Corrections ombuds publishes Part 2 of solitary confinement report, detailing interviews and harms

The Office of the Corrections Ombuds (OCO) published Part 2 of its solitary confinement report during a press conference, releasing interview-based findings and a deidentified dataset that OCO said shows how isolation, deprivation and institutional practices affect people held in restrictive housing.

The report follows Part 1 (published 06/30/2024) and complements that data with first-person interviews. "We are from the Office of the Corrections Ombuds, and we are excited to announce the second part of our solitary confinement series," an OCO representative said at the opening of the conference. Angie Schroeder, senior corrections ombuds, emphasized the office's role: "Our purpose is to provide information, to promote public awareness and understanding, to ensure compliance with relevant statutes, rules, and policies, and to identify systems issues and responses for the governor and the legislature to act upon." (Angie Schroeder spoke identifying herself as the senior corrections ombuds.)

Why it matters: OCO presented both quantitative findings and thematic reports from interviews. The office stated that it received 522 complaints related to solitary confinement in 2022–2023 and that solitary confinement "is still widely used" and often applied subjectively. The transcript of the conference reports that "176 people held in solitary confinement attempted suicide over the past decade" and that "14 of those individuals died." OCO noted that 97 percent of people incarcerated in Washington state are released back to communities, framing the findings as relevant to reentry and public safety.

Key findings: From interviews with 13 volunteers, OCO identified recurring themes: sensory deprivation, idleness and lack of social engagement that contribute to decompensation and long-term mental-health impacts; denial of quality-of-life items such as showers, tablets, phone calls and visits; the use of devices and tactics (interviewees described a sleeve called a "bandit" that administers shocks) they characterized as dehumanizing or traumatizing; frequent negative interactions with DOC staff that erode trust; and inconsistent communication and rule application that can produce indeterminate or extended stays in solitary.

Methodology and transparency: OCO described Part 2 methodology as voluntary interviews (one hour each) with 13 individuals, followed by consistent coding and thematic analysis by staff. The office said it published a deidentified dataset alongside Part 1 so independent reviewers can examine the records. "A lot of this is stuff that has been behind walls for a really long time," an OCO representative said, noting the dataset and materials are on OCO's website under Data > Publications and Reports.

Relationship to DOC plans and funding: OCO representatives said their findings align with the Department of Corrections' (DOC) stated goal to reduce the use of solitary confinement by 90% over five years. "We do align with what DOC sees, as the value in that," Angie Schroeder said. OCO also clarified it will not issue formal recommendations in this report; Part 3 will discuss possible resolutions to address issues identified in Parts 1 and 2. OCO staff and questioners highlighted a funding gap: OCO noted the DOC did not receive all requested appropriations in the most recent legislative session, which OCO said limits DOC's ability to implement its solitary-reduction project plan.

Media materials and contacts: OCO said it will distribute the report, images, B-roll, and audio clips to media after the conference. Deputy Director Elizabeth Kingsbury was named as a backup contact (email on the OCO website), and OCO provided a hotline number in the media advisory: (360) 545-7036.

Next steps: OCO said Part 3 is in progress and expected late in the fall; it will explore possible approaches to address the issues identified but will not frame the report as formal recommendations. The office encouraged the public to review the deidentified dataset and to contact legislators about policy changes if they wish to push for legislative action.

Provenance: The article is based on OCO's press-conference remarks and Q&A as recorded in the conference transcript; OCO stated publication of Part 2 and the availability of deidentified data on its website.