In Washington State, Prison Closure Divides Abolitionist Community

The closure of the Washington State Reformatory (WSR) in 2021 prompted a division within the abolitionist community, with some viewing the closure as a victory and others feeling it supported the prison industrial complex. This split was highlighted by contrasting arguments presented by prisoners like Felix Sitthivong, who argued that prison closures meant prison closures, and Tomas Keen, who contended that the closure increased the carceral footprint by failing to provide restorative facilities. The historical importance of WSR is noted as a center for prisoner-led abolition groups and liberation efforts in Washington state, hosting organizations like The Black Prisoners Caucus (BPC) and Concerned Lifer’s Organization (CLO). When the Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) announced the closure, this context informed the debate on whether dismantling carceral structures should prioritize immediate dismantling or ensuring the continuation of existing abolitionist infrastructure.
The process surrounding the closure also involved a "warm closure" arrangement, which allowed for post-closure updates to facilities. Subsequent actions by WDOC and the state system have impacted abolitionist organizing, with concerns raised about the state's ability to protect transformative spaces like BPC TEACH and CLO through mechanisms like Memorandums of Understanding. The text details the experiences of former inmates who experienced this process firsthand, emphasizing that removing institutional support networks has a profound impact on personal freedom and capacity for ongoing work.

* The Washington State Reformatory (WSR) was the oldest unit in the Monroe Correctional Complex in Monroe, Washington.
* In 2021, the Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) announced plans to close WSR due to a decrease in prison admissions and revenue loss.
* A division emerged among incarcerated abolitionists regarding the closure of WSR, with some seeing it as a win for the movement and others viewing it as a win for the prison industrial complex.
* Felix Sitthivong argued that "prison closures really mean prison closures."
* Tomas Keen argued that closing WSR would increase the carceral footprint rather than constitute decarceration.
* WSR was a power center for prisoner-led abolition groups in Washington state.
* Prisoners at WSR were engaged in dismantling preschool-to-prison and foster-care-to-prison pipelines, organizing the Underground Railroad, and working on programs like HEAL.
* The CLO and BPC operated at WSR, engaging in community discussions with free society members.
* WDOC planned a "warm closure" for WSR, meaning the prison would remain operational but with reduced staffing, allowing for future reopening.
* Abolitionist prisoners felt that removing institutional support networks diminished their ability to pursue freedom.
* The post-closure landscape has seen pressure on cultural groups and programs like BPC TEACH.

The narrative structure surrounding the WSR closure reveals a tension between immediate tactical victories (decarceration) and long-term systemic transformation. The division among abolitionists highlights a critical pattern: when opportunities for change are presented by the oppressor, there is an impulse to seize them quickly, which risks compromising the broader vision of sustained dismantling. This conflict between immediate action and long-term strategy is central to understanding the subsequent resistance against state actions.
The analysis points to how systemic interests operate rationally within a zero-sum framework, attempting to redefine change as merely fiscal management rather than abolition. The fear articulated by some prisoners, such as the threat to infrastructure like PABs and the dismantling of community support networks facilitated by the closure, reveals that carceral state actions are designed not just to reduce incarceration but to disable alternative organizing structures.
The divergence in views—between those prioritizing immediate physical dismantling and those emphasizing relational groundwork—suggests a crucial gap in strategy: the need to integrate liberation work with systemic critique. The focus on "tearing down" without acknowledging the necessity of building new systems foregrounds how power dynamics dictate what kind of wins are prioritized. The ultimate implication is that genuine abolition requires not just closing physical structures, but securing the relational and intellectual infrastructure necessary for enduring change, rather than allowing opposing forces to define the terms of the resulting political reality.
Bridge Questions: What alternative frameworks exist for prioritizing immediate safety versus long-term structural transformation in situations where systemic pressures are at play? How can the recognition of differential impacts on abolitionist communities inform strategies for solidarity that effectively counter state-driven divisions? If the carceral state is operating as a rational actor, what systemic vulnerabilities remain that cannot be addressed by localized wins or incremental reforms?