-
Title
-
Science and Sustainability Education in Prisons: Examining the Experiences of Sustainability in Prisons Project Coordinators
-
Creator
-
Bass, Jen
-
Identifier
-
Thesis_MES_2023_BassJ
-
extracted text
-
SCIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION IN PRISONS: EXAMINING THE
EXPERIENCES OF SUSTAINBILITY IN PRISONS PROJECT COORDINATORS
by
Jennifer Bass
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2023
©2023 by Jennifer Bass. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Jennifer Bass
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
_______________________________
Kathleen Saul, PhD
Member of Faculty
_______________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Science and Sustainability Education in Prisons: Examining the Experiences of Sustainability in
Prisons Project Coordinators
Jennifer Bass
Incarcerated participants of environmental education programs have described
experiences that match identity development theories, demonstrated patterns of overcoming fear,
shifts in self-esteem, empathy, and feelings of empowerment (Passarelli, 2017; Morita, 2021).
Yet, little research has focused on the experiences of program coordinators. This study used a
survey and semi-structured interviews with former graduate student Sustainability in Prisons
Project (SPP) coordinators to determine if and how individuals experienced a change in schema
while working with environmental education and conservation programs in prisons. Schemas are
structures of knowledge that help us understand the world, interpret geographical features,
understand mathematical formulas, and perceive acceptable behaviors. By identifying patterns in
the survey responses and themes from semi-structured interviews, I evaluated changes in schema
related to environmentalism, incarceration, and career paths. Coordinator responses indicated
that many individuals experienced a change of perspective related to environmentalism,
incarceration, and career path. Out of the three categories, participants were most likely to have
experienced a change in schema on incarceration.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
POSITIONALITY STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 1. PRISON SYSTEMS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY IN PRISONS
PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction to Literature Review ........................................................................................... 4
1.2 History of Mass Incarceration ................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Mass Incarceration in the Present Day ................................................................................... 8
1.4 Incarceration in Washington State ......................................................................................... 9
1.5 Environmental Justice and Incarceration ............................................................................ 13
1.7 Incarceration and COVID-19 ................................................................................................ 19
1.8 Past Sustainability in Prisons Project research .................................................................... 19
1.8.1 Participant experiences ................................................................................................... 20
1.8.2 Organism programs ........................................................................................................ 21
1.8.3 Environmental justice ...................................................................................................... 22
1.8.4 WA Corrections staff experience ..................................................................................... 22
2.1 Introduction to areas of research .......................................................................................... 24
2.2 Schemas .................................................................................................................................. 24
2.3 Working in a prison environment ......................................................................................... 26
2.4 Areas of research ................................................................................................................... 27
2.4.1 Career Path ...................................................................................................................... 27
2.4.2 Environmentalism ............................................................................................................ 28
2.4.3 Incarceration.................................................................................................................... 28
2.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................. 28
3. METHODS .............................................................................................................................. 29
3.1 Participants............................................................................................................................. 29
3.2 Survey Data ............................................................................................................................ 29
iv
3.3 Interviews ............................................................................................................................... 30
3.4 Codes and Analysis ................................................................................................................ 31
3.5 Participant Identities .............................................................................................................. 31
4. EXPERIENCES AND PERSPECTIVES ............................................................................. 33
4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 33
4.2 Career Path ............................................................................................................................ 33
4.2.1 Category 1: Previous Work ............................................................................................. 34
4.2.2 Category 2: Continued Work ........................................................................................... 38
4.2.3 Category 3: Influence ...................................................................................................... 41
4.3 Environmentalism .................................................................................................................. 46
4.4 Incarceration .......................................................................................................................... 47
4.4.1 Category 1: Previous Experience with Incarceration ..................................................... 49
4.4.2 Category 2: Relationships................................................................................................ 53
4.4.3 Category 3: Experiences and Emotions ........................................................................... 59
4.4.4 Category 4: Overall Experience ...................................................................................... 63
4.5 Additional Findings ............................................................................................................... 66
5. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 70
5.1 Limitations.............................................................................................................................. 70
5.2 Future Research..................................................................................................................... 71
5.3 Closing .................................................................................................................................... 72
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 79
Appendix A. Environmental Justice Principles adopted by Participants of the First National
People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as presented in Mohai et al. 2009:......... 79
Appendix B. Survey Questions .................................................................................................... 81
Appendix C. Interview Questions ................................................................................................ 83
Appendix D. Internal Conflict Quotes ....................................................................................... 84
v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Drawing of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon by Wiley Revely, 1791 ............................... 6
Figure 2. Map of prison facilties in Washington State ................................................................. 10
Figure 3. Incarcerated individuals working in the conservation nursery at Washington
Corrections Center for Women and beekeeping program at Washington Corrections Center ..... 17
Figure 4. Distribution of significance ratings for career path ....................................................... 34
Figure 5. Sankey diagram for previous interests .......................................................................... 36
Figure 6. Sankey diagram for continued work.............................................................................. 39
Figure 7. Sankey diagram for influence on career path ................................................................ 43
Figure 8. Distribution of significance ratings for environmentalism ........................................... .46
Figure 9. Distribution of significance ratings for incarceration .................................................... 48
Figure 10. Sankey diagram for previous experience with incarceration ...................................... 52
Figure 11. Sankey diagram for Incarceration: relationships ......................................................... 57
Figure 12. Sankey diagram for Experiences and Emotions .......................................................... 62
Figure 13. Sankey diagram for Overall Experience...................................................................... 65
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Career Path: Previous Experience Assimilation and Accomodation .............................. 38
Table 2. Career Path: Continued Work Assimilation and Accomodation .................................... 41
Table 3. Career Path: Influence Assimilation and Accomodation ................................................ 45
Table 4. Incarceration: Experiences and Emotions....................................................................... 61
vii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to share my greatest appreciation for my thesis reader, Dr.
Kathleen Saul. Thank you for your time, detailed feedback on drafts, words of encouragement,
and weekly meetings.
I would also like to thank Emily Passarelli at the Sustainability in Prisons Project for helping
brainstorm research ideas and providing constant guidance and reassurance. Thank you for being
the most wonderful manager, mentor, and inspiring me as a kind, positive, and dedicated leader.
To the former SPP coordinators I had the privilege of interviewing, thank you for sharing your
experiences and making this research possible. Learning from you and hearing about your
journeys was the best part of this project.
I also wish to share my appreciation for my MES peers, Olivia McGoldrick, Alix VasseurLandriault, Keira Jensen, and Lynn Corliss. Your clarity, guidance, energy, and encouragement
made the process possible and a thousand times more enjoyable.
Thank you to SPP staff for your support throughout this process. I appreciate your flexibility and
openness in this research and am honored to have been part of the organization.
To my family and friends, thank you for your endless patience and support. Your flexibility, joy,
and love is my foundation. And, of course, thank you to Juniper, the world’s sweetest pup, for
patiently sitting with me through interviews, writing sessions, and practice presentations.
viii
Introduction
“It changed how I saw prisons and our incarcerated population. Where I used to think prisons
were just metal bars and concrete, now I saw communities engaging in education, gardening, jobs,
and self-growth”
- Former Sustainability in Prisons Project Coordinator
Individuals working in prison environments start their days with security checks, multiple
gates, COVID-19 tests, and a dive into a hierarchical and exploitive environment, rather than
coffee. As a result, the average national turnover rate among correction officers was sixteen
percent in 2010, and that rate has grown with the COVID-19 pandemic (Prison Policy Initiative,
2022). Prison staff can be considered ‘violence workers’ or individuals responsible for applying
the state’s power through violence and enforcement (Seigel, 2018). While this power most
directly and significantly impacts incarcerated individuals, staff perspectives and values are also
shaped by their experiences and positions.
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) student coordinators hold unique positions as
contract staff with the Washington Department of Corrections (WA DOC). Unlike corrections
officers who have a security role, SPP coordinators focus on bringing science and sustainability
education to incarcerated students and technicians. Coordinators generally enter the prison
environment once a week, and provide guidance and education for program participants. Unlike
corrections officers, coordinators do not have a disciplinary role and they receive fewer trainings
from WA DOC. However, they participate in additional or supplemental trainings offered by
SPP.
While there has been increasing research on previously incarcerated individuals'
experiences in sustainability and science education programs (Passarelli, 2017; Morita, 2021;
Gallagher, 2013), prison gardening programs (Timler et. al, 2019; Jauk et al., 2022) and a
growing connection between the prison industrial complex and environmental justice (Webb,
1
2016), little research has focused on the experiences of individuals delivering and coordinating
science and sustainability programs in prisons. My thesis research fills that gap in the literature
and further examines how working in a prison influences individuals’ schema, perspectives, and
career choices. In this research I asked: How does coordinating environmental education
programs in Washington State prisons affect individuals’ schemas as they relate to career paths
and perspectives on environmentalism, and incarceration?
At its foundation, this research can inform future training, practices, and procedures for
coordinators with SPP. A greater understanding of coordinator experiences and lasting
perspectives developed from working in the prison environment also has the potential to make
education programs more effective and continue to improve incarcerated individuals’
experiences in science and sustainability programs.
I divided the following literature review into two chapters. In chapter one, I provide a
brief description of the history of incarceration, SPP, and past research with SPP. In chapter two,
I outline schemas as a theoretical framework and highlight past research on corrections staff
experiences. Following these chapters, I describe study methods and the results of the survey and
semi-structured interviews with former SPP coordinators.
2
Positionality Statement
I worked with the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) coordinating beekeeping,
gardening, and Roots of Success programs in Washington State Prisons. As a student
coordinator, I shared experiences with participants and have worked or collaborated with some
participants. My experiences and relationships may have introduced some biases into this type of
qualitative research. Yet, my thesis research remains independent from my position with SPP.
While serving as a coordinator, I understood my own experience but did not have the reflective
perspective to understand lasting impacts on my schemas.
Additionally, as a white woman, I must acknowledge that I hold significant privilege and
have not had the same experience working in a system that disproportionately impacts
marginalized individuals and communities and individuals with different identities. Through this
research, I have come to a better understanding of the experiences of diverse individuals working
with environmental education programs in a prison setting by letting individuals’ experiences
speak for themselves.
This research focuses on the experiences of individuals who are not currently
incarcerated. While understanding experiences of individuals who work in the prison
environment may improve future dynamics and educational programs, this research is not
intended to de-center the voices and experiences of incarcerated individuals. Rather, I hope that
this research can inform new practices and training methods for individuals working in the prison
environment and further work to center incarcerated voices in education, programming, and
carceral system reform initiatives.
3
Chapter 1. Prison Systems and the Sustainability in Prisons Project
1.1 Introduction to Literature Review
The following literature review explores a variety of topics to better understand the
environments and programs in which graduate student coordinators with the Sustainability in
Prisons Project (SPP) work. First, I outline a brief history of incarceration. Then, I describe the
demographics and conditions of incarceration in the United States and Washington State. Next, I
outline the connections between environmental justice and incarceration. Finally, to conclude
chapter one, I discuss the impacts of COVID-19 in prisons, describe SPP, and highlight previous
research by graduate student coordinators. In chapter two, I define schemas and outline the
theoretical framework for this study. I conclude by highlighting common perspectives and ideas
for careers, incarceration, and environmental schemas.
1.2 History of Mass Incarceration
The history of incarceration in what is now known as the United States of America
demonstrates patterns of exploitation, profit-centered action, and hierarchical power structures.
Connections between past systems of incarceration, political and social events, and philosophies
can provide context for the current prison environments in which SPP graduate student
coordinators work.
Incarceration in the United States is an extension of colonization, as both colonization
and incarceration are rooted in systemic state violence. Colonization, in which European
immigrants claimed Native land, was maintained through a series of strategic and brutal military
and cultural tactics or an imaginary of righteous violence (Stone-Mediatore, 2019, p. 3).
Modern-day incarceration demonstrates similar imaginaries of righteous violence and reinforces
hierarchies of power established through colonization. Incarceration also controls individuals and
4
uses physical and mental violence to bend individuals to the will of the state. Yet, jails in 18th
century America were structured very differently from modern-day prisons and the environments
where SPP coordinators currently work.
In the 18th century and prior to the American revolution, incarceration was a rare form of
punishment. Public and corporal punishment were more common, and jails served primarily as a
space for individuals awaiting sentencing (Anno, 2004). Yet, prison philosophies began to
change as colonies gained independence from Great Britain. Quaker ideals heavily influenced
the new philosophies, signaling a shift away from the death penalty and towards prolonged
incarceration. As a result, Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia became one of the first institutions
to operate based on a principle of penology and to incorporate a penitentiary in the courtyard
(Depuy, 1951). Penitentiaries, like Walnut Street Jail, promoted solitary confinement as a more
humane form of incarceration; a model referred to as the “Pennsylvania System.” In the
Pennsylvania System, prison planners expected penitent incarcerated individuals to spend time in
solitude feeling regret for having done wrong (Depuy, 1951). However, overcrowding became
an issue, and the penitentiary closed in 1828. New facilities built under a similar model,
including Eastern State Penitentiary, emphasized social confinement but were also built based on
Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon (Anno, 2004).
Bentham constructed the panopticon as an architectural device promoting isolation and
surveillance based on his brother’s design for a mill as seen in the figure below (Steadman,
2007, p.8)
5
Figure 1.
Drawing of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon by Wiley Revely, 1791.
The design structure places a guard in a central tower surrounded by incarcerated individuals,
creating a sense of constant surveillance. Eastern State Penitentiary follows a similar radial plan
with one central location for prison staff that looks down ten hallways. The panopticon and
design of Eastern State Penitentiary represent hierarchies of power that influence what those
working in prisons experience, including SPP coordinators in present-day Washington State
facilities.
An alternative model for expanding the scale of incarceration arose in Auburn, New
York. Under the Auburn model, individuals lived separately with no communication allowed,
but they worked together in a factory setting (Anno, 2004). Incarcerated individuals marched in
lockstep with their heads turned to one side, as they were not allowed to make eye contact with
one another or prison staff. Strict conditions and restrictions on communication and contact
contributed to a hierarchy of power in the prison environment and further division between
6
incarcerated individuals and prison staff. Over time, the Auburn System became a more common
model, as it was less expensive and less space-intensive than the “Pennsylvania System.”
Prisons continued to operate under the Auburn model, using exploitive labor to produce
materials for the military and public during the World Wars and to care for farms, especially in
the south (Anno, 2004). The use of prison labor in factory and agricultural settings is a legacy of
slavery in the United States. While the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution abolished
slavery, it made a notable exception for punishment and resulted in a new form of forced labor
known as the Black Codes. The Black Codes regulated labor and prohibited Black individuals
from gaining employment, housing, and performing every day activities. Black codes
transformed non-criminal activities like marrying or owning property into crimes punishable by
incarceration therefore contributing to disproportionately high rates of incarceration of Black
individuals (Hinton, 2016).
Following the Black Codes, a convict leasing system was developed to “lease”
incarcerated individuals to plantation owners for a fee to the state. While the convict leasing
system was eventually phased out, it was replaced by chain gangs. In chain gangs, incarcerated
individuals were chained together at the ankle and forced to work all day at unsustainable rates
and in inhumane conditions (Lichtenstein, 1993). Chain gangs were not abolished until the
1950s, sustaining slavery in the United States for an additional hundred years. The factory
model, convict leasing system, and chain gangs degraded incarcerated individuals and treated
them as expendable property. The historic systems of labor exploitation established dynamics
that influence current systems of incarceration and perpetuate the notion that incarcerated
individuals can be treated as less than their non-incarcerated counterparts.
7
While exploitive labor continues in the modern carceral system, emphasis shifted toward
the policing and regulating of poverty, crime, and drugs in the 1930s. The focus on policing
continued for many decades. Then, the “law and order” ideal gained prominence through Barry
Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign (Hinton, 2016). As the “law and order” ideal gained
prominence, President Johnson launched a War on Crime, passing the 1965 Law Enforcement
Assistance Act and encouraging police officers to occupy spaces previously filled by social
programs under the war on poverty (Hinton, 2016). Suddenly, people in the streets became the
enemy and law enforcement was considered a solution. Under the Safe Streets Act of 1968, the
federal government invested $400 million in the War on Crime and created the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration to distribute funding. The organization funded 80,000 crime control
projects and contributed to the need to expand prisons and large scale structures of mass
incarceration in the present day.
1.3 Mass Incarceration in the Present Day
Incarceration’s historical ties to colonialism, slavery, and the wars on crime and drugs
inform the current carceral practices and systems in which SPP coordinators work. The United
States has the largest carceral system and incarceration rate of any country, with over one million
people currently incarcerated, an annual bill of approximately $182 billion, and immeasurable
social costs (Prison Policy Initiative, n.d.). After President Nixon deemed drug abuse public
enemy number one and President Reagan expanded drug war efforts, prison populations
increased until 2010 (Prison Policy Initiative, n.d.). Then, in 2012 the Obama Administration’s
National Drug Strategy defined a new approach to drug control that emphasized treatment,
prevention, and recovery (Sawyer & Wagner, 2022).
8
Yet, incarceration for drug-related crimes continues to disproportionately target people of
color. Black people are 2.7 times more likely to be arrested for drug-related crimes and 6.5 times
more likely to be incarcerated for drug-related offenses (Schanzenbach et al., 2016). Black
individuals also receive 50 percent longer sentences than their white counterparts. In 2022, drug
related offenses still accounted for the incarceration of almost 400,000 individuals.
The scale and conditions of incarceration in the United States, created in part by the wars on
crime and drugs, have been labeled the prison industrial complex (PIC). The PIC describes
systems of special government and industry interests that embrace a profit-oriented mindset that
encourages policing and imprisonment as solutions to social issues in which incarcerated
individuals are the raw material (Schlosser, 1998). The term is inspired by the “militaryindustrial complex” which describes the relationship between the United States military, profit,
and public policy. The PIC is also built on the school to prison pipeline in which children of
color are pushed out of schools and into prisons. Inadequate public-school resources, reliance on
police in schools, school-based arrests, disciplinary alternative schools, and court involvement
and juvenile detention lead students directly from schools to prisons (American Civil Liberties
Union & Global Human Rights Clinic, 2022). The PIC’s history of exploitive labor and racism
continue to shape the carceral system in which SPP Coordinators work.
1.4 Incarceration in Washington State
Demographics in Washington State prisons parallel national and historic trends. In
September 2022, Washington Department of Corrections had an average of 13,373 individuals
incarcerated in prisons, reentry centers, community parenting alternatives, graduated reentry
programs, and in-state rented beds (Department of Corrections, 2022). Of this population, 92.4
9
percent of individuals are incarcerated in the twelve Washington State prisons, and 94.3 percent
are male while only 5.7 percent are female (Department of Corrections, 2022).
There are ten men’s prisons and two women’s prisons spread across the state. Figure 2
depicts the location of each of the twelve prisons in Washington State. As of 2021 and per
Revised Code of Washington 70.395.030, there are no private prisons or detention facilities in
Washington State.
Figure 2.
Map of prison facilities in Washington State.
The prisons in Washington State are primarily located outside of cities in more remote
environments. While the twelve prisons are spread across the state and every county has some
individuals incarcerated, some counties have greater portions of their population incarcerated.
Smaller counties including Grays Harbor, Cowlitz, Lewis, Yakima, and Asotin have the highest
incarceration rates in the state (The Prison Policy Initiative, 2022).
10
The location, size, administration, and custody level of each prison influences the
community and work environment. Five of the Washington State prisons, Mission Creek
Correction Center for Women, Larch Corrections Center, Olympic Corrections Center, Coyote
Ridge Corrections, and Cedar Creek Corrections Center, are work camps and only host
incarcerated individuals with six years or less prior to release. Other facilities host a range of
minimum, medium, and close-custody individuals. Coordinators with SPP primarily work and
visit the facilities closest to the Evergreen State College: Mission Creek Corrections Center for
Women, Cedar Creek Corrections Center, Washington Corrections Center, Stafford Creek
Corrections Center, and Washington Corrections Center for Women.
Following national trends, people of color are disproportionately incarcerated in
Washington State. Of those incarcerated, 55.7 percent are classified as white, 17.3 percent as
Black, 5.4 percent as American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.2 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.4
percent as other, and 0.7 percent as unknown (Department of Corrections, 2022); 16.4 percent of
individuals also identify as Hispanic. Comparatively, the 2020 U.S Census indicated that
approximately 77.5 percent of residents identified as white and only 4.5 percent identified as
Black or African American (United States Census Bureau, 2022).
In addition to the disproportionate rates of incarceration among races, the legacy of
slavery and colonialism continues in Washington State as incarcerated individuals are paid far
below minimum wage for work they do. Most incarcerated workers, including technicians in
SPP programs, are paid 42 cents an hour before deductions, with max earnings of $50 a month.
Approximately 80 percent of prison work is facility maintenance including kitchen or laundry
work (American Civil Liberties Union & Global Human Rights Clinic, 2022). Yet, some
individuals work for Correctional Industries, Department of Natural Resources, or private
11
companies and are paid slightly higher wages. Washington State Representative Tara Simmons
introduced House Bill 1025 the “Real Labor, Real Wages Act” in 2023 to raise incarcerated
worker’s wages to the state minimum wage (Cabahug, 2023). However, this bill died in session.
Colorado remains the only state to pay incarcerated individuals minimum wage.
In October 2020, WA DOC launched a partnership with Amend at the University of
California San Fransisco. The partnerhisp aimed to change correctional culture and bring a
health-focused approach to training correctional staff and preparing incarcerated residents for
reentry. The approach emphasized staff wellness and rethinking the purpose of prisons while
building relationships between incarcerated individuals and staff, and bringing technical
assistance to create a healthier environment. Several staff from WA DOC traveled to Norway to
learn more about Amend and the Norwegian Correctional Services. As a result, WA DOC aims
to implement Amend practices to reduce staff use of force, reduce staff assaults, reduce use of
sick leave, reduce use of solitary confinement, improve staff health and satisfaction, and improve
resident readiness for reentry (Department of Corrections Strategy and Innovation Team, 2022).
One of the primary Amend strategies is dynamic security in which staff frequently observe,
interact, and engage with the incarcerated individuals. The program aims to empower staff to
develop and implement new ideas to improve incarcerated individual’s lives, which is believed
to create more meaning in the staff work. Stafford Creek Corrections Center introduced a fivemember Ammend team that is currently working to implement the strategy (O’Sullivan, 2023).
Despite WA DOC’s partnership with Amend, programming initiatives continue to face
barriers in prison facilities. Staff shortages can prevent buildings from opening and proposed
changes to WA DOC Policy 500 will require that a non-incarcerated instructor, sponsor, or
facilitator remain in the room for the duration of peer-led classes. Felix Sitthivong, a member of
12
Empowerment Avenue, advisor for the Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Awareness Group, and
peer-facilitator at Stafford Creek Corrections Center noted that recent changes to policy and lack
of support for peer-led classes “repress prisoner voices and maintain a white supremacist
patriarchal status quo” in the name of calls for evidence based rhetoric (Sitthivong, 2023). The
Amend program and proposed changes to policy could alter the environment where SPP
coordinators work and potentially enhance future opportunities for programming in prison
facilites.
1.5 Environmental Justice and Incarceration
Prisons are sites of environmental injustices. Pellow (2019) highlights just a few
examples of environmental injustices associated with prisons including: Rikers Island Jail built
atop a landfill, Victorville Federal Correctional Complex built on a former nuclear weapons
storage area, the Northwest Detention Center in Washington built next to a Superfund site, and
Texas prisoners exposed to extreme weather. He suggests that carceral systems and climate,
social, and environmental justice are incompatible. As such, addressing environmental justice
may require a shift away from mass incarceration to disrupt systems of power.
Similar arguments have called for prisons to be considered locally unwanted land uses
(LULUs). Opsal and Malin (2020) examined previous studies of prison placements and noted
that research has primarily focused on how prisons create environmental harms rather than how
prisons themselves are LULUs. State and federal agencies filed 197 water quality violations
against correctional facilities within three years, and 58 facilities had formal enforcement filed
over a five-year period, including overcrowded conditions, inadequate waste treatment facilities,
and substandard air quality. Other forms of LULUs studied by environmental scholars include
power plants, landfills, mines, and factories.
13
1.5.1 Environmental Justice and Incarceration in Washington State
Despite Washington Department of Corrections’ commitment “to operate a safe and
humane corrections system and partner with others to transform lives for a better Washington,”
incarceration in Washington State contributes to environmental and climate injustices (Mission,
Strategic Measures & Budgets, 2022). The siting and operation of the twelve Washington State
prisons contradicts the seventeen principles of environmental justice adopted in 1991 by the
Participants of the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit. Appendix
A provides a list of all seventeen principles.
The summer heat waves of 2021 and 2022 created stress for communities and individuals
across Washington State. Vulnerable communities, including incarcerated individuals, often
were more significantly impacted by the high temperatures and dry conditions. Office of the
Corrections Ombuds, an independent office of the governor’s office, published a report on how
the high temperatures experienced in Washington State from June 26th through June 28th, 2021
impacted incarcerated individuals. The report documented complaints filed with the Department
of Corrections and observations from a visit to Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC) on
Monday June 28th (Sax, 2022). At the time of the visit to MCC, temperatures peaked at 107
degrees Fahrenheit. Each building and unit at MCC had different temperatures and conditions.
The Program Activities Building had air conditioning and had been opened as a cooling center
for individuals to use if they became overheated. The intensive management unit was the coolest
of all units and the Twin Rivers Unit was the warmest. The Twin Rivers Unit measured 94 ̊F at
the time of the visit. However, the frosted windows were not in direct sunlight at the time of
measurement. The Twin Rivers Unit ceilings were also partially covered with large glass panels,
allowing for constant and direct sunlight that contributed to increased temperatures. The Ombuds
14
report recommended that WA DOC cover the glass panels, place more fans in common areas,
increase the availability of ice, allow individuals to block the air vents, use smoke ejectors,
implement window coverings, and lower water temperatures for showers.
The heatwaves in Washington State caused widespread stress and health challenges.
However, as a vulnerable population, incarcerated individuals were more severely impacted than
the general population. Incarcerated individuals do not have control of their environment or the
ability to relocate to access resources which could help mitigate the effects of higher
temperatures. The conditions outlined in the Ombuds report, and descriptions shared by
incarcerated individuals, violate environmental justice principles two, three, five, seven, and
eight as outlined in Appendix A.
Water contamination posed an additional environmental justice concern at Airway
Heights Corrections Center (AHCC) in 2017. The groundwater that served AHCC and the
surrounding area was contaminated by firefighting foam. The contamination affected both water
and food supplies as AHCC hosts the food factory for Correctional Industries, from which foods
are distributed to other state prison facilities. Correctional industries had to quickly address the
issue by asking staff to work overtime, seeking external water sources, and recalling food (Sokol,
2020). As of 2020, Washington Department of Corrections planned to sue the federal
government for the runoff from Fairchild Air Force Base that caused the contamination. The
Kaspel Tribe also filed a lawsuit against the government and foam makers. However, the
lawsuits will not ameliorate the potential adverse health effects to the incarcerated caused by
polluted water.
Building emissions programs and greenwashing pose an additional environmental justice
concern in the Washington State prisons. Washington Department of Corrections highlights its
15
initiatives to improve building and operation sustainability on the website and in promotional
materials. WA DOC has made changes to improve energy efficiency and reduce impact on the
environment in compliance with Governor Inslee’s Executive Order 18-01. For example, Airway
Heights Corrections Center purchased 1.2 million kWh of solar electricity from Avista solar farm
in 2018 and a number of facilities including Washington State Penitentiary, Monroe Corrections
Center, Correctional Industries, and Coyote Ridge Corrections Center now have LEED certified
buildings. While the buildings are LEED certified and may produce fewer emissions, they do not
address justice issues as described during the heat waves of 2021 and 2022.
Jewkes and Moran (2015) note that forms of ‘green’ initiatives like transitioning to
LEED certified buildings are becoming symbolic and support mass incarceration or sustaining
the prison industrial complex instead of the environment. Even prison gardens have been labeled
as paternalistic, can contribute to prison greenwashing and perpetuate the psychological harms of
a prison environment. Jewkes and Moran extend the argument to address SPP programs as a
potential form of greenwashing.
Similarly, Hazelett (2022) notes that prison gardens are passive disciplining tools that
pass rehabilitative responsibilities to incarcerated individuals rather than to the state and society.
As currently established, garden programs do not recognize incarcerated individuals as implicity
deserving outdoor and garden space. Rather, it reinforces patterns of discrimination and lack of
spatial agency. Hazlett proposes that “the prison garden is not only used to cloak the injustice of
mass incarceration, but also to ceremonialize rehabilitation and reentry and thereby legitimize
prison” (Hazlett, 2022, p. 444). Despite these statements, Hazlett notes that the prison garden can
be a space in which resistance and mutual healing for program staff and incarcerated individuals
can occur through passive restorative justice. In fact, Gilliom (2017) confirmed that relationship
16
building and restorative justice occurs in SPP programs. They found that corrections staff
described an increase in prosocial behavior and that the prison garden can also humanize and
unravel subjectivities by bringing incarcerated individuals and staff together in a new and more
open environment.
1.6 Background: The Sustainability in Prisons Project
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP), a partnership between Washington
Department of Corrections and The Evergreen State College, works to empower sustainable
change by bringing nature, science, and environmental education into prisons. The program
began at Cedar Creek Corrections Center (CCCC) in 2003 when Evergreen’s Dr. Nalini
Nadkarni collaborated with CCCC’s superintendent Dan Pacholke to ask incarcerated individuals
to participate in a study on native mosses (SPP, n.d.). It has since grown to offer multiple
programs, each coordinated by Evergreen graduate students, including peer led gardening
classes, conservation nurseries, Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly rearing, Western Pond Turtle
rehabilitation, beekeeping, and more (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Incarcerated individuals working in the Conservation Nursery at Washington Corrections
Center for Women and Beekeeping program at Washington Corrections Center. Photos from
SPP 2021 Annual Report.
17
Most SPP programs involve a partnership with organizations like the Washington State
Beekeepers Association, community colleges, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and more. As of 2022, incarcerated students and technicians in
many of the SPP programs can earn college credit during incarceration by completing
coursework through SPP’s Prior Learning Experience Program. In this program, students
complete course work and SPP submits their educational portfolios and covers administrative
expenses for registering students with the Evergreen State College.
Each SPP program is coordinated by a graduate student from The Evergreen State
College. The coordinator positions are unique, with most coordinators working both in prisons
and in offices at The Evergreen State College or remotely from home. Most graduate student
coordinators work directly with one or two environmental education programs at one or two
Washington State prisons. Coordinators develop and deliver educational materials for the
program, communicate with facility liaisons and program partners, guide care for program
organisms, and facilitate small group seminars and educational sessions. Coordinators generally
work part-time for twenty hours a week and work with technicians in prisons one day a week.
For example, the SPP Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly coordinator works with a small group of
incarcerated technicians at Mission Creek Corrections Center once or twice a week. Coordinators
may visit prisons more or less frequently based on program needs, seasonal changes, and
availability of technicians. Other coordinators work with peer-led education programs, program
evaluation, organization administration, or curriculum development and visit prisons less often
on a case-by-case basis.
18
1.7 Incarceration and COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the prison industrial complex, school to
prison pipeline, carceral system, and incarcerated individuals. In the first year of the COVID-19
pandemic, the number of people in prisons decreased by 20 percent (ACLU, n.d). The population
decline was largely due to pandemic-related slowdowns in the legal system; prison populations
have since started to increase again. From March 2020 to February 2021 the infection rate in all
state prisons was 219 cases per 1,000 incarcerated individuals at risk of exposure. Nationally,
almost 2,500 individuals incarcerated in state and federal prisons died of COVID-19 (Carson &
Nadel, 2022).
In Washington State, 16,192 incarcerated individuals and 6,009 Department of Corrections
(WA DOC) staff tested positive for COVID-19 from March 2020 to November 2022. Of the
positive cases, eighteen incarcerated individuals and four WA DOC staff passed away
(Department of Corrections, 2022). Visitations and programming were largely suspended in all
twelve prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, SPP suspended most programs and
prioritized health and safety. However, some programs, including the prairie conservation
nursery, Taylor’s Checkerspot butterfly program, beekeeping, and some peer-led education
classes, continued operating with approved COVID plans (SPP, 2021). While some
programming returned in 2021 and 2022, prisons are still experiencing outbreaks, quarantines
are imposed, and programming is frequently paused.
1.8 Past Sustainability in Prisons Project research
Many former graduate student coordinators have completed thesis projects with SPP.
Previous thesis projects provide context to SPP programs and how coordinators interact with
incarcerated students, technicians, and the organization. Previous research with SPP falls into
19
four broad categories: participant experiences, organism programs, environmental justice, and
Department of Corrections staff experiences. Some thesis projects have also worked with
incarcerated thesis advisors to guide the research pathway (Shepler, 2019).
1.8.1 Participant experiences
Several past coordinators and Master of Environmental Studies (MES) students at The
Evergreen State College completed thesis projects evaluating past participant experiences.
Gallagher (2013) assessed environmental attitudes and beliefs of past participants. She concluded
that individuals who participated in education programs, worked with living things, and
interacted with the outside community demonstrated more pro-environmental attitudes.
Similarly, Passarelli (2017) examined how participating in SPP programs shaped past
participant’s attitudes and identities. She found that past participants generally engaged in proenvironmental behaviors but were hesitant to label themselves as environmentalists. She
concluded that SPP programs have a transformative effect on individuals and can lead to
participants overcoming fear and experiencing positive shifts in empathy and self-esteem. Morita
(2021) studied the recalled experiences of formerly incarcerated individuals. He examined how
participating in SPP programs may result in empowerment and found that past SPP program
participants experienced individual, organizational, and community empowerment, but that
themes of disempowerment were also present. From these three research projects, it is evident
that participating in SPP programs can increase environmental attitudes while individuals are
incarcerated and post-release while also providing opportunities for empowerment.
Additional graduate student research evaluated the effectiveness of SPP programs. Clarke
(2011) examined participant experiences to determine the significance of science and
sustainability programs in rehabilitative and education outcomes. She found that SPP programs
20
share characteristics with successful rehabilitation programs including fostering an
environmental stewardship ethic, influencing emotional health, and improving quality of life
during incarceration. Weber (2012) took a different approach and compared lecture and
workshop style educational classes. They concluded that participants experienced a significant
improvement in attitudes towards environmental issues after an educational session and that
lecture style presentations might be more effective than workshop presentations in improving
incarcerated individual’s attitudes on environmental topics.
1.8.2 Organism programs
Some graduate students used data from SPP programs or collaborated with incarcerated
individuals to care for organisms for use in their research. For example, Aubrey (2013) worked
with incarcerated technicians in the Taylors Checkerspot butterfly program at Mission Creek
Corrections Center for Women (MCCCW) to determine which hosts were preferred by E. e
taylori among P. lanceolata, C. levisecta, and harsh paintbrush (Castilleja hispida), a known
native host. Technicians and Aubrey found that the butterflies preferred Castilleja pp. over P.
lanceolata. Klag (2020) also collected data based on work he did with SPP programs. Klag
worked to determine if out-planted vegetative mats made from coconut coir and Alnus rubra
chips promote Viola adunca ability to maintain spacing with the mat more effective than
traditional techniques. He collaborated with SPP to grow 36 control mats at Stafford Creek
Corrections Center in Aberdeen, Washington. Collaborative research growing plants and caring
for organisms with incarcerated technicians shapes coordinator experiences working for SPP.
Mintz (2019) explored the use of compost tea as a nutrient supplement and Mann (2014)
cultivated Lomatium utriculatum at Shotwell’s Landing with incarcerated individuals from Cedar
Creek Corrections Center to research the affects of large-scale prescribed fire burn on prarie
21
communities. Mann found that plant communities had different responses and Lomatium
utriculatum seeds collected from burn plots demonstrated increased germination. These studies
highlight the work that incarcerated technicians do and their deep knowledge and contribution to
scientific work and knowledge.
1.8.3 Environmental justice
While several Master of Environmental Studies thesis projects that relate to SPP highlight
the relationship between environmental justice and incarceration in the literature review, two
coordinators completed studies directly addressing the relationship. Webb (2016) analyzed
results from five years of environmental lecture series participant surveys and evaluated the
relationship between incarceration rates by race and distributional justice or how resources and
opportunities are dispersed across society and to individuals. They found that some components
of SPP programs offer space for environmental justice by addressing distributional justice,
procedural justice, and rights-based justice. However, they also found that not all SPP programs
support each realm of justice and that SPP is not necessarily a justice-centered organization.
Benoit (2020) took a different approach and applied a food justice lens to explore a
connection between food deserts and prisons. She found that incarcerated individuals reported a
lack of access to healthy options, inability to seek other options, and abundance of unhealthy
foods. The relationship between environmental justice, food justice, and incarceration shapes
coordinator experiences as they maintain a status of privilege and power in the prison
environment (Webb, 2016).
1.8.4 WA Corrections staff experience
Most graduate student research involving SPP evaluated program participant’s
experiences. However, Gilliom (2017) examined the impacts of Western Pond Turtle
22
rehabilitation programs on correctional staff’s work environment at Larch Corrections Center
and Cedar Creek Corrections Center. The turtle programs had an overall positive impact on the
prison work environment. Corrections staff expressed increased job satisfaction, decreased
stress, and increased prosocial behavior. Gilliom also identified room for improvement based on
corrections staff experiences. Potential improvements included reducing program operation
workload, improving communication, and evaluating the scale of the program. Gilliom’s
research outlined corrections staff experiences, but graduate student coordinators have a unique
position working both in the prison environment less regularly than full time staff. Overall,
previous research by graduate student’s infomed the design and theoretical framework of this
study as outlined in the next section.
23
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
2.1 Introduction to areas of research
In this research I focus on the impact of working in SPP on three areas: career path,
environmentalism, and incarceration. I selected these areas of focus based on previous research,
personal interest, and potential future implications. Each area of focus is evaluated for a change
in schema as defined below. This chapter of the literature review provides a brief introduction to
schema theory and description of paramaters for each focus area.
2.2 Schemas
In schema theory, a cognitive development theory, a schema is a structure of knowledge
that helps us understand the world and interpret geographical features, understand mathematical
formulas, and perceive acceptable behaviors. Piaget (1976) first formally introduced schemas as
mental structures able to be altered by new information, but the principle can be traced back to
Aristotle, Plato, and Immanuel Kant.
As we grow, schemas can be changed and reconstructed. Children most easily and
frequently alter schemas, but adults also experience changes (Axelrod, 1973). There are two
ways in which schemas can change: assimilation and accommodation. When an individual
experiences a new environment or receives new information, they assimilate the new information
into an existing schema. The new information does not change the overall schema, rather, it adds
to the pre-existing schema. For example, if a child knows what a dog is, they have an existing
schema to understand the dog. If the child sees a dog do something new, like bark or catch a
frisbee, they enter a state of disequilibrium, seek reinforcement, and assimilate the new
information into an existing schema. However, through accommodation, existing schemas are
changed or new schemas are formed (Taylor & Crocker, 1981). If the same child sees a cat for
24
the first time, they must form a new schema and accommodate a novel problem. While cats share
many characteristics with dogs, they cannot fit into the same schema. A schema can be
something specific like recognizing a dog or cat or an elaborate category like recognizing types
of dogs. In this study, I address elaborate schemas: incarceration, career path, and
environmentalism.
There are different types of schemas: person or self-schemas, role schemas, and event
schemas (Taylor & Crocker, 1981). Person schemas refer to impressions and characteristics of
oneself. Role schemas refer to one’s occupation or social role and event schemas include
gatherings, meetings, and routines. This thesis will focus on participant’s self-schemas and role
schemas.
Schema theory focuses on individuals and how each person understands and cognitively
processes the world (Axelrod, 1973). As such, this study will focus on each participant’s
individual schemas while also identifying patterns related to changes in schema. Bullough and
Knowles (1991) used a similar model to examine individual schemas. They evaluated how a new
teacher’s understanding of herself and her teaching changed over her first-year teaching. They
interviewed and collected journals from one teacher throughout her first year of teaching to
observe changes in thoughts and ideas on her professional identity. They found that her selfschema of teaching remained largely the same but had to assimilate or reframe based on
conditions. While I plan to interview past coordinators rather than follow one coordinator
through their first year in the position, the same principle of observing how schemas change
applies to this thesis.
25
2.3 Working in a prison environment
As outlined in chapter one, prisons are a unique and closed work environment with a
variety of tensions, power dynamics, and stressors. Correctional staff are responsible for
maintaining safety and security for themselves, coworkers, and incarcerated individuals in their
care. Long term exposure to stress from maintaining safety, encountering manipulation,
coworker conflict, negative media portrayals of corrections, low pay, overtime work, and sexual
harassment often leads to burnout, decreased work performance, depression or suicide, family
challenges, or early retirement (Finn, 2000). Correctional officers also often experience negative
attitudes and pessimistic feelings after working in prisons (Dollars & Sinefield, 1998). Many
prison staff experience a conflict between their role as a security officer and a rehabilitation
agent. Split between roles, officers have high job demands, limited decision-making
opportunities, and minimal colleague support (Bourbaonnais et al., 2007). As a result, many
correctional officers experience an increase in levels of neuroticism, adverse health effects, and
additional stress (Suliman & Einat, 2018).
Some prison officers also experience a decline in conscientiousness, or how they perform
and approach work and agreeableness (Einat & Suliman, 2021). A decline in conscientiousness
may represent a transition among prison officers who enter the job with energy and motivation
and gradually become more pessimistic, less dedicated, and more disorganized. Prison officer’s
split role may contribute to the loss of conscientiousness as officers are forced to adjust and
abandon previous worldviews. Einat and Suliman note that “prison service encourages its
officers, both officially and unofficially, to be flexible in their attitudes and traits” (Suliman &
Einat, 2018, p. 12). Maintaining more flexible attitudes and worldviews may make schema
accommodation more likely among prison staff or graduate student coordinators.
26
After recognizing the challenging dual role that corrections officers hold, Hazlett (2022)
applied Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Opressed to the relationship between correctional officers
and incarcerated individauls. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire works to design an education
system with oppressed people and for oppressed people to become more free. He notes that
oppressors often treat people as objects and view freedom as a threat while oppressed individuals
become more alienated and as a result begin to see the oppressors as good. In prison, corrections
officers can be equated to the oppressors. However, Hazlett notes that corrections officers are
often also oppressed by“internalized carceral ideology, socioeconomic marginalization, and
dehumanization”. In choosing to partner with Amend, WA DOC may have recognized some of
the characteristics discussed by Freire and pursued building relationships between incarcerated
individuals and DOC staff in accordance with Freire’s idea that one group cannot liberate an
oppressed group without the involvement of the oppressed group.
2.4 Areas of research
This research focused on three categories: career path, environmentalism, and
incarceration. The subsections below provide a brief description of what a schema for each area
of focus may include.
2.4.1 Career Path
Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) Coordinators are graduate students enrolled in
either the Masters of Public Administration or Masters of Environmental Studies programs at
Evergreen State College. Some coordinators enter the program with a clear career path vision
for post-graduation. However, many coordinators enter the program without a clear planned
career path. In this study, career path schemas could include skill development, areas of research
interest, future professional goals, and current jobs.
27
2.4.2 Environmentalism
Most SPP coordinators are students in the Masters of Environmental Studies program at
Evergreen. As such, in this study enironmenalism was defined by each participant and varied in
scope. Environmentalism schemas could be narrow and limited to conservation work or carbon
emissions and climate change. However, schemas for environmentalism can also be broad and
include the built environment, social justice issues, and incarceration.
2.4.3 Incarceration
In this study, schemas for incarceration included thoughts on the carceral system, mass
incarceration, incarcerated individuals, policies, and the prison environment. Common
perspectives on incarceration may include abolition, pro-incarcerationo or rehabilitation
advocacy. Schemas on incarceration also include characteristics of the environment, personal
relationships, or emotional reactions to the prison environment.
2.5 Conclusion
Through the literature, I explored the history and conditions of incarceration, science and
sustainability programs in prisons, and schemas surrounding careers, incarceration, and
environmentalism. From this information, I return to my research question: How does
coordinating environmental education programs in Washington State prisons affect individuals’
schemas as they relate to careers, environmentalism, and incarceration? Power dynamics and
context in the prison environment influence SPP graduate student coordinator’s experience.
However, a lasting change in schema would require SPP coordinators to accommodate and
change existing knowledge based on their experiences in prisons.
28
3. Methods
In this thesis, I aimed to determine if and how former graduate student coordinators
experienced a change in schema while working for the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP). I
used both a survey and semi-structured interviews to accommodate different communication
preferences and styles. Due to the nature of the research and potential professional conflicts, I
designed the survey to provide space for anonymous written answers with the opportunity for
elaboration and additional conversations in semi-structured interviews. In the survey, I collected
quantitative, qualitative, and demographic data. In interviews, I collected qualitative experiential
information. Prior to conducting any interviews or distributing the survey, I obtained approval
from The Evergreen State College Internal Review Board.
3.1 Participants
To be eligible to participate in this research, an individual must have previously worked
as a graduate student coordinator with SPP and not be currently working in that role. SPP
maintains a contact list of previous student coordinators that currently includes 53 individuals. I
sent invitation emails to all previous graduate student coordinators on the existing contact list.
Eight of the 53 individuals did not have active emails on the contact sheet, and two of the
available emails were no longer active. As a result, I sent participation requests to 43 individuals.
3.2 Survey Data
I invited all participants to complete a voluntary ten-question survey estimated to take ten
to twenty minutes. Most participants completed the survey before sharing their experiences in an
interview. However, a few individuals completed the survey after their interview and five
individuals chose to participate in only the interview portion. Because the survey was
29
anonymous, the proportion of students who completed the survey before or after the interview is
unknown.
I designed the survey to collect demographic information and quantitative measurements
through a Likert-item model with a five-point scale per question. The demographic questions
collected aggregate data without revealing any identifying information. After closing the survey,
I analyzed each question separately to find the central tendency and distribution. To see the
questions asked, please see Appendix B.
3.3 Interviews
In addition to distributing a survey, I invited former graduate student SPP coordinators to
participate in semi-structured interviews about their experience working with environmental
education programs in prisons and lasting perspectives. I shared the research goals and interview
questions with participants before the interviews, via email, to ensure participants felt
comfortable, prepared, and able to withdraw from the study if necessary. I held interviews either
in person or via Zoom.
I developed four interview questions, with one or two clarifying questions to explore
former coordinators’ experiences working with SPP and its lasting impact on their perspectives
and schemas. I designed the interview questions based on previous studies on SPP programs
completed by Masters of Environmental Studies students, historical context, and preexisting
literature. See Appendix C for all interview questions. Although the questions served as the
foundation of each interview, I omitted some questions and added supplemental questions
throughout each interview. For example, if a previous coordinator described a specific
interaction with Department of Corrections (WA DOC) staff, I added a question asking them to
30
elaborate on their relationships with WA DOC staff. Most interviews lasted thirty to forty-five
minutes, with the shortest interview taking only fifteen minutes and the longest just over an hour.
I chose to manually transcribe each interview rather than using a text-to-speech
application to remind myself of the conversations and listen for changes in tone or vocal cues
throughout the interview. While I recorded most interviews, at least one participant requested not
to be recorded. Instead of recording, I took notes during the interview and coded the notes.
3.4 Codes and Analysis
I analyzed responses to each interview question and survey short-answer question for
general themes. I aimed to extract themes that described participant experiences under three
categories: career path, environmentalism, and incarceration. Then, each theme was assigned a
code that described participant experiences. Participants shared many personal stories and
experiences from their time with the Sustainability in Prisons Project. I aimed to represent
experiences under each code without including any personal information. The examples
associated with each code in the following section have been carefully selected to avoid
including any potentially identifying information. I also used R to find the central tendency and
distribution for survey question responses.
3.5 Participant Identities
Twenty-one individuals completed the demographic survey portion of this study.
Participant ages fell between 26 and 49, with a median age of 33. Of those participants, 61.9
percent identified as female while 38.1 percent identified as male, non-binary, or other. Notably,
participant identities differed greatly from the identities of incarcerated individuals described in
the Literature Review Section 1.4:Incarceration in Washington State. While People of Color
are disproportionately incarcerated, 86 percent of participants in this study identified as white.
31
Participants worked in a variety of roles during their time with SPP. Some coordinator roles
included: Conservation Nursery Coordinator, Workshop/Lecture Series Coordinator, Taylor’s
Checkerspot Butterfly Coordinator, Green Track Coordinator. Some coordinators worked with
SPP as recently as 2021 while other coordinators were ten years removed from their roles.
Coordinators generally held their position for one to three years while completing their degree at
the Evergreen State College.
32
4. Experiences and Perspectives
4.1 Overview
The following section outlines common themes and potential changes in schema for each
of the three focus areas: career path, environmentalism, and incarceration. My coding of the
interview transcripts resulted in three themes under the environmentalism category, 14 under
career path, and 19 under incarceration. In the following sections I will briefly explain each code
and provide examples using quotes from the survey and interviews. Then I will describe how the
codes fit into schema theory in which schemas are structures of knowledge that help us
understand the world and if or how they demonstrate patterns of schema assimilation (adding
new information to existing schemas) or accommodation (building a new schema in response to
new information or experiences). Each area of research also has a bar chart highlighting how
significantly participants indicated that their experiences shaped their perspectives for that
category.
4.2 Career Path
Within the topic of careers, I divided codes into three groups: previous work, continued
work, and influence. Participants indicated that their time with SPP impacted their perspectives
on career paths slightly significantly, moderately significantly, very significantly, or extremely
significantly. Figure four below shows the distribution of responses ranging from 1.0 (not at all
significantly) to 5.0 (extremely significantly). Career path had the most individuals rate the
impact on their perspectives as extremently significantly and second highest average rating.
Therefore, a handful of individuals experienced a very strong change in schema for career path
during their time with SPP. The following sections begin by examining coordinator perspectives
prior to their time at SPP then examine individual’s perspectives post-coordinator position and
the overall influence of the position on their perspectives.
33
Figure 4.
Distribution of significance ratings for career path.
4.2.1 Category 1: Previous Work
Participants entered their coordinator role from a wide variety of backgrounds and with
diverse interests. Some coordinators expressed that they considered SPP their first office job and
experience working with sustainability, conservation, and the carceral system. These
coordinators often entered the position right after completing an undergraduate degree or from a
position in another field. One coordinator noted that “Working at SPP was my first ecology,
restoration, environmental job that I’d ever done.” Many of the coordinators who expressed that
SPP was their first job did not have a clear vision for their future career path but viewed SPP as
an opportunity to explore a variety of jobs. Several participants expressed that the SPP’s blend of
education, conservation, and environmental work made the coordinator role feel like a natural
way to explore different career options and enter a professional role for the first time.
34
On the other hand, some participants stated that their role at SPP matched their academic
interests and planned career path. Several participants had prior experience in conservation or
environmental education work that they hoped to continue after their time with SPP. One
coordinator noted that SPP “felt like it would be the perfect job to bridge careers. It involved
things I was already good at and then the direction I wanted to go.” This coordinator did not
experience a change in perspective or career path during their time at SPP. Rather, they
continued to develop their current career path and expand skills. Therefore, this quote and
coordinator experience is an example of schema assimilation in which the coordinator continued
expand their existing career path schema with new information but did not encounter any
contradicting information.
While many participants expressed that their role at SPP broadly matched their interests
and desired future career paths in social justice or conservation work, other coordinators did not
have a background related to the specific conservation program they worked with. For example,
few butterfly program coordinators had prior experience working with the Taylor’s Checkerspot
Butterfly.
A handful of coordinators expressed that they chose to pursue a graduate degree at The
Evergreen State College because they were interested in furthering their career path and working
with SPP. One participant expressed that
I just remember that I had a couple choices where I could have gone for graduate
school. But, getting the job offer from SPP was what solidified me going to Evergreen. Like, I would not have gone to Evergreen if SPP had not offered me the
job.
This quote and participant does not necessarily represent a clear example of schema
assimilation or accommodation. However, knowing that some coordinators come to Evergreen
masters programs at least in part because of the opportunity to work with SPP further
35
demonstrates that many coordinators came into the positions with an existing interest in
environmental, social justice, and work with the carceral system. This context could also inform
future outreach initiatives to recruit SPP coordinators or Evergreen students.
The Sankey diagram below in Figure five displays the frequencies of codes associated
with the previous work category for career paths. The numbers on the left of the diagram
represent one interview or survey. I assigned a number to each interview and survey to identify
each response while maintaining participant anonymity. For example, 2:2 is the second interview
that I completed. The right side of the diagram highlights the codes that I identified under
previous interests in the numbered interviews and surveys. The Sankey Diagram below displays
frequency of each numbered interview, not correlation, and the width of the various bars reflects
the frequency. Wider bars indicate that the code appeared more often while thinner bars indicate
that the code appeared less frequently. This figure highlights that most participants entered their
role interested in working in a similar field in the future.
Figure 5.
Sankey diagram for previous interests.
36
Participant’s previous work and planned career path influenced what they may have
perceived as an option for future work and their career schema. Individuals who had more prior
work experience likely had a more expansive pre-existing schema for careers while individuals
who expressed that working as an SPP coordinator was their first job may have had a narrower
view of possibilities of schema. The following table highlights one example of schema
accommodation and schema assimilation based on their previous experience.
37
Table 1.
Career Path: Previous Experience Assimilation and Accomodation
Schema
Quote
Explanation
Assimilation
“So, I think it did help shape my
interests in wanting to go into
adult education more, but I was
already interested in a lot of the
work we were doing. So, in that
sense it just kind of added to it I
suppose.”
This individual learned information
that did not challenge their preexisting interests and vision career
path. They were already interested in
education and their experience with
SPP added new information and
experiences to that schema.
Accommodation “Before I worked with SPP, I
didn’t really know what I wanted
to do. When I started there, I
knew fairly early on that the
career I would choose would be
within our very messed up
criminal justice system.”
This individual came into their
position with SPP without a clear
career path. They accommodated new
information and experiences from
working with the carceral system to
build a new schema for career path
that involved working in corrections.
More examples of this experience are
outlined in Category 2: Continued
Work.
4.2.2 Category 2: Continued Work
After leaving SPP, participants embraced different career paths. Most coordinators
continued on to work in conservation or corrections. One coordinator noted that
Working for SPP introduced me to the world of plant propagation for the
purposes of habitat restoration. This influenced my future career within the
conservation field by providing a baseline understanding of habitat restoration and
native plants in Washington State.
Many coordinators who continued to work in conservation expressed that they developed
conservation skills during their time with SPP. These coordinators developed new skills
working alongside technicians and partner organizations that they continued to use in
future positions. For example, one coordinator shared that
Really, I think it was more the nursery part of the work that probably impacted
my future career desires or goals more than the prison part because I didn’t end up
going into a social justice field or anything like that. So I would say that’s really
38
the main way it influenced me—it gave me a good sense of what working at an
organization like…would look like.
Other coordinators continued on to work in the carceral system. For example, one coordinator
who continued work in corrections noted that “I decided I would continue working in prisons.
So, it changed, like, my whole career path. I didn’t have a career path and then all the sudden I
was like; I want to do this.”
A handful of coordinators shared that they do not work in conservation, sustainability,
environmental education, or a field related to their work at SPP. The Sankey diagram below
provides insight into the split between how many participants continued work in environmental
fields or corrections.
Figure 6.
Sankey diagram for continued work.
39
40
The following table highlights one example of schema accommodation and schema assimilation
based on where coordinators continued in a professional capacity after leaving SPP.
Table 2.
Career Path: Continued Work Assimilation and Accomodation
Schema
Quote
Explanation
Assimilation
“The prison-related part of
SPP didn't really affect my
career path much that I can
see. The conservation
nursery part though did help
push me towards working in
natural resources -- since
then I worked at a native
plant garden, (briefly) at an
organic farm, and then began
work in forestry and related
jobs.”
“Corrections education was
new to me at the time. When
I first came to Evergreen and
I worked for SPP and learned
a little bit more. So in that
sense it was like the perfect
stepping stone if you will.”
This individual came into their position
with SPP with an interest in conservation
nursery work. They developed new skills
that matched their pre-existing vision for
their career path and assimilated that
information into the existing schema.
Accommodation
Corrections education did not previously
fit into this individual’s schema for career
path. However, during their time with SPP
they built a new schema for career path
that included corrections education and
eventually continued down that career
path. Corrections education did not
necessarily fit into what this coordinator
previously viewed as possible in a career,
so they had to build an entirely new
schema.
4.2.3 Category 3: Influence
Participants expressed that their time with SPP influenced their career path in different
ways. Some coordinators shifted their academic studies and thesis research based on their
experience working with SPP programs. Other coordinators described transitioning to focus on
human-centered work. One coordinator was surprised to find a new interest in social justice work
noting that “I had mostly wanted to do, like, hard environmental science things but that social
41
justice component was really fulfilling and eye-opening. I was like, I could potentially do that in
the future!” Similarly, several participants expressed that their time at SPP expanded their career
interests and possibilities for future jobs. Some participants expressed that SPP offered a view of
what environmental related careers might look like because the work involved both hands-on and
office work. One coordinator stated that
I always felt like to be working in an environmental field, you have to be, like,
really hands on- the one providing the knowledge or collecting the data. But, in
the background there are people coordinating it, there’s people who are managing
grants and relationships and things like that. So, it kinda broadened my
perspective on what careers can look like.
While most participants indicated their role at SPP had some influence of their perspectives on
career path, other coordinators entered their role and Masters program with specific interests and
a desired career path. Participants also noted that it is difficult to separate their experience
working with SPP from their academic studies to identify where their career interests shifted.
The most common code in the career category was network and partnerships. Participants
most frequently expressed that their new relationships and the SPP network influenced their
perspective on careers. They noted that SPP offered opportunities to interact with Washington
Department of Corrections (WA DOC) staff, incarcerated individuals, conservation groups, state
agencies, nonprofits, Evergreen faculty, and colleagues in their academic program. Several
participants continued to work with a partner organization or state agency after their time with
SPP. One coordinator shared that “I think one of the most valuable things for me and my career
that came out of SPP were the relationships that I built with folks working with different state
agencies on conservation initiatives.” Participants also noted that the skills they developed in
managing partnerships with SPP and engaging with stakeholders proved useful in their career
42
paths. Below is a Sankey diagram that highlights the frequency of each code related to influence
on careers.
Figure 7.
Sankey diagram for influence on career path.
43
Participant’s described a variety of changes to their career path schema. As noted in
Category 1: Previous Work, changes to schema for career path largely depended on each
participant’s prior experiences and how established their career path vision was when they
started working as a coordinator. Coordinators who learned that working in the environmental
field does not always have to be hands on or who established a new human-centered careers are
examples of schema accommodation. These individuals learned new information during their
time with SPP that did not match what they previously envisioned for a career path. As a result,
they had to build a new schema for career path. On the contrary, coordinators who continued
pursuing their previous interests and planned career path are examples of schema assimilation or
no change in schema. Some coordinators who continued to pursue pre-existing interests and
careers experienced schema assimilation, however some individuals indicated that they did not
add any new informationi or expand their schema for career path. See the chart below for
specific examples of schema assimilation and accommodation.
44
Table 3.
Career Path: Influence Assimilation and Accommodation
Schema
Quote
Explanation
No Change
“But, I don’t think for exampleworking for SPP didn’t make me want
to change anything and become like a
plant expert or go work for a nursery,
as much as I love plants.”
This individual learned new
information about plants and
working in a conservation nursery
during their time with SPP.
However, they did not learn
anything that changed what they
already imagined for their career
path. This individual did not
necessarily have to assimilate or
accommodate any information for
their carreer path schema. While
they learned new skills, they did not
relate to what they envisioned for a
future career path.
Assimilation
“My career path changed significantly This individual was previously
because of my work with SPP. I
interested in working in
realized that my passion for
environmental education and
environmental education was based
assimilated what they learned
more in my passion for facilitating
during their time at SPP to
connection with the natural world
incorporate a focus on community(humans included). I shifted from
based work. They expressed that
environmental education to
their interest in community-based
community-based work with
work did not necessarily challenge
environmental education incorporated or contradict their interest in
into it and a focus on working to break environmental education work.
down the school to prison pipeline
Rather, they continued to grow that
through facilitating community
schema by adding an emphasis on
connection and support for youth
community-based work.
experiencing barriers to success.”
Accommodation “Applying to SPP was already an
This individual opened their career
intentionally big change in my career
path schema by choosing to apply
path, and I have many personal
for a coordinator position. They
reasons while my career path diverged gained experience working in an
so significantly. However my time
unfarmiliar field and created a new
with SPP showed me the diversity of
schema for that type of work.
work within the environmental field
and allowed me to find contentment
and even enjoyment doing work I
thought I never wanted to do.”
45
4.3 Environmentalism
Within the topic of environmentalism, participants demonstrated the most consensus on
how their time with SPP impacted their perspectives on environmentalism. Participants were
allowed to choose whether their time at SPP impacted their sense of environmentalism not at all
significantly, slightly significantly, moderately significantly, very significantly, or extremely
significantly. Figure 8 below shows the distribution of responses ranging from 1. 0 (not at all
significantly) to 5.0 (extremely significantly). Environmentalism had the lowest average
significance ranking out of the three categories of research.
Figure 8
Significance rating for environmentalism.
Most interview participants were students in the Master of Environmental Studies at
Evergreen program while they worked with SPP. As such, they expressed that their perspectives
on environmentalism were well established when they entered their role with SPP. A few
coordinators noted that their perspectives on environmentalism did not change but that they
46
developed some new conservation knowledge or skills. However, most participants expressed
that their perspective on environmentalism expanded to encompass how different people and
populations can engage in environmentalism. Participants described a shift in perspective that
centered on making nature and sustainability, or environmental education, accessible for
everyone. Participants also shared that their perspectives shifted to emphasize storytelling and
communication rather than just management or conservation work. One coordinator noted that
their time at SPP “illuminated how environmentalism is intersectional and that access to and
participating stewardship is diverse” while another coordinator stated that “SPP influenced me
by showing me that environmentalism can be and should be inclusive, that everyone belongs.”
Participants whose perspectives on environmentalism expanded or became more broad
experienced schema assimilation. Their environmental schema was already established, and for
most participants, the new information did not mismatch or challenge their existing thoughts.
Rather, it added to their existing schema and collected new information on environmentalism.
Most participants did not need to build a new schema like the child who had only seen a dog but
never a cat. Instead, they added new information to their existing schema for environmentalism
much like the child would do if they learned that dogs could bark for the first time.
4.4 Incarceration
Within the topic of incarceration, I coded comments into four groups: Experiences and
Emotions, Overall Experience, Previous Connections with Incarceration, and Relationships.
Each code group contains several themes and individual codes. Overall, individuals indicated
that their time at SPP impacted their perspectives on incarceration slightly significantly,
moderately significantly, very significantly, or extremely significantly. Notably, no individuals
rated the impact on their perspectives on incarceration as not at all significantly. Figure 9 below
47
shows the distribution of responses ranging from 2.0 (slightly significantly) to 5.0 (extremely
significantly).
Figure 9.
Distribution of significance ratings for incarceration.
The median impact rating score for incarceration impact was 4.00 or very significantly.
The mean impact rating was slightly higher at 4.048 or just above very significantly. Out of all
three areas of research (incarceration, environmentalism, career path), incarceration had the
highest mean rating. It is likely that incarceration had the highest mean rating because
participants had the least previous experience and knowledge on this focus area and through their
work with SPP gained much in that area.
48
4.4.1 Category 1: Previous Experience with Incarceration
Individuals came into their roles with SPP with different experiences and relationships
with incarceration. Participants’ previous experience with incarceration influenced their
experience during prison visits, reshaped their pre-existing views on incarceration, and
contributed to how established their schema on incarceration was prior to working at SPP.
Participants described three primary types of previous experience with incarceration: First Prison
Experience, Personal Experience with Incarceration, and Previous Work with Incarceration.
Most individuals shared that they were introduced to the prison environment for the first
time while working for SPP; their previous experience was limited to media representations of
incarceration. Some coordinators who entered the prison environment for the first time noted that
the experience was overwhelming, intimidating, and emotionally charged. Further, several
individuals were particularly stressed by the protocols, restrictions, and hierarchies within the
prison environment when they first entered. One individual shared that
Walking into it, of course, the first time is really overwhelming. You have to go
through all the doors and checks and like make sure you didn’t leave your cell
phone in your pocket or your keys or any of that. So it was definitely very
interesting and something I had never experienced before.
However, some individuals found entering the prison environment easier, sharing that
My first day was in prison at SPP, which I don’t think is always the case. That
was kind of a fun experience to just jump right in and not maybe build up ideas in
my head or something or get scared.
Category 2: Relationships, below, highlights how some coordinators came to feel more or less
comfortable in the prison environment with time by building relationships with both incarcerated
individuals and staff.
49
While most individuals entered the prison environment for the first time as a graduatestudent coordinator, some individuals came into their roles as coordinators with personal or
professional connections to incarceration. Participants with a personal connection with
incarceration were either previously incarcerated or had a close friend or family member
incarcerated prior to their time working with SPP. Although these individuals had a greater
familiarity with the prison environment and more knowledge on what to expect during a visit,
they shared many of the feelings of being overwhelmed, fear, and anxiety in the prison
environment that individuals with no prior experience felt. One participant shared that
I have family who have been incarcerated. So I have like, a personal experience
with it. It wasn’t something new to me and didn’t really--like I knew some things
about the way all of that worked. I think that some things that were new to me in
that experience were just like actually experiencing it. So even though I had heard
from people who I know who had been incarcerated, seeing some of it was
difficult at times.
Another participant shared that
I grew up with friends and family members who were incarcerated so I’ve been
going to prisons since I was an infant and I’ve been doing education work since I
was eighteen, so I already had a pretty strong foundation. And, I would never say
I am comfortable in a prison system. It’s not a comfortable place. But, it’s an
environment I was already familiar with when I started.
For some individuals, entering the prison environment felt traumatizing or retraumatizing, showing more of what they or loved ones experienced while incarcerated. SPP
provides training materials to support staff on what to expect during their first facility visit,
annual workshops or trainings with previously incarcerated individuals, and bi-weekly space in
staff meetings for sharing and working through safety or security concerns. However, there are
not resources specifically designed to support individuals with previous experience with
50
incarceration. See Additional Findings (Section 4.5) for more information on what participant’s
shared about their experiences working in the SPP offices and as a member of the staff team.
A handful of individuals also worked in the prison environment or with incarcerated
individuals prior to their time with SPP. Most individuals supervised and guided work crews in
forestry programs outside the prison. A few worked or volunteered with various programs within
the prison. Participants who had previously worked in the prison environment did not express
discomfort entering the prison environment in the same way that individuals with a personal
connection did. However, some individuals who continued to work in corrections after their time
at SPP noted that their experience in the prison environment shifted to become more challenging
as they entered the facilities more regularly, often on a daily basis. While some individuals who
continued working in corrections found the experience of entering daily challenging, they shared
that they liked that they could work more regularly with incarcerated individuals and have a
more direct impact in their role.
The Sankey diagram below in Figure 10 displays the frequencies of codes associated with
Incarceration Category 1: Previous Experience with Incarceration. On the left is all the
interviews and surveys in which the identified codes appear and codes identified are on the right.
The chart provides a visual verification that most participants entered the prison environment for
the first time as SPP graduate student coordinators.
51
Figure 10.
Sankey diagram for previous experience with incarceration.
Many of the individuals who entered the prison environment for the first time as SPP
coordinators shared experiences that indicate a change in schema. Some coordinators had to
create an entirely new schema or accommodate the information. For example, for individuals
who expressed that their prior experience with incarceration was limited to portrayals in the
52
media, their schema for incarceration were broad and expanded upon their first visit. The first
time they walked through the gates and had to scan their badge, wait for a door to unlock, or
entered the large courtyard gardens, participants gained new information that may not have
matched what they previously thought of the prison environment. Rather, participants who stated
that their previous views of the carceral system were limited to media often described that their
previous schemas included images of a very dangerous environment in which individuals wear
matching jumpsuits and are completely isolated. Several participants referenced shows and
movies like Orange is the New Black or Prison Break when describing their views of prison
prior to working as an SPP coordinator. Just like the child who saw a cat for the first time had to
adapt their understanding of pets, many of the participant student coordinators had to adapt their
understanding of incarceration and accommodate a new schema. Students with personal or
professional experience with incarceration likely did not have to build an entirely new schema.
However, they may have encountered factors that did not meet their previous experience and
also had to accommodate if they could not assimilate or fit the information into their existing
schema.
4.4.2 Category 2: Relationships
Most graduate student SPP coordinators entered the prison environment approximately
once a week for one to three years. As a result, coordinators spent a significant amount of time
with incarcerated students or technicians and WA DOC staff. Some coordinators, particularly
those who worked with living plants and animals, worked closely with a small crew of
incarcerated technicians during their time with SPP. Many of these participant coordinators
shared that they built relationships with the technicians based on the conservation work. They
described experiences building relationships with incarcerated technicians while also
53
establishing professional boundaries. Some coordinators even maintained lasting relationships
with incarcerated technicians, sharing that “I’m still in touch with a couple of those technicians
that are now out in the world and doing really amazing things” or “As I continued working in the
programs, I developed friendships with the people I was working with and met through the
programs that still continue today”. Many of the participants also described a sense of pride in
their relationship with incarcerated technicians. They expressed a sense of fulfillment in
discussing environmental and conservation topics with technicians and their growing
relationship.
Participant’s relationship with incarcerated individuals often humanized their
perspectives of the prison environment. One coordinator described their experience building
relationships with incarcerated technicians and noted that “something really shifted there where
the incarcerated students suddenly shifted from being a number to being a human being.”
Another coordinator shared that “Overall, the experiences I had with the incarcerated women,
forming relationships with them and talking about like future career goals, I think that was really
transformative.”
Many coordinators were surprised to find an active community within the confines of the
prison environment. Coordinators described feeling connected to the incarcerated community as
they built relationships with students and technicians and embraced a front-row view of
incarceration. Upon reflection, several coordinators expressed that their relationships with
incarcerated individuals shifted their perspectives on the prison system. One coordinator stated
that
54
Walking into a prison and meeting somebody and shaking somebody’s hand who
has been through the system--the broken system--and talking to people, getting to
know them, and having shared interests, it really shifted my perspective and really
focused my attention on working with that population.
While participants described their relationship with incarcerated individuals as having a positive
impact, they also noted that it was emotionally challenging. One participant noted that
The doors are closed and there’s like all these processes you have to go through to
connect with somebody and get to know the system behind the scenes. It really
reinforces the dehumanizing nature that the system is built to be. And, yeah. It’s
hard to go inside a prison and meet people and realize they’re people.
However, although most participant coordinators described a close relationship with
incarcerated technicians, coordinators with less direct interaction with incarcerated students and
technicians shared fewer experiences building relationships. Coordinators who worked in the
office or with larger groups of students in lectures or classrooms spent less time interacting
directly with incarcerated students. As a result, some coordinators described feeling
overwhelmed by interacting with so many students, program demands, and not being able to
build relationships and meet the needs of every student.
Participants also described mixed relationships with WA DOC staff. WA DOC Staff
support SPP programs on a daily basis when SPP coordinators are not there. Several coordinators
expressed their appreciation and respect for facility liaisons and the work they did to support SPP
programs outside of their typically assigned responsibilities. While many coordinators were
critical of the carceral system and idea of DOC staff when starting their position, several found
that DOC staff were supportive and essential to SPP programs. One coordinator recognized the
dual responsibilities DOC staff have in promoting security and programming, stating “I respect
the fact that they have a really difficult job to do and it’s hard to be the bad guy all the time.”
Other coordinators observed a perspective shift in the staff who work most closely with SPP
55
programs. Much like SPP coordinators relationships with incarcerated technicians influenced
their perspectives on incarceration and humanized the prison environment, coordinators saw
relationship dynamics change between DOC staff and incarcerated technicians in the program. A
coordinator shared their experience in which they saw “a correctional staff member learning
together and working with incarcerated students to care for turtles and noticed a shift in their
relationship from human and number to human and human.”
Although many participants had a positive relationship and appreciation for DOC staff,
several participants felt uncomfortable around staff or experienced a lack of support from staff.
They felt less comfortable or safe around staff members and overwhelmed by the power
hierarchy in the prison environment. One coordinator stated
As I spent more and more time in prisons, I actually found that I was more
uncomfortable working with correctional staff than I was working with
incarcerated people. The military culture they work in and encourage in the US
prison system as a whole is extremely unsettling, and broken.
Other coordinators felt discomfort witnessing the interactions between corrections
officers and incarcerated individuals, noting that some staff were not interested in rehabilitation
and showed hostility towards incarcerated individuals. Several participants cited lack of staff
support for programs as a primary challenge and expressed frustration with what they viewed as
a “façade to cover up, dismiss or explain away human mistreatment” rather than engage in
positive programming.
56
Figure 11.
Sankey diagram for Incarceration: relationships.
The Sankey diagram above in Figure 11 displays the frequencies of codes associated with
Incarceration Category 2: Relationships. The chart shows the split between positive and
complicated relationships with DOC staff in which complicated relationships were slightly more
57
common. It also highlights how many different participants touched on themes of humanizing
the prison environment or building relationships with incarcerated individuals.
Overall, participants’ relationships with incarcerated individuals and DOC staff shaped
their experience working in the prison environment. Most coordinators who had positive
interactions and built relationships with incarcerated individuals experienced a shift in
perspectives related to who is incarcerated. Coordinators expressed that the shift did not
represent a transition to a more positive view of the carceral system but to a more nuanced
perspective and appreciation and humanization of incarcerated individuals and WA DOC Staff.
As noted in Category 1: Previous Experience with Incarceration, many participants had little
to no previous experience interacting with incarcerated individuals and their previous schema on
who is incarcerated was limited to media representations. These individuals described a change
in schema to include a more humanized view of incarcerated individuals and the carceral system.
Rather than viewing incarceration as a concept or system, participants began to think of their
incarcerated colleagues.
While most participants described a positive relationship with incarcerated individuals,
they described a mixed relationship with DOC staff. Some individuals described experiences
with DOC staff that matched their existing schemas and ideas surrounding the carceral system
including the hierarchical structure and lack of focus on restorative justice. These individuals
added to existing schemas or experienced schema assimilation as they put names and faces to the
people upholding their perspectives. Other individuals experienced a growth in their schema or
even had to accommodate with a new schema as positive interactions with DOC staff challenged
pre-existing perspectives.
58
4.4.3 Category 3: Experiences and Emotions
Participants experienced a variety of emotions and conflicts when they entered the prison
environment. One of the most common emotions participants described was a sense of anxiety or
feeling overwhelmed due to the tense environment, procedures, lack of familiarity with the
setting, and pre-existing assumptions. They carried an emotional burden from building
relationships with incarcerated individuals and empathizing with the community. Further, many
participants described that they felt that they had a lack of capacity to make meaningful change
for incarcerated individuals and stressed by their limited capacity for action. Several participants
also noted that many incarcerated individuals are survivors of trauma and continue to experience
trauma in the prison environment. Regularly interacting with individuals who have experienced
trauma and hearing their stories and experiences creates anxiety and tension. Participants also
described particularly strong emotional burdens and anxiety entering and leaving the prison
environment, sometimes due to not knowing what to expect. One coordinator noted that entering
“made me anxious. I never got over that. I would get like sweaty and hyper-alert the whole time
and then I would be exhausted when I left.”
In fact, many coordinators felt strong emotions when leaving the prison environment and
noted that they experienced exhaustion once they left the facility. One coordinator described the
experience as
really bizarre because you know on the one hand you go into the facility and you
are there for like a graduation ceremony and it’s like fun times and there’s like
cake and punch and then you leave and you expect to be kind of pumped up on all
of that. But, I would go home and cry and take a nap.
On the other hand, some coordinators felt privileged to enter the restricted environment
and work with education programs. These participants appreciated the opportunity to witness the
prison environment, provide education, and expand their knowledge of the practices in the
59
carceral system. Similarly, some participants found the environment to be a calm space. These
individuals were grounded by the regular schedules or expectations and opportunities for
programming and education. However, other participants described the prison environment as
gloomy and challenging. Participants noted that “working in a prison was not somewhere that is
the most comfortable place to work, you know getting the concept of being searched and locked
in behind you.” Another participant noted that
Fun is never the right word when you’re inside a prison, and it shouldn’t be. But
it’s hard to find the right word to explain what I felt. It certainly wasn’t a negative
feeling overall. There are always negative feelings when you’re in prison, and I
think that’s just part of the job.
In addition to strong emotions in relation to prison environments, many participants
experienced an internal conflict and identified working within the dynamics of the prison system
as their least favorite part of their time as a coordinator. They felt conflicted about working
within the carceral system and shared concerns about the nature of their work, similar to those
Jewkes and Dominique outlined (2015) regarding sustainability initiatives in prison as a form of
green washing. Several participants worried that their work helped make the carceral system
more palatable, and sustained its initiatives. However, most coordinators also felt that their work
positively impacted the experience of a small portion of the incarcerated population in
Washington. Conflict was strongest among participants when they learned about the wages SPP
technicians and all incarcerated individuals are paid, living conditions, sentencing, and reasons
individuals were incarcerated. For some individuals the conflict remained internal and something
they debated individually or with colleagues. However, some participants faced the conflict in a
broader sense with the Evergreen community and in their interactions with DOC staff, fellow
SPP staff, and incarcerated technicians. Internal conflict was one of the most common themes.
60
Appendix D highlights several quotes describing participant’s internal conflict. The following
chart demonstrates that some coordinators experienced assimilation while others experienced
accommodation when encountering an internal conflict.
Table 4. Incarceration: Experiences and Emotions
Schema
Quote
Explanation
Assimilation
“I guess it kind of strengthened ideas I
already had. I like definitely believe in
restorative justice and that is not the
model that most prison systems operate
within so it’s hard to see how things are
and how people are treated. It’s like to
see the reality of it, it kind of
strengthened my view that this isn’tthis system isn’t helping and that
changes need to be made.”
This individual had a strong
belief in restorative justice
when they started their position
at SPP. They experienced an
internal conflict working within
a system that did not match
their pre-existing beliefs.
However, because the conflict
did not challenge their preexisting beliefs, they did not
have to build a new schema.
Rather, they assimilated their
new experiences and deeper
knowledge of the prison system
to strengthen their existing
beliefs and schema about
corrections.
Accommodation “It was also just kind of mind
This individual experienced an
expanding to be, like, this really
internal conflict in which they
innovative environmental work is
had to redefine the relationship
happening and most of the people
between environmentalism and
involved have no intention of abolishing incarceration. They had to
prisons, or really even changing prisons. accommodate new information
They’re just, like, seeing this as another that challenged their previous
opportunity to provide within this
view that environmentalism and
structure that they don’t see a problem
incarceration are mutually
with. And so that was a weird
exclusive.
dichotomy for me to wrestle with.
Right, like they are not mutually
exclusive. You can be an
environmentalist and pro-prison it turns
out.”
61
Figure 12.
Sankey diagram for Experiences and Emotions.
The Sankey diagram above in Figure 12 displays the frequencies of codes associated with
Incarceration Category 3: Experiences and Emotions. The chart shows the split between
perceiving the prison environment as calm or gloomy: gloominess was over twice as common. It
also highlights how often participant’s described feeling a sense of anxiety or overwhelm in
prison and experienced an internal conflict.
62
Participants emotional response to the prison environment shaped their interactions and
how they experienced the prison environment. For some coordinators, the anxiety, overwhelm,
disappointment, and exhaustion they experienced in the prison environment contributed to
schema assimilation where they incorporated new feelings and knowledge into an existing
schema. For other coordinators, seeing a calm prison environment may have required them to
accommodate and build a new schema. However, each individuals’ prior knowledge and
experience is unique and each code does not indicate clear accommodation or assimilation.
Participant’s internal conflict is a representation of their schemas for incarceration expanding,
developing, or establishing for the first time. The conflict represents a challenge to existing
schemas with new knowledge, positionally, and relationships.
4.4.4 Category 4: Overall Experience
The final category for incarceration is Overall Experience. This category includes the
following codes: Incarceration: Location Impacts Experience, Rose Colored Glasses, Security
Concerns, Incarceration: Expanded Perspective, and Incarceration: No Change.
Participant’s experience in the prison environment may have impacted how their
perspectives on incarceration developed. Coordinators worked in a variety of different prisons as
described in Section 1.6 Background: The Sustainability in Prisons Project. Some coordinators
had the opportunity to work at and visit multiple facilities and see the different communities.
Those coordinators found it “surprising how different the culture is from prison to prison. You
know there is a general culture in corrections but really I think that’s based on like the population
that is there and then also the outside community that influences in different ways.” Participants
also noted differences in men’s and women’s facilities and in different security levels. Some
63
participants worked primarily outside of the fenced prison environment in conservation programs
while others worked within the fenced area.
Participants also noted that their experience of the prison environment and perspectives
were limited to SPP areas. Most coordinators go directly to their work site at a greenhouse,
classroom, or field and do not spend time in living units or with individuals in intensive
management units. Some coordinators felt like they “had a skewed and unrealistic image of the
inhumane conditions in prison, perpetuated by the information that DOC chose to provide and
not provide.” One coordinator specifically noted that their perspective did not change while
working as a coordinator because “In SPP it’s a more kind rose-colored glasses, kind of at armslength, you aren’t really immersed in that. So, I would say my perspective did not change.”
Security concerns and issues also impacted participant experiences and perspectives on
incarceration. Some coordinators experienced very few or no major security concerns during
their time at SPP while others experienced significant security issues. One coordinator noted that
“I had a couple interactions with some of the inmates that were less than comfortable and at that
time they didn’t have very good security in place for me.” Generally, coordinators were not
surprised by security concerns but some were surprised by the DOC response noting that
“working with DOC on that took a long time to get stuff approved.” Participant experiences with
feeling safe in the prison environment or facing security concerns could have impacted how their
schemas for incarceration developed. Security concerns also changed with how recently
coordinators worked with SPP as programs have shifted and developed.
The final two codes for overall experience evaluated whether coordinators experienced a
change in perspective during their time with SPP. The Sankey diagram below shows that the
64
code for expanded perspectives occurred more frequently in the survey and interviews than no
change in perspective.
Figure 13.
Sankey diagram for Overall Experience.
65
Coordinators largely attributed their change in perspectives to exposure, interaction, and
gaining knowledge. Many participants expressed that their perspectives became more nuanced
because of their interactions as an SPP coordinator. One participant noted that
It didn’t make me like go from being anti-prison to pro-prison, it didn’t make me
go from liking prisons to hating prisons. It wasn’t something so simple. It was just
kind of like an expansion of my awareness of all the different aspects of it and all
the different directions that we could go policy wise, morally, and ethically.
Individuals who expressed that they did not experience a change in perspective after
working with SPP generally stated that they started the experience with a significant foundation
of knowledge or strong beliefs. Some participants started with abolitionist ideals or with a strong
belief in restorative justice, and expressed that their time with SPP further solidified their
perspectives. One coordinator also noted that their perspective did not change but that their
knowledge increased stating: “What I knew about my perspectives did not change. But what did
happen is that the box grew bigger because I’m gaining all this new knowledge and new
perspectives and ideas. So, I know a lot more and my box is still growing to this day”. The box
the coordinator described can be considered a schema that continues to assimilate as the
information they learn fits into their pre-existing perspectives on incarceration.
4.5 Additional Findings
While this study focused on if and how coordinators experienced a change in schema on
careers, environmentalism, and incarceration, participants also shared information and
experiences outside the scope of the research question. This section highlights additional patterns
in coordinator experiences.
Coordinators’ experiences varied greatly based on when they worked with SPP.
Coordinators who worked with SPP more recently described a greater focus on education. They
spent more time talking about creating educational materials and sharing educational
66
opportunities than about the physical conservation work. On the other hand, coordinators who
worked with SPP further in the past often spent more time talking about the conservation aspect
of their work. This pattern could represent a shift in the organization’s focus to center education
or a shift in coordinator roles over time.
I also observed a shift over time in the language participant’s used. Coordinators who
worked for SPP in the early years often used terms like ‘offender’, ‘inmate’, or ‘guard’ whereas
more recent coordinators generally referred to individuals as ‘incarcerated individuals’,
‘residents’, or ‘correctional officers’. The change in language parallels changes in language
within DOC and a change in perspective over time in the larger community. The newer terms
reflect a newer focus on humanizing those in the carceral system. As a result, SPP now asks
onboarding coordinators to review and use language as outlined in the Underground Scholars
Language Guide (Cerda-Jara et al).
While this thesis research focused on coordinator’s experience working in the prison
environment, most coordinators also described their experience working in the SPP offices. The
majority of coordinators expressed an appreciation for the workplace environment and staff team
at SPP. Many coordinators described the SPP work environment as positive and supportive. One
coordinator noted that “I really liked the environment of SPP. I’d say for the most part it leans
towards being very healthy, very communicative.” Another coordinator noted that “We had a
great cohort of student coordinators and I really was inspired and admired the senior leadership
there. And I thought they did a really good job creating a safe environment for us.” Some
coordinators also expressed an appreciation for the flexibility in working with SPP, consistent
encouragement to grow, and opportunities to pursue specific interests.
67
While most coordinators had positive experiences working in the SPP office environment
and as part of the SPP team, some coordinators shared that there were challenges working in that
environment. A handful of coordinators expressed a need for more managerial support. As a
small organization, SPP is limited in capacity and split between several programs. One
coordinator expressed that
You’re not always sure what the expectations are, what your priorities are.
Sometimes it feels like you don’t have enough on your plate, sometimes it feels
like you have way too much on your plate. And, it’s really hard to spread those
priorities out sometimes, especially among a limited staff that all have their own
priorities.
Similarly, some coordinators noted that they encountered difficulties identifying priorities and
seeking support with a limited full-time staff team. One coordinator noted that
I was already playing a whole bunch of different roles and then I was kind of
forced to take on what felt like managerial responsibilities. Um, and didn’t feel
like at these times that I had the support I needed or someone I could
communicate to because I didn’t want to burden them.
Other challenges that coordinators identified included limited classroom management
training, living in a different world from their incarcerated counterparts, balancing different SPP
priorities, losing sight of the mission, and serving as a liaison between WA DOC staff and SPP
managers. Several coordinators also expressed that they wished they could have supported
initiatives and programs led by incarcerated individuals more in the role and made participation
in SPP programs more consensual. Overall, many coordinators found both beauty or opportunity
and limitation or frustration in the SPP partnership model between Evergreen and WA DOC.
Overall, many coordinators fondly reflected on their time with SPP, as one coordinator
noted that “SPP changed my life for the better and I wouldn’t take it back for anything” and
another coordinator stated that “by far it is still one of my favorite positions I’ve ever held.” Like
68
all positions, the coordinator role came with challenges, highlights, and opportunities for growth.
One coordinator summarized the balance noting that
I would say that it was an incredibly powerful job and one that stuck with me for
a long time. And, what I’ve said about that job when I’ve talked to other people
about it, is that it’s one that I’m really glad I got to do and it’s also one that I’m
really happy that I’m not currently doing cause it was a really challenging job,
emotionally. And, there’s a lot of ethics that come into play everyday. You’re
really faced with some of the like big questions with our society and whether, you
know, just all the ethical or unethical nature of incarceration and the
disproportionate number of people of color that are in prison. You’re staring it
right in the face everyday.
69
5. Conclusion
5.1 Limitations
This study was subject to substantial limitations. This section recognizes limitations
imposed by biases, sample size, methods, and gaps. First, the findings are limited to only a
portion of former SPP coordinators. While approximately half of the 53 invited individuals (49
percent) participated in the study, ideally, the number would have been even higher. It is possible
that participants with strong views were more likely to participate in the study. I opened the
survey and interview for approximately two months from February 2023 to the end of March
2023. A longer timeframe for conducting interviews and distributing the survey may have
increased the response rate. Additionally, participants were both graduate students and SPP
coordinators simultaneously. As a result, many participants shared experiences from both their
graduate studies and work as a coordinator. The parameters I established for this study do not
provide space to differentiate between perspective changes from graduate studies and work as a
student coordinator.
This study also relied on participant’s recalling their perspectives prior to their experience
working as a coordinator and self-reporting experiences. Some participants expressed difficulty
remembering their perspectives on the three areas of research prior to working as a coordinator
or a lack of clarity on exactly when a shift in perspective occurred.
The coding method I used in this study was also limited. I coded the interviews and
survey responses for common themes alone. As a result, the codes could be biased to my
knowledge, perspective and experiences. While I worked to include all perspectives and shared
experiences, another individual might code the experiences differently.
70
Finally, changes in schema are limited to each individual’s experience working as a
coordinator and their prior experience. While this study demonstrates patterns of schema
accommodation for incarceration, career path, and environmentalism, each individual’s changes
in schema are unique. I identified patterns such as individuals who entered the prison
environment for the first time often experienced schema accommodation. However, each
individual’s experience and perspective shift is unique and depends on prior experience,
education, and interactions.
5.2 Future Research
Further research can contribute to continued improvement of SPP programs, prison
education initiatives, and schema theory understanding. This study focused on a very narrow
population and program. Further research could examine if and how education coordinators for
different programs experience a change in schema. That research could share information, best
practices, and challenges and experiences from coordiantors across programs.
As noted in the previous section, this study is limited by asking participants to
retroactively self-report their experiences. Further research could follow incoming SPP
coordinators throughout their time working with SPP to evaluate how their perspectives change
in real time. Additionally, SPP could use evaluation surveys similar to those used in
environmental education and workshop programs to evaluate coordinator perspectives and
experiences and collect data. While SPP does not currently have structured coordinator
evaluation surveys, they do initiate exit interviews and regular coordinator check-ins.
Further research could also evaluate perspective shifts in environmental education
coordinators who work in non-prison environments. It would be valuable to compare the impact
71
and limitations of working in a prison environment and the scale of perception impact in the
environmentalism and career categories.
5.3 Closing
Individuals who work in the prison environment are surrounded by barbed wire, pressing
expectations, hierarchical structures, and trauma. As violence workers, staff in the carceral
system uphold the current systems, shape practices, and influence incarcerated resident’s
experience. While SPP coordinators are contract staff and do not enter the prison environment on
a daily basis, many coordinators described experiences and perspectives that represent a change
in schema related to incarceration, environmentalism, and career path through both assimilation
and accommodation. Much like the incarcerated SPP program participants who experienced
shifts in views on environmentalism and empowerment, SPP coordinators experienced shifts in
their perspectives on career path, environmentalism, and incarceration. Often, coordinators
expressed that it was their interaction with incarcerated individuals and flow of knowledge that
inspired schema accommodation or assimilation.
Out of the three areas of research, coordinators indicated that their perspectives on
incarceration were most greatly impacted by their time with SPP. Coordinators experience
working in the prison environment was often new and their experiences interacting with
technicians and emotional response to the prison environment did not match what they
previously expected. On the other hand, most coordinators started with a strong belief in
conservation and climate communication or environmental education. As a result, most
coordinators shared evidence of schema assimilation for environmentalism in which they
broadened their perspective of who could participate and lead environmental work to increase
accessibility.
72
While most coordinators experienced some change in schema for incarceration,
environmentalism, and career path during their time with SPP, some coordinators expressed that
they experienced no change in perspective for one or all three categories. Additionally, many
coordinators experienced both schema accommodation and schema assimilation. Coordinators
who expressed that they had no change in perspective may have experienced schema
assimilation, encountering new sights or circumstances that matched their pre-existing beliefs.
Within the scope of this study, it is not possible to determine what percentage of coordinators
experienced schema assimilation versus accommodation. However, coordinators experiences did
indicate that most coordinators experienced schema accommodation for incarceration and the
fewest experienced schema accommodation for environmentalism. Still, each coordinator’s
experience is unique and influenced by their prior experiences, location of work, personal
identity, and when they worked with SPP as program goals, structure, and logistics have changed
in the ten year span that participants worked for SPP.
Overall, most coordinators described positive experiences working as a part of the SPP
team and coordinating nature, science and environmental education programs in prisons.
Connecting students and incarcerated residents through conservation and education programs can
increase awareness on the carceral system and facilitate perspective changes on incarceration,
environmentalism, and career path. Further, it is possible that the SPP network can contribute to
a series of individual perspective shifts and eventually a broader paradigm shift on the dual crises
of climate change/environmentalism and incarceration.
73
References
Alexander, M., & West, C. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of
colorblindness. (10th ed.). New York: The New Press.
American Civil Liberties Union & Global Human Rights Clinic. (2022). Captive labor:
Exploitation of incarcerated workers. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legaldocuments/2022-06-15-captivelaborresearchreport.pdf
Anno, J. (2004). History of prisons. In F. P. Williams& M. D. McShane (Eds.) Encyclopedia of
American prisons. (pp. 234-244). Garland Pub.
Aubrey, D. (2013). Butterflies (Euphydryas Editha Taylori): Collaborative research and
conservation with incarcerated women. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State
College.
Axelrod, R. (1973) An information processing model of perception and cognition. The American
Political Science Review. 67(4) 1248 – 1266.
Barbosa, M. L., de Menezes, T. N., Santos, S. R. D., Olinda, R. A., & Costa, G. M. C. (2018).
The quality of life of health professionals working in the prison system. Ciência & Saúde
Coletiva, 23(4), 1293+.
Benoit, E. (2020). Exploring connections between prison food and food deserts: An analysis of
formerly incarcerated people’s experiences. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen
State College.
Bhavnani, K. K., Foran, J., Kurian, P. A., & Munshi, D. (2019). Climate futures: Re-imagining
global climate justice (K.-K. Bhavnani, J. Foran, P. A. Kurian, & D. Munshi, Eds.). Zed
Books Ltd.
Bullough, Robert V., & Knowles, Gary, K. (1991). Teaching and Nurturing: Changing
Conceptions of Self as Teacher in a Case Study of Becoming a Teacher. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 4(2): 121–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839910040203.
Cabahug, J. (2023, February 6).Bill would pay WA’s incarcerated workers minimum wage. The
Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bill-would-pay-wasincarcerated-workers-minimum-wage/
Carson, E., Nadel, M.,& Gaes, G. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on state and federal prisons,
March 2020 - February 2021. Department of Justice Office, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/icsfp2021.pdf
74
Clarke, S. (2011). Assessing the rehabilitative potential of science and sustainability education
in prisons: A study of the sustainability in prisons project. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia The
Evergreen State College.
Department of Corrections Strategy and Innovation Team. (2022, March 30). Amend: Changing
correctional culture. Washington Department of
Corrections.https://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2022/03302022.htm
DePuy, L. B. (1951). The walnut street prison: Pennsylvania’s first penitentiary. Pennsylvania history:
A journal of mid-Atlantic studies, 18(2), 130–144. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27769197
Gallagher, B. E. (2013). Science and Sustainability Programs in Prisons: Assessing the Effects of
Participation on Inmates. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Gilliom, Sadie. (2017). Insight into the impacts of the Sustainability in Prisons Project’s Western
Pond Turtle programs on the work environment of Washington State Department of
Corrections prison staff. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Hayden, E. R., & Jach, T. R. (Eds.). (2017). Incarcerated women: A history of struggles,
oppression, and resistance in American prisons. Lexington Books.
Hazelett, E. (2023), Greening the cage: Exploitation and resistance in the (un)sustainable prison
garden. Antipode, 55: 436-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12893
Hinton, E. K. (2016). From the war on poverty to the war on crime: The making of mass
incarceration in America. Harvard University Press.
Jauk, D., Gill, B., Caruana, C., Everhardt, S. (2022). A sociological exploration of women’s
prison gardens in pandemic times. In S. Aladuwaka, B Wejnert, & R. Alagan (Eds.),
Systemic inequality, sustainability and COVID-19. Research in Political Sociology. Vol.
29
Jewkes, Y., and Moran, D., (2015). The paradox of the ‘green’ prison: Sustaining the
environment or sustaining the penal complex? Theoretical Criminology, 19(4): 451–69.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615576270.
Klag, G. (2019). Restoration and enhancement of Violan adunca and associated plant species for
larval development of Speyeria serene hippolyta in Pacific Northwest coastal prairie
ecosystems using coconut coir mats. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State
College.
Lichtenstein, A. (1993). Good Roads and Chain Gangs in the Progressive South: "The Negro
Convict is a Slave". The Journal of Southern History, 59(1), 85-110.
doi:10.2307/2210349
75
Mann, J. (2014). Prairie fire as a selective agent: Second-generation responses and plant
community shifts. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Mintz, A. (2020). Integrating sustainable practices: Compost tea as a nutrient. [Master’s thesis].
Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Morita, S. (2021). Agents of Transformation: Examining Prison-Based Environmental
Education as a Platform for Empowerment in a Correctional Setting and Beyond.
[Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Morris, N., & Rothman, D. J. (1995). The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of
punishment in western society. Oxford University Press.
Opsal, T. & Malin, S. A. (2020), Prisons as LULUs: Understanding the parallels between prison
proliferation and environmental injustices. Sociological Inquiry, 90: 579-602.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12290
O’Sullivan, J. (2023, February 1). Can Washington prisons change the culture of corrections?
Crosscut. https://crosscut.com/politics/2023/02/can-washington-prisons-change-culturecorrections
Pellow, N. David, (2019). Struggles for environmental justice in US prisons and Jails. Antipode
53: 56-73.
Passarelli, E. (2017). Becoming Environmentalists: Previously Incarcerated Individuals’
Experiences with Science and Sustainability Programs in Prison. [Master’s thesis].
Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Rafter, N. H., & Stanley, D. (1999). Prisons in America: A reference handbook. ABC-CLIO.
Sakala, L. (2014). Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census. Retrieved from
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2022) Mass incarceration: The whole pie. Retrieved from
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
Sax, S. (2022, June 9). 'Like sitting in a sauna': Heat waves cause misery in WA prisons.
Crosscut. https://crosscut.com/equity/2022/06/sitting-sauna-heat-waves-cause-misery-waprisons
Schanzenbau, D., Nun, R. Bauer, L., Breitwieser, A., Mumford, M., & Nantz, G. (2016). Twelve
facts about incarceration and prisoner reentry. The Hamilton Project.
https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/thp_20161020_twelve_facts_incarceration_prisoner_reentry.pdf
76
Schlosser, E. (1998, December). The prison-industrial complex. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrialcomplex/304669/
Seigel, M. (2018). Violence work: policing and power. Race & Class, 59(4), 15–
33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306396817752617
Shepler, B. (2019). A critique of the new ecological paradigm: Stewardship and a case study of
the Pacific Northwest logging industry. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State
College.
Sitthivong, F. (2023, March 31). On the fence line: The DOC is cutting peer-led education for
inmates. International Examiner. https://iexaminer.org/on-the-fence-line-the-doc-iscutting-peer-led-education-for-inmates/
Sokol, C. (2020, April 24). Washington DOC sues federal government over chemicals that
tainted food from Airway Heights prison. The Spokesman.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/apr/24/washington-doc-sues-federalgovernment-over-chemic/
Stone-Mediatore, Shari (2019). How America disguises its ciolence: Colonialism, mass
incarceration, and the need for resistant imagination. Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy, (5):1-20.
Suliman, N., & Einat, T. (2018). Does work stress change personalities: Working in prison as
personality-changing factor among correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior
45(5), 628-643.
Sustainability in Prisons Project. (n.d), SPP Past. http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/about/sppshistory/
Taylor, S. E.., and Crocker, Jennifer. (1981). Schematic Bases of Social Information Processing.
In T. E. Higgins, P.C Herman, M.P Zanna (Vol 1), Social Cognition (pp. 89- 131).
Routledge.
Timler, K., H. Brown, & C. Varcoe. (2019). Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a
prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 58(5), 444-463
United States Census Bureau. (2022). U.S. Census Bureau: Washington.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/WA
Washington Department of Corrections. (n.d). Mission, Strategic Measures & Budgets.
https://www.doc.wa.gov/about/agency/mission.htm.
77
Webb, T. (2016). Connecting environmental justice and prisons a critical look at social
movements, environment and mass incarceration. [Master’s thesis]. Olympia, The
Evergreen State College.
Weber, S. (2012). Environmental education in prison: A comparison of teaching methods and
their influence on inmate attitudes and knowledge of environmental topics. [Master’s
thesis]. Olympia, The Evergreen State College.
Wozniak, K. H. (2016). Perceptions of prison and punitive attitudes: test of the penal escalation
hypothesis. Criminal Justice Review 41(3), 352-371.
78
Appendices
Appendix A. Environmental Justice Principles adopted by Participants of the First National
People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit as presented in Mohai et al. 2009:
1. Environmental Justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity and the
interdependence of all species, and the right to be free from ecological destruction.
2. Environmental Justice demands that public policy be based on mutual respect and justice
for all peoples, free from any form of discrimination or bias.
3. Environmental Justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced, and responsible uses of
land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for humans and other
living things.
4. Environmental Justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing, extraction,
production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and nuclear testing that
threaten the fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food.
5. Environmental Justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic, cultural, and
environmental self-determination of all peoples.
6. Environmental Justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins, hazardous
wastes, and radioactive materials, and that all past and current producers be held strictly
accountable to the people for detoxification and the containment at the point of
production.
7. Environmental Justice demands the right to participate as equal partners at every level of
decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement
and evaluation.
8. Environmental Justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy work
environment without being forced to choose between an unsafe livelihood and
unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at home to be free from
environmental hazards.
9. Environmental Justice protects the right of victims of environmental injustice to receive
full compensation and reparations for damages as well as quality health care.
10. Environmental Justice considers governmental acts of environmental injustice a violation
of international law, the Universal Declaration On Human Rights, and the United Nations
Convention on Genocide.
11. Environmental Justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship of Native
Peoples to the
U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts, and covenants affirming
sovereignty and selfdetermination.
12. Environmental Justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies to clean up
and rebuild our
cities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring the cultural integrity of all our
communities, and
provided fair access for all to the full range of resources.
13. Environmental Justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed consent,
and a halt to the
79
testing of experimental reproductive and medical procedures and vaccinations on people
of color.
14. Environmental Justice opposes the destructive operations of multi-national corporations.
15. Environmental Justice opposes military occupation, repression and exploitation of lands,
peoples and cultures, and other life forms.
16. Environmental Justice calls for the education of present and future generations, which
emphasizes social
and environmental issues, based on our experience and an appreciation of our diverse
cultural perspectives.
17. Environmental Justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and consumer
choices to consume as little of Mother Earth’s resources and to produce as little waste as
possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to
insure the health of the natural world for present and future
generations.
80
Appendix B. Survey Questions
Thank you for participating in this research study! The goal of this survey and associated
optional interview is to collect information regarding how and if your thoughts on
environmentalism, incarceration, and career paths changed from working at SPP. Completing the
survey is optional and you may choose to skip any questions. The survey is divided into two
parts: perspective questions and demographic questions. Please feel free to contact me with any
questions or concerns— I’m happy to provide more information via email, Zoom, or phone.
(jennifer.bass@evergreen.edu)
By checking this box, I understand that all of my responses in this study are completely
confidential, and will be used only for research purposes. If I have any questions about this study
or want more information, I am free to contact: Jennifer.bass@evergreen.edu.
What was your coordinator position with the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP)?
How significantly did working for SPP influence your perspectives on incarceration?
Not at all significant
Slightly significant
Moderatly significant
Very Significant
Extremely Significant
If applicable, please describe how working as a coordinator with SPP influenced your
perspectives on incarceration.
How significantly did working for SPP influence your perspectives on environmentalism?
Not at all significant
Slightly significant
Moderatly significant
Very Significant
Extremely Significant
If applicable, please describe how working as a coordinator with SPP influenced your
perspectives on environmentalism.
How significantly did working for SPP influence your career path?
Not at all significant
Slightly significant
Moderatly significant
Very Significant
Extremely Significant
If applicable, please describe how working as a coordinator with SPP influenced your career path
Demographic Information
81
All questions on this survey are optional. Demographic data will be used to make cumulative
statements but will not be tied to individual responses or questions.
What is your age?
With which racial group (s) do you identify? Check all that apply. If you identify as another race
or ethnicity not listed below, please specify.
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin
Middle Eastern or North African
Native American or Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
White
Other
What gender best describes you?
Male
Female
Non-binary
Prefer not to answer
Other
82
Appendix C. Interview Questions
1. Tell me about your path to getting involved with SPP.
a. Which career paths were most intriguing to you when you applied to the program
and where do you currently work?
b. Prior to working with SPP, had you worked in environmental education or related
fields? Can you describe that experience?
2. Describe your experience working with the Sustainability in Prisons Project.
a. What was surprising to you about working with SPP?
b. What was your most and least favorite part of working with SPP?
3. Tell me about how working with SPP impacted your sense of environmentalism?
a. Do you consider incarceration an environmental issue?
b. How would you define environmentalism?
4. Did your work with SPP change your perceptions of the prison system and incarceration?
How?
a. Prior to coming to Evergreen and working with SPP, what were your perceptions
of the prison system in the United States?
83
Appendix D. Internal Conflict Quotes
Internal conflict was one of the most frequent codes. These quotes further describe the conflict
coordinators experienced and expand on Category 3: Experiences and Emotions. Several
quotes and survey responses that represent internal are not included in this table because they
include potentially identifiable information.
“I felt like I was working against my own morals while also feeling guilt for my bitterness
because there were now names and faces to people upholding this system. People I liked and
appreciated.”
“ I realized how complicated it is to actually make a difference, how much money and
coordination and passion it takes just to work on one listed species in one habitat, and how
much resistance there can be from establishments llike the military and corrections.
Conversely, the military and corrections did great things for conservation when they had the
right leaders in the right positions. So, it’s complicated.”
“These experiences made me grateful for the opportunities SPP gives incarcerated participants,
while also frustrated by the political blockages and limited leverage the organization has to
implement more meaningful change.”
“I think the prison system is quite flawed, but I realized how many positive things happen in
prison. There are beautiful things that happen there. I believe incarceration’s sole focus (after
safety) should be rehabilitation and healing”
“ Do we want to participate in a system that is corrupt and inextricably linked to the racist
criminal justice system? I mean no, we don’t but it exists. And that was something that we as
graduate students were constantly trying to figure out how to articulate. It was like we don’t
like this system, this system sucks, but it exists so we’re trying to make it less bad. And that’s
just kind of where we landed- for better or worse this exists and we’re going to work within it
as it exists.”
“There can be great intentions and really motivated sweet people making change but there is a
disconnect between people doing the work and people living in priosns and what they would
want change to look like. There is a complexity of well-intentioned prison programs.”
“The more time went on, I realized I could never be set up with the resources necessary to help
the incarcerated technicaisn I worked closely with in any meaningful capacity. Since there are
minimal safeguards to ensure a smooth and successful release and prevent recidivis within the
carceral system, I took on the emotional burden in truing to make up for these shortcomings,
which I could neve accomplish.”
“And I think SPP has a similar feeling in that we know that this is a necessary evil at the
moment but that we know that if we can move away from the prison system to difference
forms of helping people and not just hurting them, that would be ideal. So that’s a lot of where
I’m at now in terms of prisons and incarceration. I just think there are a lot better ways to do it.
I think the vast majority of people in prison are just repeating cycles of abuse they experienced
when they were younger.”
“ I don’t know. It’s just a huge mess and I really like working at SPP but I know folks didn’t
agree with it so that was something I struggled with for a little bit. I’m glad there are those
people who are going to bang on the window and fight for abolition but I’m also glad that SPP
exists and there are people who will go in and take an interest in these people that are pretty
muh hidden away from the rest of society that people forget about or don’t care about”
84
“And so it’s just more than anything this is complicated stuff and innovative projects and
solutions. And it is sort of like you can’t be an absolute. There are no absolutes or you can’t
rely on absolutes to make progress a lot of the time and that doesn’t mean you’re giving up
your values. But, it’s certainly like you have to have this sort of come to jesus with yourself,
like is this okay? What’s my values? It’s complicated for sure.”
“It’s not changing the system as a whole, it’s making the system, it’s making the experience of
individuals in the programs better and can change their lives for the better and it is a teaching
moment and can shift the thinking of the staff members and maybe that could chip away at the
system over time. But, it’s not making any big wide sweeping changes to stopping people
from being mass incarcerated in the first place and the racism and the systems that get people
into priosn. SPP isn’t having a major impact on that- and that’s frustrating. And at the same
time, something like SPP is of huge value and needed in our current system cause the reality is
that our current system exists and without SPP in Washington it would be much worse.”
“My least favorite part is that prison systems exist in the way that they do and that an
organization like SPP has to exist.”
“And having all these conflicting emotions the first time I went in and as like case managers
would show stories of crimes or incarcerated people would sometimes share what they didand sometimes I’d have reactions to that- like emotional reactions and at the same time have
empathy. Like all these layered emotions and it really brought home that teaching of both and
thinking or dialectic thinking. There can be so many truths that are real and I didn’t come to
that understanding immediately.”
“But then there is that whole conundrum of like I think the system is broken, I don’t think the
punishment system that we have is functional at all. But, I also have no idea what an
alternative would be. It’s like- I just try not to get into it personally because I have no answer
and I would just end up spinning.”
“…I feel that sort of covering up and pretending is so insidious and it was done by DOC and I
felt like SPP participated in it- I don’t know if I would say they are responsible for it though.
They didn’t create it- theh system, but I do think they participate it in a way and they
participate in the greenwashing of it where they make it look better, but it’s not better. Again,
it’s better for a select minority of people. I think that’s good- I don’t think SPP should like rip
out their programs and just be like not giving people the opportunities that they do get through
SPP.”
“SPP is part of the prison system. It makes conditions better for a small population of people.
But in no way does it challenge the prison system itself… I guess I was surprised. I thought
that there would be some sort of radical aspect of it- that it would be more um, at odds with the
DOC sustem.”
“I liked the whole mission of SPP and how they gave a lot of respect to the inamtes. It was
interesting. It was kind of an internal struggle a lot of the time because I didn’t really- I don’t
really have a high opinion of our whole prison system.”
85
