Jardin

(2020). From victimization to fear: Fear of crime and its variations among victims. British Journal of Criminology, 60(2), 468–489. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azz051

105.

* O’Donnell

Edgar

(1999). Fear in prison. The Prison Journal, 79(1), 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885599079001006

106.

* Pare

P.-P.

Logan

M. W.

(2011). Risks of minor and serious violent victimization in prison: The impact of inmates’ mental disorders, physical disabilities, and physical size. Society and Mental Health, 1(2), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869311416828

107.

* Peirce

Fondevila

(2020). Concentrated violence: The influence of criminal activity and governance on prison violence in Latin America. International Criminal Justice Review, 30(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567719850235

108.

* Pérez

D. M.

Gover

A. R.

Tennyson

K. M.

Santos

S. D.

(2010). Individual and institutional characteristics related to inmate victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(3), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X09335244

109.

Rader

N. E.

May

D. C.

Goodrum

(2007). An empirical assessment of the “threat of victimization”: Considering fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Sociological Spectrum, 27(5), 475–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732170701434591

110.

* Ratkalkar

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

(2020). Can I ask for help? The relationship among incarcerated males’ sexual orientation, sexual abuse history, and perceptions of rape in prison. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19–20), 4117–4140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517714440

111.

Robichaud

Dugas

M. J.

Conway

(2003). Gender differences in worry and associated cognitive-behavioral variables. Anxiety Disorders, 17(5), 501–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00237-2

112.

Roccato

Russo

Vieno

(2011). Perceived community disorder moderates the relation between victimization and fear of crime. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(7), 884–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20470

113.

* Ross

M. W.

Diamond

P. M.

Liebling

Saylor

W. G.

(2008). Measurement of prison social climate. Punishment & Society, 10(4), 447–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474508095320

114.

Rountree

P. W.

(1998). A reexamination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 341–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427898035003005

115.

* Schappell

Docherty

Boxer

(2016). Violence and victimization during incarceration: Relations to psychosocial adjustment during reentry to the community. Violence and Victims, 31(2), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-13-00188

116.

* Schliehe

Crewe

(2022). Top bunk, bottom bunk: Cellsharing in prisons. British Journal of Criminology, 62(2), 484–500. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab053

117.

* Shermer

L. O. N.

Sudo

(2017). Fear of rape from behind prison walls. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 13(2), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-07-2016-0032/FULL/XML

118.

* Shih

M. R.

(2020). Examining the fear of victimization among Taiwanese inmates. Asian Journal of Criminology, 15(3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11417-020-09309-0/TABLES/6

119.

* Shippen

M. E.

Derzis

N. C.

Hall

Weaver

(2022). An exploratory factor analysis of a prison rape elimination act survey in a women’s prison. The Prison Journal, 102(4), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855221109818

120.

* Smoyer

A. B.

Minke

L. K.

(2019). Hygge: Food and the construction of safety among incarcerated women in Denmark. Appetite, 141, 104319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104319

121.

Snyder

(2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

122.

* Struckman-Johnson

Struckman-Johnson

(2000). Sexual coercion rates in seven midwestern prison facilities for men. The Prison Journal, 80(4), 379–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885500080004004

123.

* Trotter

Baidawi

(2015). Older prisoners: Challenges for inmates and prison management. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865814530731

124.

UK Ministry of Justice . (2024). Safety and order. https://www.gov.uk/gov

125.

UNODC . (2015). The United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).

126.

Van Dijk

Nieuwbeerta

Joudo Larsen

(2022). Global crime patterns: An analysis of survey data from 166 countries around the world, 2006–2019. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 38(4), 793–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09501-0

127.

Van Ginneken

Bosma

Pasma

Palmen

(2020). Unhappy staff, unhappy prisoners? The relation between work climate and prison climate in Dutch prisons. Kriminologie-Das Online-Journal | Criminology-The Online Journal, 2(2), 182–200.

128.

*Van Ginneken

Palmen

Bosma

A. Q.

Nieuwbeerta

Berghuis

M. L.

(2018). The life in custody study: The quality of prison life in Dutch prison regimes. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 4(4), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-07-2018-0020

129.

Van Kesteren, J., Van Dijk, J., & Mayhew, P. (2014). The international crime victims surveys. International Review of Victimology, 20(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758013511742

130.

Van Noije

Iedema

(2018). Hét gevoel van onveiligheid bestaat niet. Justitiële Verkenningen, 44(6), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.5553/JV/016758502018044006002

131.

Van Noije

L. V.

Iedema

(2017). Achtervolgd door angst. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.

132.

Van Zyl Smit

Snacken

(2009). Principles of European prison law and policy. Oxford University Press.

133.

* Warren

J. I.

(2012). Risk markers for sexual victimization and predation in prison (1st ed.). Routledge.

134.

Whittemore

Knafl

(2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

135.

Wilcox

Augustine

M. C.

Roberts

S. D.

(2005). The “reality” of middle-school crime objective vs. Subjective experiences among a sample of Kentucky youth. Journal of School Violence, 4(2), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v04n02_02

136.

* Wolff

Aizpurua

Peng

(2024). Reducing the methodological heterogeneity (“noise”) in the literature predicting in-prison interpersonal harm in male populations. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 25(2), 1315–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231175918

137.

* Wolff

Blitz

C. L.

Shi

Siegel

Bachman

(2007). Physical violence inside prisons: Rates of victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806296830

138.

* Wolff

Shi

(2009a). Contextualization of physical and sexual assault in male prisons: Incidents and their aftermath. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 15(1), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345808326622

139.

* Wolff

Shi

(2009b). Feelings of safety among male inmates: The safety paradox. Criminal Justice Review, 34(3), 404–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016809333343

140.

* Wolff

Shi

(2009c). Feelings of safety inside prison among male inmates with different victimization experiences. Violence and Victims, 24(6), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.24.6.800

141.

* Woo

Stohr

M. K.

Hemmens

Lutze

Hamilton

Yoon

O. K.

(2016). An empirical test of the social support paradigm on male inmate society. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 40(2), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2015.1089518

142.

* Wooldredge

Steiner

(2012). Race group differences in prison victimization experiences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.011

143.

Wuyts

De Boeck

Dilliën

Merckx

Uzieblo

De Koster

De Schutter

Goethals

(2023). Separate units for incarcerated people who committed sexual offenses: luxury or necessity? Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, 1–10 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1111436

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.30 MB