-
Title
-
Eng
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
-
Date
-
2017
-
Creator
-
Eng
Gilliom, Sadie
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
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
by
Sadie Gilliom
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2017
©2017 by Sadie Gilliom. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Sadie Gilliom
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Miranda Mellis, M.F.A.
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Insight into the Impacts of the Sustainability in Prisons Projects’ Western Pond Turtle
Programs on the Work Environment of Washington State Department of Corrections
Prison Staff
Sadie Gilliom
Imagine working in an environment where you were surrounded by grey walls, razor wire
and hundreds of people you were responsible for, some who could become violent.
Thinking about this work environment may increase your stress level. Correctional staff
have been shown to have high stress levels, which impacts their overall wellbeing and
thus has the potential to impact their work ethic and how they treat the residents living in
the prison. Contact with nature in the form of animals and plants has been shown to
increase the overall wellbeing of people. The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP)
brings nature in the form of animals and plants into prisons. In one animal based SPP
program, called the Western Pond Turtle (WPT) program, endangered turtles are
rehabilitated by trained prison residents and released back into the wild. This thesis
examines the impacts of the turtle program at Larch (Larch) and Cedar Creek Corrections
Center (Cedar Creek) on the work environment of correctional staff. The results of the
interviews indicate these programs have an overall positive impact on the work
environment of correctional staff through increased job satisfaction, decreased stress, and
increased prosocial behavior. Although the program had positive impacts overall, not
everyone in the prison is accepting of the program and there is much room for
improvement. This includes reducing the workload of the program, improving all round
communication, and taking a critical look at the scale of the programs versus the media
attention they attract. The potential for programs like the turtle program to positively
impact the work environment of correctional staff is clear, but a follow up quantitative
study comparing the staff members’ program involvement, before and after, in a variety
of different SPP programs should be pursued in order to clarify how nature programs
effectively improve the work environment and lower the stress of correctional staff.
Table of Contents
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………..…….viii
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………….……….ix
Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………...……….x
Public Disclosure Statement………………………………………………………………1
About the Author: A Reflection…………………………………………………………...2
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..8
Literature Review……………………………………………………………………..….12
Stress and the Prison Environment …………………………………………...…12
Stress Reduction in Prisons………………………………………………………14
Impacts of Nature: Vegetation and Forest Settings……………………………...15
Wellbeing…………………………………………………………….…..15
Prosocial…………………………………………………………….……16
Impacts of Nature: Animals……………………………………………….……..17
Wellbeing………………………………………………………….……..17
Safety and fear………………………………………………….………..19
Empathy……………………………………………………….…………20
Prosocial……………………………………………….…………………21
Learning………………………………………………………….………22
Nature and Animals in Prison……………………………………………..……..23
Sustainability in Prisons Project…………………………………..……..24
Western Pond Turtle Rehabilitation Program…………..….…….24
Research Question……………………………………………………….………………27
iv
Significance………………………………………………………………………………27
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………..28
Semi-structured interviews………………………………………………………28
Qualitative Research Rational……………………………………………………31
Qualitative Analysis…………………….…………….………………………….31
Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………..32
Pronouns and Terminology………………………………………………………32
Staff Wellbeing…………………………………………………………………..32
Leadership………………………………………………………………..33
Punitive to collaborative…………………………………………33
Stress reduction…………………………………………………..37
Chain reaction……………………………………………………41
Safety…………………………………………………………….45
Pride……………………………………………………………...46
LS conclusion…..………………………………………………..47
Direct staff……………………………………………………………….48
Punitive to collaborative…………………………………………48
Stress reduction and job satisfaction……………………………..51
Chain reaction……………………………………………………55
Safety…………………………………………………………….56
Job opportunities………………………………………………...58
Pride……………………………………………………………...59
DS conclusion…..………………………………………………..60
v
Indirect staff…………………………..………………………………….61
Punitive to collaborative…………………………………………61
Stress reduction and job satisfaction……………………………..63
Safety…………………………………………………………….66
Pride……………………………………………………………...70
LS conclusion…...………………………………………………..60
Staff wellbeing conclusion……………………………………………….71
Prosocial………………………………………………………………………….74
Leadership staff…………………………………………………………..74
Communication…………………………………………………..74
Relationships……………………………………………………..78
Contribution and empowerment…………………………………86
Empathy………………………………………………………….89
LS conclusion…………………………………………………….91
Direct staff……………………………………………………………….92
Relationships…………………………………………………….92
Contribution and empowerment………………………………..100
Empathy………………………………………………………...101
DS conclusion…………………………………………………..102
Indirect staff…………………………………………………………….102
Relationships……………………………………………………103
Contribution and empowerment………………………………..110
Empathy………………………………………………………...111
vi
IS conclusion……………………………………………………111
Prosocial conclusion……………………………………………………111
Constructive Criticism………………………………………………………….113
Full time sustainability position………………………………………..113
Increased staff inclusion………………………………………………..115
Increased communication………………………………………………117
Program expansion……………………………………………………..119
Facilitate continued change……………………………………………..121
Increased education……………………………………………………..122
Animals and nature for staff……………………………………………124
More community inclusion……………………………………………..125
Do not over do media attention (greenwashing)………..………………125
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...130
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………132
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Summary of Staff Wellbeing Impacts of the Turtle Program at Larch
Corrections Center ………………………………………………………………...….p. 72
Figure 2. Summary of the Staff Wellbeing Impacts of the Turtle Program at Cedar Creek
Corrections ………….……………………………………………………………..….p. 73
viii
List of Tables
Table 1. Simplified Summary of Notable Reported Prosocial Impacts of the Turtle
Program on Staff at both Prisons……………………………………………………….112
ix
Acknowledgements
The completion of this master’s thesis could not have been possible without the support
of many. Thank you to Washington Department of Corrections research review board for
making an exception in allowing me to complete my research. Thank you to the many
willing participants from the Larch and Cedar Creek Corrections Centers for providing
their valuable insight on the programs. Thank you to the Sustainability in Prisons Project
for your financial support, mentorship and your interest in consistently taking
constructive feedback and working to improve the programs for all involved. Thank you
to my wonderfully supportive peer review group and co-workers for struggling through
this challenging adventure as a team. Thank you to my friends and family, especially my
partner, for your unfaltering support and love during this challenging and rewarding
process. Thank you to my farm friends, Carlos and Melany, for providing a place of
recovery to play with goats and dig in the garden. Thank you to my animal companionsStar, Mo and Benjamin- for your stress relieving powers and much needed distraction.
Lastly, but not least, thank you to my reader- Miranda Mellis-for her support and
feedback.
x
Disclosure Statement
This research has been reviewed and approved by the Washington Department of
Corrections and The Evergreen State College. The author of this research is a volunteer
program evaluator and was not assigned this research task by the Washington State
Department of Corrections or the Sustainability in Prisons Project (a partnership between
The Evergreen State College and the Washington State Department of Corrections).
1
About the Author: A Reflection
Every person has biases based on their life experiences. This includes every
researcher. I feel it is important for the researcher to acknowledge any biases, self-reflect
on those biases and inform the reader. This allows the reader to understand the
perspective the research is being approached from. It also allows the reader to understand
the steps the author went through to acknowledge their biases and understand the possible
impacts of how the author either embraced and/or overcame them.
Before I go on to explain my perspective going into this research, I want to
address one blatant bias in this research. As an employee of the Sustainability in Prisons
Project (SPP), one may think this provides a bias to the research which cannot be
overcome. On the contrary, I feel this is a great advantage in this research. All of the
interview participants in this study were familiar with me through my work with SPP and
I had gained rapport with them. They could relate to me because I worked in the same
prison they do and at the same time I was viewed as an outside party because I am not a
typical prison employee. Therefore I was familiar and possibly considered less
intimidating than if one of their co-workers or a complete outsider was interviewing
them. I also feel that I have a better understanding of what staff view as important and
what might impact the results of the interviews because of my work in the prison
environment. This allows me to gain access to more and better data. If your interviewees
trust you to keep their information confidential, they will share more information with
you.
2
The following is a description of my personal perspective as a result of my life
experiences and my current work with the Sustainability in Prisons Project as the
program coordinator for the Western Pond Turtle Program.
Growing up in Washington State surrounded by wilderness, I spent my childhood
hiking, catching frogs, watching birds, building forts and foraging for wild berries and
mushrooms. Nature is a place to retreat, find solitude and play. However, nature can
also be something to fear. Volcanoes, earthquakes and extreme weather kill thousands of
people each year. These complexities of nature can be used to understand our lives. Like
a rainbow after a thunderstorm, there is always beauty, even in the most adverse times.
People in prison can relate to these complexities of life, as it is often a
complicated and challenging life that brings people to prison. Prisons can be filled with
feelings of guilt, fear, stress, anxiety, depression, disassociation, suffering, anger and
manipulation. This brings about a negative energy that relays out to the atmosphere of the
entire facility. In other words, it is not just the prisoners who are impacted, it is
potentially everyone- including the families that visit, the staff members who work there
on a daily basis and the communities where the previously incarcerated people are
released to.
On the other hand, prison can also be a place of rehabilitation. In the prisons I
have worked at, in Washington State, there is community, friendship, redemption,
learning, self discovery and love. Like the complexities found in nature, there is
negativity and positivity in these prison settings. However, the negative often outweighs
the positive. The key to nature’s beauty is balance; the balance between birth and death,
destruction and growth, all of the organisms in an ecosystem supporting each other in a
3
complex web of life, and a balance of energy - as it can neither be created nor destroyed.
There will always be negativity in a prison, as the negative aspects of life are what got
people there and dealing with these aspects of life is part of the rehabilitation process.
The key to a healthy prison environment, like the key to a healthy natural environment,
is balancing negativity with positivity to create the healthiest and most rehabilitative
environment as possible for everyone. This can also be referred to as creating a
sustainable environment–one that does not fall into one side or the other, but keeps a
balance.
When nature is balanced and sustainable, it is healthy. Understanding this can
help one to understand the need for sustainability in one’s own life. In this way, nature
can be used as a form of rehabilitation inside a prison and can promote balance in the
general atmosphere of the prison. Through their endangered species conservation
programs, the Sustainability in Prisons Project - a partnership between The Evergreen
State College and the Washington Department of Corrections - has the potential to do
this.
Embracing the fact that human action can be destructive enough to put an entire
population of a species at the brink of extinction and choosing to counteract those actions
empowers people to make a difference-bringing about positivity and hope in the face of
extinction. This power of individual action to make positive change is just the beginning.
Once one can acknowledge the power of individual action, one opens the door to
embracing the greater power of community action.
Through the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP), incarcerated people, trained
as residents in the program, care for endangered turtles in two prisons in Washington
4
State, in an attempt to help bring the species back from the face of extinction. The
residents in the program are exposed to an imbalance and are given the opportunity to
play a role in bringing nature back into balance. They are contributing to the recovery of
a species and are given an opportunity to relay this recovery to their own lives. They are
also given a quiet space to work - away from the general population of the prison - and a
multitude of practical skills and experiences that can be used to obtain a job and gain
college credit. I believe this positivity ripples out to other incarcerated people, their
families, prison media - although this can be seen as green washing at times, and the staff
working in the prison. (For more on greenwashing, please refer to the section on green
washing in the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section under ‘Results’.)
Understanding the balance of nature and its ecosystems and assisting in the
recovery of an endangered species is the bigger picture of these programs. I believe we
also have to acknowledge the relationships being built between the animals involved in
the programs and the residents in the program. Personally, I find great joy in rescuing
and rehabilitating sick, injured and homeless animals. I have rehabilitated a wide variety
of injured and sick animals from frogs and turtles to goats and bald eagles. My
experiences with these animals helped make me into the person I am. There is something
healing in being able to make a sick or injured animal healthy again; especially animals
that are able to be released back into the wild.
Such experience in nurturing increases empathy; not just towards animals, but
also towards people. Empathy is an invaluable and rehabilitative ability for incarcerated
people to gain in prison. Empathy allows one to take a step back and put oneself in
someone else’s shoes. I believe this has the potential to increase prosocial behaviors in
5
the prison setting and could contribute to the building of healthy relationships inside and
outside of prison.
I am not just talking about incarcerated people, but also the staff who are involved
in the programs. Some correctional staff are able to participate in educational
opportunities, handling the animals and releasing the animals back into their natural
environment. Staff who have the opportunity to work with the residents in the program
on a regular basis may be able to gain some of the benefits of working with animals and
nature. Prisons are based on a system of hierarchy and control. Staff and prisoners do
not typically work together. Correctional staff working in SPP programs have the unique
experience of working collaboratively with incarcerated people. Due to the above factors,
I believe these programs positively impact the overall atmosphere of the prisons. On the
other hand, I also understand that there are issues with workload and staff shortage in the
prison facility. If the programs take up too much of staff time, they could have a negative
impact on the atmosphere of the facility.
Another benefit to working with animals is their ability to reduce stress.
Domestic pets and other animals, such as turtles, have shown to reduce stress through
handling and petting. I believe the mere act of interacting with the animals in these
programs may reduce stress in the people directly involved and this positive energy may
be passed on to co-workers and peers.
On the other hand, I am also aware of the stressors involved in animal care and
rehabilitation. Being responsible for the life and wellbeing of an animal, especially an
endangered animal, is a feeling I have a great deal of experience with. It is both
rewarding and scary. One worries constantly: “Are the animals OK? Should I check on
6
them one more time before I leave? Am I sure I locked that door properly?” The
correctional staff involved in the endangered species programs in prison may not feel this
direct sense of responsibility for the animals, since the residents in the program are the
animal caretakers. However, those staff directly involved in the programs may feel the
stress of making sure the residents in the program are doing their jobs.
In addition to my experience and views on nature and animals, I have always had
a fascination with the human mind and a particular interest in understanding why there
are underserved populations in society and how to reach them. I have a deep compassion
and empathy for people who have been overlooked or who struggle with fitting into the
societal norms. Part of the reason for this is because I can relate, on some level, being a
young female bodied, gender nonconforming person who is not always accepted or
welcomed by those around me. Another part is that I have loved ones who struggle with
post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. These interests and personal ties with
mental health have motivated me to help people who are struggling with their wellbeing.
Prison is well known to be a stressful living environment. However, a not as
widely acknowledged fact is that prison is also a stressful work environment. Through
working in prisons, I have witnessed some of the stressors and the results of the stress
that correctional staff experience. The wellbeing of the correctional staff is not only
important for them and their families, but also important for the safety of the prison and
the incarcerated people living there. The Sustainability in Prisons Project’s Western
Pond Turtle Program is one example of a program that is capable of improving the work
environment of the prisons and reducing the stress of the correctional staff.
All of the above beliefs, perspectives that have come from my life experiences,
7
especially my experiences working for the Sustainability in Prisons Project as the
Western Pond Turtle Program Coordinator, have led me to have obvious biases to this
research on the impacts of these endangered species programs on the work environment
of correctional staff. These biases have both benefitted me and challenged me in my
research and I hope you will find that I address these biases in a satisfactory manner
throughout this thesis - especially in the development of my methods and the analysis of
my interviews. Despite and because of these biases, I think you will find the results of
this research to be an important first step in understanding how nature and animals can be
used to improve the work environment of correctional staff and the safety and
rehabilitative environment of prisons.
Introduction
A heavy door clicks and you enter a yard surrounded by 3 rows of razor wire and grey
walls. You walk past hundreds of people all dressed the same. You are in charge of
these people. If any violence breaks out, it is your responsibility to help stop it. Do you
feel stressed? Stress experienced by correctional staff has been of particular concern and
has been well researched. Stress in the prison work environment has been shown to
cause high blood pressure (Morgan, 2009; Graham, 2013), depression (Liu Liu et al,
2013), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Spinaris et al, 2012), domestic violence
(Valentine, Oehme and Martin, 2012), high turnover rates (Finn, 2000; Morgan, 2009),
substance abuse (Lambert, Kelley and Hogan, 2013; Spinaris et al, 2013) and a decrease
in safety due to a decrease in work quality (Finn, 2000). This lengthy list points to an
urgent need to reduce the stress of correctional staff in order to increase the safety of
8
prisons, the morale of the facilities and the wellbeing of the correctional staff and the
residents they interact with.
There have been varying attempts to reduce stress in correctional staff (Finn et al,
2000; McCraty et al, 2009; Schwartz and Levitas, 2012). Attempts have ranged from
adding anonymous counseling programs (Finn, 2000) to partnering with a non-profit that
brings a professional training program into the prison to teach officers how to deal with
stress before it happens (Finn, 2000; McCraty et al, 2009). These programs have all been
successful to some degree, but the programs lack uniformity between prisons (Finn,
2000). Funding issues and short-staffing prevent many prisons from adopting more
intensive training programs and can only provide counseling services after a stressful
event has occurred (Finn, 2000; McCraty et al, 2009). Investigation into ways the overall
work environment can be made less stressful without added expenses and staff time is
imperative.
The addition of nature, in the form of plants and wildlife, to the prison
environment may be one potential way to reduce stress. However, the impact of
introducing nature into the correctional staff’s work environment has scarcely been
researched. One unpublished doctorate thesis by Waitkus in 2004, asked correctional
officers how a new garden in the San Quentin State Prison impacted them. This study
focused on the impacts the garden had on incarcerated people, but one of the staff
members did report a decrease in stress due to the inmates being busier and less likely to
get into trouble. This points to the possibility of nature programs improving the work
environment of correctional staff.
Outside of prison, nature, defined as plants and/or forests, has been shown to
9
increase overall wellbeing (Kaplan and Kaplan; 1995) and decrease anxiety in the
workplace (Chang and Chen, 2005). Nature has also been shown to increase prosocial
behavior (Weinstein et al, 2009; Zhang et al, 2014) which may have an effect on
relationships in the work environment.
Inside of prisons, nature defined as animals, has been shown to be correlated with
lowering recidivism rates in dog and horse programs (Myers et al, 2004). Dog programs
specifically have been said to increase self-esteem, provide job skills and reduce costs to
prisons as a response to reduced recidivism rates (Myers et al, 2004). The impact of
these programs on correctional staff has yet to be addressed directly. One can ponder on
the possible stress reduction of seeing fewer inmates return, but more research must be
done.
Outside of prison, dogs have been shown to decrease the feeling of loneliness
(Banks & Banks, 2002), increase prosocial behavior (Beetz et al, 2012; Jackson, 2010),
reduce stress and anxiety (Barker & Dawson, 1998; Lass-Hennemann et al, 2014; ) lower
blood pressure (Beetz et al, 2012), decrease symptoms in psychiatric patients (Beetz et al
2012), and decrease cortisol levels (Odendaal, 2000). Much less research has been carried
out on the impacts of other animals. A few studies have been done on the impact of the
relationship between zoo visitors and zoo animals. This relationship has been shown to
increase interest in conservation and sense of connectedness to nature (Clayon, Fraser &
Saunders, 2008), and one study showed that viewing zoo animals increased feelings of
beauty, respect and wonder (Myers et al, 2004). The above research shows that
relationships with animals have the potential to increase wellbeing, but what about the
less researched animals, such as the turtles that will be the focus of this study? The
10
research is limited. Only one study of particular interest to this research was found that
shows equal and significant anxiety reduction between petting and holding rabbits and
petting and holding turtles (Shiloh, Sorek and Terkel, 2003).
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) provides the opportunity to examine
the relationship between nature, defined as wildlife and plants, and correctional staff.
SPP is a partnership between The Evergreen State College (TESC) and the Washington
State Department of Corrections (WADOC) that brings nature into prisons. This ever
growing partnership now has sustainability programs in all 12 prisons in Washington
State and is spreading in the US and internationally. Previous studies of programs like
these have focused on the skills the inmates have gained from the programs and if the
programs affect recidivism rates. Very few studies have investigated the impacts of
animal and plant programs on the DOC prison staff. Understanding these impacts will
bring insight into how SPP programs may affect staff, secondarily to inmates. In
addition, these insights will lead to the knowledge of how SPP programs may be used or
adjusted in order to positively impact the wellbeing of correctional staff and thus increase
the safety of the prison environment.
This study focuses on the investigation of whether or not and how particular
programs of SPP, specifically the Western Pond Turtle (WPT) programs, impact the work
environment and relationships in the work environment of correctional staff. This study
reveals new ways to increase wellbeing in this stress susceptible job, spread the
popularity of programs like these and informs SPP on areas for potential improvement.
The findings motivate a step in the right direction in decreasing stress and in turn,
increasing the safety and wellbeing of the prison staff and the prison as a whole.
11
In order to answer the following research question, I interviewed correctional staff
involved in a western pond turtle program at Larch Corrections Center (Larch) and a
western pond turtle program at Cedar Creek Corrections Center (Cedar Creek). My
question was, do SPP’s Western Pond Turtle Programs impact the work environment of
WADOC Prison staff? If so, how do these programs impact staff wellbeing, prosocial
behavior and relationships between staff and inmates, and the general atmosphere of the
facility?
Now, allow me to take you on an adventure through the background research in
order to lead you to some insight into the importance of this thesis research. This will
leave you with a better understanding of correctional staff wellbeing, impacts of plants
and animals on humans in situations outside of prisons, the particular nature and animal
programs that are currently going on inside of prisons and finally the particulars of the
WPT programs at Larch and Cedar Creek Corrections Centers. This background research
enlightens the reader on how the turtle program might impact the correctional staff and
thus will be a helpful guide through the results of this thesis.
Literature Review
Stress and the Prison Environment
Correctional staff members have the heavy responsibility of keeping the safety and
security of prisons for themselves, their co-workers and the incarcerated people in their
care. The responsibility of so many people alone could place stress on an individual. Add
the impacts of working in the atmosphere of a prison and the imminent threat of violence
and the stressors compound. The stressors involved in working in a prison have been
shown to impact staff wellbeing. Without wellbeing, how are the prison employees
12
expected to be able to keep the safety and security of prisons effectively? This problem is
well known and therefore, in 2000, the National Department of Justice (NDJ) created a
summary of the causes, impacts and potential solutions to stress in the correctional work
environment (Finn, 2000). The NDJ having interest and putting resources into creating
such a review shows the importance of this issue.
In the review from the NDJ, Finn identified the major causes of stress as inmate
violence, inmate manipulation of staff, coworker conflict, negative media attention, poor
pay, too much overtime and sexual harassment. Lambert, Hogan and Altheimer in 2010
also identified work-family conflict as a contributing factor. They showed family issues
at home can cause stress at work and too much overtime can cause additional stress
because of limitation of family time.
These stressors have been shown to contribute to high blood pressure (Finn, 2000;
Graham, 2013; Morgan, 2009), high turnover rates (Finn, 2000; Morgan, 2009), domestic
violence (Valentine, Oehme and Martin, 2012) increased amount of sick leave taken
(Finn, 2000; Morgan, 2009), drug and alcohol abuse (Lambert, Kelley and Hogan, 2013;
Spinaris et al, 2012), and job burnout (Lambert, Hogan and Altheimer, 2010; Lambert,
Kelley and Hogan, 2013). In other words, the high stress work environment can be
detrimental to the physical and emotional health of the correctional staff. This decrease
in wellbeing can also lead to poor work quality, which, in turn, can lead to decreased
prison safety (Finn, 2000).
In addition, long term exposure to stress can cause job burnout. Job burnout can
result in seclusion, poor work performance, an increased likelihood of poor work
relationships, work-family conflict, suicide, disability retirement, alcohol and drug abuse,
13
and a feeling of detachment in correctional staff (Lambert, Hogan and Altheimer, 2010).
Job burnout is of particular concern in correctional staff because of their job to maintain
the safety of the prison (Finn, 2000). If they fail to perform their duties well, they can
endanger themselves, their co-workers and/or the incarcerated people in their care.
The awareness of the health and wellbeing issues in correctional officers in
particular affecting prison safety increased in 2012, when Spinaris et al. performed a
nationwide study on 3599 correctional officers. Twenty-seven percent of the officers in
the study suffered from symptoms of PTSD. The officers with PTSD symptoms had
higher rates of substance abuse, stress, anxiety, depression and a general low satisfaction
of life. Spinaris et al. showed this as a particular concern in custodial correctional
officers that witnessed violent incidents. It is therefore important to understand how
prisons can decrease the rate of violence in both inmates and staff.
Stress Reduction in Prisons
Several programs have been implemented in prisons to address the serious issue of stress
in correctional staff. These programs include: training of staff in stress reduction skills,
counseling for staff, counseling for staff families, and post-crisis counseling (Finn, 2000;
Schwarz and Levitas, 2012). One example of an impactful prison stress reduction
training program was started by a non-profit organization called HeartMath, who created
a program called Power to Change Performance. This program included teaching the
correctional staff to use a series of techniques to refocus and restructure emotions related
to stress or trauma. Researchers found that the program lowered cholesterol levels,
glucose levels, heart rate, blood pressure and helped participants have a generally more
positive attitude (McCraty et al, 2009). Correctional institutions taking advantage of
14
outside resources like this demonstrates one way the Department of Corrections has taken
action in reducing stress.
However, models like these are difficult to implement in many correctional
institutions because of the time and cost associated with the trainings (Price, 2010). Many
prisons are short staffed and are experiencing high turnover rates. More studies need to
be done in order to understand how smaller, less costly changes in the prison
environment could reduce stress.
This study is specifically related to a program in the Washington State
Department of Corrections. In Washington state, there are a few options available for
correctional staff who are experiencing work related stress. There is an anonymous
hotline that staff can call into to talk to someone about what they are going through, there
are WADOC counselors who the staff members can make an appointment to talk to free
of charge and there is a trauma debriefing that happens after a staff member experiences a
traumatic event. The trauma debriefing is approximately one hour long and the staff
members usually go back to their daily work activities immediately after the briefing.
According to a conversation with a previous WADOC leader, funding is an issue in
providing more intensive resources for staff members.
Impacts of Nature: Vegetation and Forest Settings
Wellbeing. Abundant literature provides evidence that exposure to nature
improves overall wellbeing (Kaplan, 1995; Russell et al, 2013; Zhang et al, 2014). For
example, in 1982, Ulrich found that scenes of nature, defined as vegetation and forest
settings, had a more positive impact on a study subject’s emotional state than did scenes
15
of urban settings. In 1984, Ulrich showed evidence of reduced recovery time for patients
with a window scene of nature versus a window scene of a brick wall.
These early studies led to researchers investigating the impacts of nature on
persons exposed to places that can cause psychological distress. People’s work
environment was one stressor that has been examined, as most people spend a great deal
of time in their work environment and work can be a large source of stress (Chang and
Chen, 2005).
For example, in 2005, Chang and Chen studied the reactions of students to
different office spaces. The monitored participants observed pictures of office spaces
with varying degrees of nature exposure and one office space with no nature exposure.
The participants displayed less anxiety with a window view of nature than a window
view of an urban scene. This study shows promise for how nature can be used as a tool
to reduce stress in a work environment.
Prosocial behavior. Nature not only has been shown to improve emotional states,
but has also been shown to increase prosocial behaviors such as helpfulness and an
increased concern for others (Weinstein et al, 2009; Zhang et al, 2014). In a three part
study, Weinstein et al. (2009) demonstrated that the study subjects immersed in nature
tended to be more generous and less selfish than those who were immersed in urban
scenes. The studies determined this by conducting surveys before and after exposure to
nature. More recently, in 2014, Zhang et al found that more beautiful nature has stronger
impacts on helpfulness, fairness and likelihood to share.
Since work relationships inside the prison serve as one of the major causes of
stress for correctional staff (Fenn, 2000; Yang, Brown and Moon, 2011), the link between
16
nature and prosocial behavior may have an interesting impact on relationships in the
prison environment. Increased prosocial behavior could have positive impacts on
relationships, such as causing the staff to be fairer with the inmates and the staff being
more helpful towards other staff. However, prosocial behavior may have a negative
impact by causing a staff member to drop their guard and allow for inmate manipulation
by being too friendly.
Impacts of Nature: Animals
Wellbeing. Pets have been used for therapeutic purposes since at least 1860,
when Florence Nightingale recorded her use of animals with patients who required longterm care (Nightingale, 1969). Pets and trained therapy animals have been shown to
improve both mental and physical health in humans. Dogs are by far, the most studied
animals in the research supporting these claims. Dogs have been shown to decrease
loneliness in elderly people in assisted living centers (Banks & Banks, 2002), reduce
stress (Barker & Dawson ,1998; Lass-Hennemann et al, 2014; Odendaal, 2000), lower
blood pressure (Jackson, 2012; Odendaal, 2000), increase survival rate after a heart attack
(Jackson, 2010),and to decrease depression and anxiety (Jackson, 2010; Odendaal, 2000).
Dogs are researched most of all because they are well-known and common household
pets and therapy animals. We have a long history with dogs, but what about other
species?
The research on other species of pets is sparse (Hosey & Melfi, 2014), but there
are a few. In 2003 Shiloh et al compared the stress relieving abilities of fluffy pets, scaly
pets and stuffed animals after the research subject was exposed to a stressful stimulus.
The fluffy pet used was a rabbit and the scaly pet used was a turtle. The turtle and the
17
rabbit both significantly reduced reported stress levels and were shown to be equally
effective in reducing stress. The presence of a stuffed animal alone did not significantly
impact stress levels. This study is one of few studies done on unusual pets and it is of
particular interest to this thesis research, the programs being evaluated in this research
involve caring for turtles. However, the turtles in the prison program are not considered
pets and are not handled often. This leads to the question; does just the mere presence of
an animal or viewing of wild free roaming or caged animals have impacts on human
health?
The impacts of viewing free roaming wildlife on human health are difficult to
study for reasons such as the unpredictability of the wildlife. There is anecdotal evidence
that such encounters, at the very least, create a sense of awe and adventure. For example,
in 2004 Valentine & Birtles spoke of the potential impacts of wildlife viewing:
Humans often have extremely intense and deeply personal experiences through
wildlife watching and this may lead to outcomes that are extraordinarily in their
impacts on people’s lives.
However, little to no research has been done on human health impacts. Therefore, we
look to the perhaps more pertinent literature to this study, which includes the impacts of
aquariums and interactions with captive zoo animals. For example, in 2003 Barker et al
found that hospital waiting rooms with aquariums reduced anxiety in psychiatric patients
versus waiting rooms without aquariums. This directs our attention to the potential for
the presence of the turtles in the tanks at the prisons to possibly reduce anxiety in the
residents in the program and staff who spend time in the turtle area.
More research needs to be done to fully understand the impacts of a wider variety
of species (Valentine and Birtles, 2004), such as the turtles involved in this thesis
18
research, however the existing research on the ability of many animals and animal
encounters to improve mental and/or physical wellbeing of humans shows the potential
for the turtles to improve human wellbeing.
Safety and fear. Ensuring a safe prison environment is on top of the priority list
for correctional staff members. Fear is an emotion often experienced in prisons whether it
is coming from a staff member or a resident concerned for their wellbeing. How could
fear and safety play into the impacts the turtle programs have on correctional staff?
Not everyone experiences animals in a positive way and not every human-animal
interaction is positive. Some people have had negative and even traumatizing
experiences with animals and thus experience fear towards them. For example, in the
research previously mentioned which showed that pets in nursing homes reduced
loneliness, Banks and Banks in 2002 had 8 residents refuse to participate in the study due
to their fear of dogs. According to the Mental Health Foundation, fear can cause many
physiological effects, including increased heart rate, nausea, and dizziness (“Fear”,
2015). This is an important consideration for this study in particular. If a staff member is
afraid of reptiles, this would have an impact on how the programs affect them.
Secondly, if a staff member is uninformed about the program at hand, they may
have concerns about disease. In working with wild animals, these are legitimate
concerns, as there has been an increase in diseases in wild animals around the world
(Daszak et al, 2000). However, there is little to no concern of zoonotic diseases in the
animals in the turtle programs.
On another note, pets have also been shown to increase feelings of safety
(Odendaal, 2000). This would most likely not be the case if the person at hand is scared
19
of the pet, but it could increase feelings of safety in a prison environment through having
animals present for those without fear.
Finally, a more complicating factor in animals and the concern for safety and fear,
is the impact of the emotions of the humans on the animals. In 2009, Carlstead found
that a decrease in job satisfaction in zookeepers was linked to an increase in fear
responses of the animals. What about the possibility of staff members or residents in the
programs with negative emotions impacting the animals and thus impacting the
experience of the people around them? This may be subtle, but merits consideration.
Empathy. One way in which animals may be able to increase the safety of
prisons is through nurturing the feeling of empathy. Animal programs have shown to
increase feelings of empathy through nurturing and caring for something other than
themselves. For example, in 2003 Strimple found that a horse program in a prison
successfully taught incarcerated people how to care and trust. If incarcerated people are
learning to nurture and care, this could potentially decrease the likelihood of those people
being violent, which could in turn decrease the stress of the correctional staff.
In addition, it is possible that the correctional staff who have spent time with the
animals in the program build connections with the animals. This could increase the
concern for the animals and their wellbeing. In 2009, Clayton et al found that zoo
visitors had increased concern for the wellbeing of the animals after just one experience
with the animals, such as looking them in the eyes. If this alone can have an impact on a
zoo visitor, there is a possibility that the correctional staff involved in the programs could
be increasing their feelings of empathy and thus increasing their care for the wellbeing of
20
animals, which may expand to the wellbeing of the incarcerated people they are in charge
of.
Prosocial Behavior. Furthermore, interacting with animals and caring for animals
does not only increase feelings of empathy, but also promotes social behavior. Doghuman relationships are an excellent and well studied example of this. Imagine how
giving an anti-social person a pet dog might change their behavior. They would now be
required to go outside in order to walk their dog. People walking by naturally comment,
initiating a conversation that may have never happened. Pet dogs have been shown to
increase their human’s community participation, encourage others around them to be
more social and get outside and have been shown to increase their human’s confidence in
performing certain behaviors (Jackson, 2010). In 2000, Odendaal sought physiological
evidence of the impacts of human-dog interactions. Based on the physiological results,
such as an increase in oxytocin, they found that a positive human-dog interaction resulted
in increased attention seeking behavior. This means that one positive human-dog
interaction increased the desire to be social.
In a prison setting, this could have major impacts on the social life inside and outside
the prison. However, for this thesis we are looking at the impacts of turtles, not dogs.
What about other species? Again, we can begin to find the answer by looking at research
that has been done with zoo animals. Zoos have been found to instigate conversations
among visitors (Clayton et al, 2009), bring people out to give their children the
experience (Falk, 2006) and even provide a place for teenagers to bond over their fear of
an animal (Clayton et al, 2009). If the result of the relationship between the animals in
the prison programs is somewhere in between the high social impact of dogs and the
21
conversational stimulation of zoo animals, one could imagine the possible impacts in a
typically anti-social (in the case of the resident-staff relationships) prison setting.
Learning. Animals have been shown to increase curiosity and an interest in learning
in zoo visitors. In 2009, Clayton et al studied the impacts of viewing zoo animals on the
visitors at a zoo. They found that viewing the animals not only had the potential to
develop a connection with the animals, but also left visitors with an interest in learning
more about the animal and how to help the animal. Clayton et al also mentioned that
there seems to be a difference between zoo visitors and the general public. The zoo
visitor might have a preexisting interest in animals and thus be prone to wanting to learn
more about them. The closeness of the visitor to the animal also has an impact on the
visitor’s reaction. In 2014, Powell & Bullock found that the closer the animal encounter
the zoo visitor experienced the greater connection the visitor felt towards the animal.
This may mean that staff members involved in the turtle program in the prison
may see an increase in their interest in learning, particularly after a close interaction with
the turtles. However, this may depend on a particular staff member’s level of preexisting
interest in animals. Therefore, the staff members with the closest interactions with the
turtles and the greatest interest in animals would be expected to have the greatest
connection with the animals and greatest increase in an interest to learn.
In addition to increasing curiosity and interest in learning in zoo visitors, animals
have also been shown to increase the attention to a teacher in a classroom. For example,
in 2012, Beetz et al found the presence of a dog in a 1st grade classroom increased the
attention given to the teacher. If a turtle has the potential to increase attention as well,
this could mean there is a potential for both the residents in the program and the staff
22
involved to give the partners and students who come in to teach more attention than they
would in a normal classroom.
Nature & Animals in Prisons
Nature programs in prisons throughout the United States encompass inmate gardening,
composting, worm bins, raising endangered species, caring for dogs and cats, propagating
endangered plants and more. All of these nature programs focus on the rehabilitation of
inmates, but overlook the possible stress reducing impacts on correctional staff.
Likewise, the majority of the studies done on these programs have been directed toward
the impacts on the residents (Ulrich and Nadkarni, 2009; Waitkus, 2004). For example, in
a review of the history of animal programs in prisons in 2003, Strimple found that animal
programs have shown to reduce recidivism rates and teach life enhancing skills to the
incarcerated people, but does not explore how these impacts may benefit the staff
members by minimizing the frustration of watching incarcerated people consistently
leave and return to prison.
Only one study found in this review- a doctoral thesis by the founder of the
Insight Garden Project- examined the impacts of installing a garden in San Quentin State
Prison on correctional officers. This study pointed towards the possibility of stress
reduction because one staff member reported reduced stress. This particular staff member
found that the increased busyness of the inmates in the garden kept the inmates out of
trouble and thus made the staff member’s job easier (Waitkus, 2004). The lack of data on
staff members underscores the need to conduct more studies that look into the impact of
nature in prisons on the prison staff.
23
The Sustainability in Prisons Project. The Sustainability in Prisons Project
(SPP) started as a partnership between The Evergreen State College (TESC) and the
Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) in 2003. The partnership has
grown to include organizations such as the Center for Natural Lands Management,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Zoo,
Woodland Park Zoo, and Northwest Trek Wildlife Park (Trivett et al, 2015). The
mission of the Sustainability in Prisons Project is to “bring science and nature into
prisons” (Trivett et al, 2015). Programs include raising the endangered Taylour’s
checkerspot butterfly, rehabilitating western pond turtles, aquaculture using tilapia to
provide nutrients to crops, beekeeping and more. These programs could not succeed
without the help of correctional staff. Correctional staff provide a range of roles in the
programs, from escorting visitors to the program location to training and supervising the
inmates in the program operation. Staff members also experience hands-on involvement
in growing plants and raising endangered animals with the inmates.
This thesis research is a case study of the Sustainability in Prisons Project’s
Western Pond Turtle (WPT) Programs at Larch and Cedar Creek Corrections Centers.
These programs both involve rehabilitating an endangered turtle suffering from a shell
disease.
Western Pond Turtle Rehabilitation Program. The historical population of WPT
in Washington State had declined drastically over time due to overharvesting for food,
loss of habitat and invasive species. Extirpated from most of their range in Washington
State, WPT were listed as a state endangered species in the 1990s. The Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Woodland Park Zoo (WPZ) and Oregon
24
Zoo (OZ) started a head start program in the 1990s to help bring the population back up
in the wild. This program collects the eggs from the nests, hatches them in zoos and
raises the hatchlings in the zoos until they are a size that is big enough to protect them
from being swallowed by an invasive bullfrog. The population is successfully growing
larger, but another setback came along the way. In the early 2000s the shells of the adult
turtles started to have lesions appear in them. This disease became known as Ulcerative
Shell Disease (USD). The cause of USD is yet unknown and research is in progress to try
gain a better understanding of the disease. In the mean time, a team of biologists,
zookeepers and veterinarians is working on developing an effective treatment for the
adult turtles suffering from the disease. This is where the prisons became a part of turtle
recovery team. WDFW expressed a need to SPP for a space to house the endangered
turtles with shell disease to give the shells time to heal in a clean and warm environment.
The turtles suffering from the shell disease receive acute care from partnering
veterinarians. They are then sent to the prisons, where the trained residents in the
program care for and monitor the turtles until the shells are healed and the animals are
ready to be released.
The WPT program started at Cedar Creek Corrections Center (Cedar Creek) in
2012 and moved to Larch Corrections Center (Larch) in December of 2015. The basic
structure of the two programs is similar; however there are some differences in how the
programs are run. There is an SPP program coordinator, a graduate student from TESC
and an employee of SPP, who checks in on the program, communicates and coordinates
between all partners involved and provides training and educational opportunities to the
residents in both programs. However, due to the distance from TESC to Larch, the
25
coordinator is only able to go out to Larch once per month, whereas they go out to Cedar
Creek once per week. Therefore, Larch receives less educational opportunities than Cedar
Creek.
Educational opportunities at both Cedar Creek and Larch include reading science
journal articles and seminaring on them, practicing public speaking, discussing readings
on climate change and other science topics and going on field trips to release the turtles
and participate in field research. In addition, partners come in to visit once per month to
check up on the turtles at each facility, such as veterinarians and WDFW biologists who
teach the residents in the program and the staff about the recovery efforts, research and
other facts about the species. Other professionals also come in to tour the programs every
once in awhile and these people bring learning opportunities as well. Recently, an
environmental journalism professor writing a book on turtles took a tour of the turtle
program at Larch and interviewed the residents in the program for his book.
The other difference between the Larch and Cedar Creek programs is the
difference in who supervises the residents in the program and assists with coordinating
visitor clearances and communication between the residents in the program and the SPP
student coordinator. This person is referred to as the SPP Liaison. The SPP Liaison at
Cedar Creek is a case manager-also known as a classifications counselor- who volunteers
to take on extra responsibilities on top of their case manager duties. The SPP liaison at
Larch is a staff member whose job includes managing all of the sustainability programs at
the facility as well as assisting in the protocols for the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA). This difference changes the way the workload of the turtle program is
26
perceived and thus has the potential to cause a difference between the wellbeing of the
staff members in the SPP Liaison position at Larch and at Cedar Creek.
The other difference between the programs is the location of the turtle building on
the prison grounds. The Cedar Creek turtle building is outside of the fence while the
Larch turtle building is inside of the fence. Although the Larch building is inside the
fence, it is still in an area outside of the main grounds and provides similar low amounts
of supervision as compared to the building location of Cedar Creek. Other than these
differences, the two programs are similar in their operations.
This leads to the following research questions:
Research Question
Do the Sustainability in Prisons Project’s Conservation Western Pond Turtle Programs
impact the work environment of Washington Department of Corrections Prison staff? If
so, how?
● Do these programs impact the stress level of the work environment? If so, how?
● Do these programs impact the relationship between staff and inmates? If so, how?
● Do these programs impact the general atmosphere of the facility? If so, how?
● If there are impacts, are they more positive or negative?
Significance
This research provides information about how nature and animals may play a role in
increasing the wellbeing of correctional in the prison work environment. Results
showing a positive association between working with nature and increased wellbeing,
27
supports the spread of SPP further throughout the United States. The results that indicate
this work decreases the wellbeing of select staff will be shared with the prisons and SPP
in the hopes of creating changes to create a better work environment for all involved.
These results are a beginning to helping make prisons in the United States healthier for
correctional staff. Healthier staff create a healthier and safer environment for the prison
as a whole.
Methods
Semi-Structured Interviews
In order to answer my research question, I interviewed each staff member in the program
who was willing to participate for 30-45 minutes in person and gave them a brief
questionnaire. I grouped the staff members into three groups: Directly Involved Staff
(DS), Indirectly Involved Staff (IS) and Leadership Staff (LS). DS includes those
whom have worked in the role of SPP Liaison for at least three weeks. SPP Liaisons are
those with the task of assisting with the communication and safety between the SPP
student coordinator and the residents, as well as some of the educational programming
and attending animal releases. IS includes those whom have been involved in the
programs in a lesser role, such as working near the turtle building, working with the
residents in the program in another capacity, interacting with the SPP student coordinator
on a regular basis, and/or driving the residents in the program to release sites and/or field
trips. LS includes the superintendents-the role that was referred to as the warden in the
past- as well as the person in the role of Correctional Programs Manager (CPM), who
oversees all programs and who is second in command to the Superintendent.
28
The following are the interview questions I used as guidelines for the interviews,
as well as the questions included on the questionnaire:
Interview Questions for Staff Directly or Indirectly Involved in the Program:
1. How would you describe your experience with the butterfly/turtle program?
2. (If the person is directly involved in the program) How did you become involved
in the program?
3. What have you noticed about its effects on you? Would you say this program has
impacted your stress level of your work environment? If so, how?
4. Has this program impacted the relationship between you and the inmates? If so,
how?
5. Has this program impacted the general atmosphere of the facility? If so, how?
6. Has this program impacted your feelings or interest in
nature/wildlife/sustainability? If so, how?
7. What impact does participation have on job satisfaction? Relationships with
colleagues as result of participation?
Questionnaire for Staff Directly or Indirectly Involved in the Program:
1. How long have you worked at the facility you are currently employed?
2. How long have you worked for Washington Department of Corrections?
3. What is your job title?
29
4. Did you have an interest in working with animals prior to your involvement in
this program?
5. Did you have an interest in science or sustainability prior to your involvement in
this program?
6. (If person is directly involved in the program) Did you volunteer for this program
or were you assigned?
7. Are you involved with any other programs in the facility? If so, please list here:
Interview Questions for Prison Superintendents:
1. How would you describe your experience with the turtle program?
2. How many years have you worked with DOC?
3. How many years at Cedar Creek?
4. Why have SPP programs?
5. Have you noticed any impacts the turtle program has on the staff members? If so,
what impacts?
6. What is your sense of how staff feel about the turtle program?
7. Have you noticed any impacts the turtle program has on the relationships between
inmates and staff? If so, what impacts?
8. Has this program impacted the general atmosphere of the facility? If so, how?
9. Has this program impacted your feelings or interest in
nature/wildlife/sustainability? If so, how?
10. Has this program impacted how the facility is viewed statewide? If so, how?
30
11. How do you feel this program impacts the way staff feel about working in
prisons?
12. How do you feel this program impacts work stress?
13. What is the first story that comes to mind when you think of SPP programs? How
has this program impacted the stories heard in prison from staff or inmates?
Qualitative Research Rationale
Going into this thesis, I intended to identify how the turtle program impacts the work
environment of correctional staff. However, in order to truly understand the impacts,
there would need to be staff available to survey before and after program involvement.
All of the staff currently involved in the program have been involved in the program
since the start of this research and therefore it was not possible to do a before and after
evaluation in a more quantitative study. In addition, it would have been extremely
challenging to find a control group. Finally, there are no studies to base what parameters
to study in a quantitative research project.
This led this research into a purely qualitative approach with the goal of
understanding all of the possible ways the WPT programs may impact the staff members’
work environment. The parameters that come up for staff in these interviews can be used
as guidelines for a future quantitative study. In addition, talking to each staff member
individually in a semi-structured interview gives the reader a better understanding of the
complex relationship between the staff members and the WPT program and/or SPP
programs in general. This will add greater value and understanding to compliment any
future quantitative research.
Qualitative Analysis
31
I used a qualitative research software program called Atlas.ti to analyze my
interview data. I coded the interviews and pulled main themes from the interview
responses.
Results & Discussion
Pronouns and Terminology
In an attempt to better protect the identity of the interviewees, the gender of the staff
members is not revealed. The gender neutral pronoun of they/them/their is used
throughout. Whenever a binary pronoun was revealed in an interview quote, the binary
pronouns were removed and gender neutral pronouns were placed in square brackets.
In addition, throughout this paper incarcerated people will be referred to as
residents. The word ‘offender’ has negative connotations and places inherent judgment
on the incarcerated individuals. The word ‘offender’ will be present in the words of some
of the interviewees.
Finally, please note that the job title referred to as a ‘classifications counselor’
will also be referred to as a ‘case manager.’ These terms will be used interchangeably. I
refer to this role as ‘case manager’ because this is a more descriptive title of the work
these staff members do. The title of ‘classifications counselor’ can be confusing, as these
staff members are not certified counselors, but instead are in charge of managing the
cases of the residents on their caseload. However, ‘classifications counselor’ is the more
commonly used term and will be present in the interview responses.
Staff Wellbeing
As mentioned previously, there is a serious concern for the wellbeing of correctional staff
because of the potential high stress work environment that they are exposed to (Finn,
2000). Interacting with nature and animals has been shown to increase overall wellbeing
32
in humans. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the presence of a turtle conservation
program, which brings nature in the form of wild animals into a prison, improves the
wellbeing of correctional staff. However, there are multiple factors involved in these
programs, which complicate the potential benefits of nature and animals. For example,
the priority in a prison is to keep the environment secure. If the turtle program impacts
security, this may contribute to negative feelings towards the program. The following
sections discuss the results of the LS, DS and IS interviews on the impact they describe
the programs having on their overall wellbeing.
Leadership staff. The leadership staff (LS) at Cedar Creek and Larch both see an
overall positive impact on the wellbeing of staff. However, the LS at Larch seem to
report a stronger positive impact on staff wellbeing than Cedar Creek. In the following
section, how the programs impact wellbeing from the point of view of LS and some
thoughts as to why the differences between the two facilities exist will be discussed.
Punitive to collaborative. The most frequently discussed positive impact on
prison staff during the LS interviews, which also happens to be a positive impact on the
entire prison operation, is the way the turtle program, along with other SPP programs, has
the potential to increase the collaborative nature of prisons and decreases the traditional
punitive nature of prisons. One LS at Cedar Creek stated that the turtle program gives
staff and residents:
A break from the traditional roles-a chance to work collaboratively together. The
environmental factor is a lessening of the adversarial roles. If you and I are not
adversarial, we have a better working relationship…allows us to work better
outside of SPP programs too…because of the relationship with SPP I am not just
doing something negative. I might be coming to talk about frogs or turtles or fun
events.
33
This LS is explaining that the people who work directly with the residents in the turtle
program end up developing a collaborative work relationship both inside and outside of
the program. Later in the interview, this LS goes further to say that the conversations you
hear in the prison change from punitive to more friendly:
Hear more people talking friendly instead of “Tuck your shirt in.” or “Where is
your ID?”-rather than directive conversation, now it’s a two-way conversation.
Now you have somebody that adds value.
This statement not only brings out the potential of the turtle program to improve the
collaboration between staff and residents, but also emphasizes the ability of the turtle
program to empower the residents. This will be discussed more in depth in the section on
prosocial relationships. However, it is important to mention here because empowering
the residents to use their voice and be seen as adding value to the facility leads to a more
collaborative and positive work environment. This, in turn, leads to an increase in staff
wellbeing. This LS explains further by saying that the program brings a “common
ground” to the residents and the staff members.
It seems to be a more professional common ground. There is a common interest
that is appropriate to share. There are professional boundaries about personal life.
A common ground to build something together-less about staff-inmate-a central
point for both of you to stand and work together; something that is traditionally
outside the lines. Traditionally always trying to catch them doing something
wrong; this is about working together to do something right.
Here this LS highlights the importance of keeping professional boundaries with the
residents and not disregarding DOC training, while still breaking down some barriers
through common interests. The LS states that this “collaborative relationship is less
stressful.”
34
The other LS at Cedar Creek agrees with this person about the increase in
collaborative relationships within the turtle program through developing a common
ground:
But they can talk the same talk. If the talk is about a common subject, it relaxes
the conversation. Talking about the corrections or the art of correcting people,
creates conflicts. Communication is the biggest issue.
Relationships built upon respectful communication can lead to a better workplace
environment and thus has the potential to reduce stress and improve wellbeing of the
correctional staff. This LS goes on to say that the “staff are more calm, focused and
collaborative” in the presence of SPP programs like the turtle program. However, they
also mention the staff do not always get along and sometimes bicker, but they come
together when needed. This bickering begins to bring up one of the main differences
between the responses from the LS at Cedar Creek and the LS at Larch. However, we
will first discuss the ways in which Larch LS agree with the LS at Cedar Creek.
The LS at Larch overwhelmingly agree with the LS at Cedar Creek about the
turtle programs and other SPP programs ability to change the punitive work environment
in a prison to one that is more collaborative. One LS at Larch discussed how SPP
programs impact the general atmosphere of the prison:
When we find ourselves working together - it's often us and them - Sustainability
programs [puts hands together] start acting as a team. It brings us closer together.
Most of the time, we treat them [residents involved] with more respect.
In describing their experience working in prisons before sustainability programs and the
shift in the prisons after they were included, they go on to say:
It used to be slave driver and slave. That’s how it was when I first started. That
is breaking down. Treat people the way you want to be treated. It's hard to stay
mad when they start becoming John Smith, not offender.
35
Here, this LS is talking about the turtle program as well as other SPP programming.
When the resident suddenly has a name and is not just referred to as ‘offender’ or their
DOC number it humanizes them. When a person is referred to as just an offender, they
become part of an all encompassing offensive population of people who deserve
punishment. This makes it easy to form a black and white mindset and lose the idea that
the residents hold any value. When people are not seen as human, it becomes a lot easier
to treat them poorly. This LS feels having these programs changes the way staff treat
incarcerated people. It brings the staff and the residents closer together and forms an
atmosphere of collaboration rather than a punitive focus, similar to the impacts described
by the LS at Cedar Creek. Therefore, it seems that communication between the staff and
the residents in the program is improving - not due to different communication
techniques or skills being used - but because of a common goal and shared interests.
Another LS at Larch has a similar viewpoint when discussing their experience
when SPP programs first started coming into the prisons:
I remember when these programs first started hitting the department. It was a
hassle. Now everyone wants it first. This is an incredible improvement over the
way we do business and engage the residents. It’s an important change…It has
been a good thing for us.
In this comment, this LS is referring to how SPP programs have become accepted
throughout the Washington State prison system. They seem to think that SPP is now
widely accepted and welcomed in prisons and that this acceptance has come with a shift
away from a punitive approach towards a collaborative approach.
In the turtle program, the staff work together with the residents. Both the staff
and the residents go into the program having limited knowledge about the turtles they
will care for. Through the turtle program coordinator at SPP and outside partners such as
36
zoos and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the residents and staff are
able to ask questions, learn about the turtles and their recovery needs, and be trained in
the protocols together. The staff members are still in charge of making sure the residents
are on track and doing what they are supposed to be doing, but at the same time the
residents and staff are learning with and from each other about a common subject. This
creates a more collaborative work environment despite the power dynamic.
By itself, the turtle program is small. There are usually a total of five residents
and two staff directly involved in the combined programs at a time. I do not think these
LS were trying to make the claim that the turtle program alone changes the way the
prison works, however, an important point is that such programs may change the working
relationships between staff and residents directly involved in the programs. It follows that
SPP-type programs have the potential to shift the prison environment as a whole to be
more collaborative and less punitive. Whether it is a few staff members in the turtle
program or 20 staff members in all of the SPP-like programs in the prison, this shift to a
collaborative work environment can reduce negativity, increase positivity, reduce stress
and therefore increase the wellbeing of both correctional staff and residents.
Stress reduction. At Larch, the LS talk about the wide acceptance of SPP
programs and do not mention any current skepticism or non acceptance of SPP programs.
This is one of the biggest differences between the interview results from Cedar Creek
and Larch. Both of the LS from Cedar Creek agreed in overall stress relieving and
positive impacts of the program on staff wellbeing, but Cedar Creek LS acknowledged
that for a select few individuals the program has the potential to be stress inducing and
produce negativity.
37
For example, one LS at Cedar Creek separates the prison staff into two different
categories, the professional staff and personal staff. They explain that the professional
staff feel positively about the programs and feel a small amount of stress relief from the
programs because the collaborative relationship is less stressful. In addition, the
professional staff are focused on their job and doing it well. On the other hand, the LS
describes the personal staff as seeking out drama and stress in the work environment.
The LS explains the personal staff have negative views of the turtle program, not because
of the content of the program, but because the leadership staff support the program and
the personal staff have a problem with leadership.
In other words, the professional staff are motivated to do their job well and the
turtle program helps them do so. Therefore, these staff find the program satisfying and
stress relieving. It does not solve all of the stress issues in the prison, but it helps. On the
other hand, the personal staff will find a way to make the program stressful because they
are more motivated by their relationship with the leadership at the facility and if the
leadership like the program, then the personal staff will find a way not to like it.
Then this LS goes on to say that the program does have an overall positive impact
on the atmosphere of the prison despite the view of the personal staff and that even the
personal staff can see some value in the program:
Overall positive… Even the personal staff can understand the value of the
environmental impacts and the positivity. It’s positive.
Here, the LS says, the personal staff gain some level of wellbeing from the program
because the program is helping the environment. They hit the point home by saying that
even people not involved, whether personal or professional, in the program are impacted
by the positive concept of the programs’ existence and the atmosphere it produces:
38
It is a feel good we are doing something for the environment for officers and other
staff. Even people who may not be involved in it whatsoever, but the whole
concept of the program was really positive for these folks.
This LS also mentions another broader problem, which may impact both personal
and professional staff. The SPP liaison position is a volunteer position at Cedar Creek,
meaning they someone volunteers to take on extra responsibilities in addition to their full
workload as a case manager. The liaison position’s duties include: supervising the
residents in the programs, facilitating communication between the SPP student
coordinator and the residents, escorting the SPP student coordinator and coordinating
program tours and visitor clearances. This can impact staff wellbeing negatively because
it increases the workload for staff that already have a full plate:
It is volunteer. When no one volunteers it becomes assigned. Initial negative
impact on workload- “extra work for me;” I think that typically goes away.
This workload issue at Cedar Creek is also mentioned by the DS at Cedar Creek. In
addition, when the SPP liaison position at Larch was voluntary before a sustainability
position was created, the DS at Larch described this as a major issue as well. This will be
discussed further in the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section, but it is an important negative
impact on workload with a possible solution to consider of creating a full time
sustainability position in both prisons.
The other LS at Cedar Creek did not break up the staff into two defined
categories. Instead they discussed the tendency for staff, including: custody stuff, case
managers, and building maintenance to have particular views based on their roles inside
the facility.
You get the naysayers that want to say it's all fluff. It’s extra and we shouldn’t be
giving the inmates extra. They inhibit things…They think the inmates don’t
deserve it. The negativity does bleed over into their work, but I think the values
39
outweigh the negativity. This probably pertains to custody staff more than
anyone else…Maintenance staff-it’s a workload issue-it may look like resistance,
but it’s just that they don’t have time and effort.
This LS is saying that the custody staff tend to have more negativity toward the program
because they can be uninformed or they have different opinions about what the residents
deserve or do not deserve. Custody staff handle all emergency situations at the prison
and interact with inmates in a traditionally punitive manner, which may create a
particular challenge for them when trying to grasp collaborative SPP programs like the
turtle program. Although the maintenance staff may seem to have a negative view of the
program, their negativity is based upon a heavy workload of repairs needed in the prison.
This decrease in job satisfaction and the wellbeing of these particular staff due to the
turtle program is not the common reaction to the program, but it does exist. In addition,
this LS believes that the values of the program outweigh the negativity of these particular
staff members.
However, this is not the final statement of this LS on this issue. They also think
that there is a possibility to counteract these negative views on the program.
Involving them and finding the uniqueness about the program that works for them
would help. Things like the TERT lessens anxiety. Custody folks love
emergency response stuff! It’s what they do all of the time. It’s their focus.
This LS is saying that if the staff involved in the programs, interpret the programs to the
custody staff in a way that is meaningful to them, then the program will get more buy in
from the custody staff. TERT stands for the Turtle Emergency Response Team. TERT,
as referred to above by this LS, is one example of how emergency protocols were
developed to gain custody staff buy-in. An SPP liaison and the SPP student coordinator myself - developed a training plan to educate staff members in how to respond in
40
different turtle health emergencies or when the residents were unable to access the turtles
during a lockdown. The LS was saying that this gained custody staff buy-in because
custody staff thrive off of emergency response. If the program is interpreted in a way
that has meaning, it can change opinions on the program and thus impact the wellbeing of
custody staff as well as others in a positive way.
On another note, this particular LS also mentioned both stressful and a stress
relieving impact on their position in leadership:
Sometimes it adds stress in that I don’t ever want to disappoint SPP. When the
program is working, when you go to a release-there is a huge relief of stress.
This LS feels the need to succeed in SPP programs. If they do not succeed, they feel
stressed and if they do succeed they feel stress relief.
The LS at Larch do not mention any stressful impacts of the program, however
they do agree about the stress relieving effects of the program, particularly through
working with animals:
Any living thing can help you reduce your stress level.
It drops your stress level. It's hard to be stressed when you are having fun.
Drives/prevents a lot of people from getting uptight when they normally would
be…find yourself in a lot better mood with residents.
Here, this LS is discussing the fun aspect of working with animals. Having fun is stress
reducing and also puts the staff in a better mood. If the staff are in a better mood, they
treat the residents better.
Chain reaction. This is an example of one chain reaction as result of the existence
of the turtle program and programs like it that is discussed by both Cedar Creek and
Larch LS. Both pairs of LS describe the impact of the programs giving the residents a
chance to succeed and when the residents succeed, the staff have a feeling of success.
41
When the staff have a feeling of success, they gain job satisfaction. When they gain job
satisfaction, it improves their mood, when it improves their mood, it improves the way
they treat the residents. When the residents are treated better, it improves their mood and
behavior. This reduces violence and improves the safety of the prison. This improved
mood of the residents also increases their ability to succeed. When the residents succeed,
it increases their job satisfaction and so on and so forth. The difference in the reactions
of different types of staff described by Cedar Creek creates more complex reactions to the
one described above. (Fig. 1 & Fig. 2)
As an example of how the Cedar Creek and Larch staff describe the chain reaction
of the turtle program, one LS at Larch said that “Being successful in this [the turtle
program] gives them [the residents] confidence to be successful upon release.” This is the
chance to succeed that was mentioned in the previous paragraph. The LS also explain
how the success the staff feel in helping the residents and the satisfaction they get in
contributing to helping the turtles leads to job satisfaction. One LS at Larch explains how
the residents succeeding makes the staff feel successful:
That’s how I treat the residents. I want them to be better when they go out from
when they come in. We feel good about ourselves. “Look what we did!”
The LS states that the job of the prison is to rehabilitate the residents and the turtle
program is one small step in the right direction. One LS describes how the turtle program
can help the residents in the program recovery from how they were not given the best
chances in the outside world.
The turtles are sick, injured and damaged and there is absolutely no one to care
for them. Creating a safe place for them where they can heal and recover-very
similar to what we do-it’s a good way for understanding it’s not all their fault as
to why they ended up the way they did. They can really begin to see that you
[referring to the residents] were not given the best chances. This is an opportunity
42
for giving back what’s been taken away. It’s the ability to give reparations even
on the smallest of things.
This LS appears to believe prisons should have a rehabilitative focus rather than a
punitive one. They refer to prisons as a safe place for healing for both the residents and
the turtles in the turtle program. The turtle program gives the staff and the prison the
opportunity to give reparations to the residents and this brings this LS satisfaction.
The other LS at Larch seems to agree with this in a way, stating that:
The people in prison are broke; we are all a little broke. It’s not our job to punish,
it’s our job to help-find out what their needs are. We give them a purposeanimals, DNR, fight fires, plant trees-helps them start to feel more empowered;
win-win again.
This LS also seems to believe that the prison’s job is to rehabilitate the residents and that
programs that give the residents a purpose, like the turtle program, help in that mission.
Thus these programs may produce some job satisfaction in helping to accomplish that
goal. However, this LS also states very clearly that the turtle program is a small project
and thus has a limited capacity to make change due to its small scope with only three
residents involved at a time at Larch.
Beyond the job satisfaction gained from the success of the residents is the job
satisfaction gained from contributing to helping animals and the environment. All four of
the LS interviewed described the importance of breaking up the routine of the prison.
Getting away from repetitive tasks and adding variety to the daily work creates increased
job satisfaction. For example, one LS at Larch describes their experience going on a turtle
release:
When I was able to witness the releases, that makes you feel good to think outside
the box. Especially with kids there-just fascinated. And the residents too. It’s
always rewarding to see that in other people.
43
This LS gained job satisfaction from breaking up the regular routine and getting out to
see the residents and the volunteer youth from the zoo gathered around them, all
fascinated by the turtles.
The other LS at Larch states that:
It improves their [the staff’s] attitude-not just about security/custody aspects of
the job-daily mundane activities. It’s not just about these things. We can do
more. It’s easier to come to work when you have other things to do.
This LS hints that programs like the turtle program may even help reduce turnover rates
in the prison, stating that “I think it [the breakup of the routine that these programs offer]
motivates them to come to work.”
An LS at Cedar Creek, goes on to talk about the satisfaction the staff get from
being able to contribute to more than just the prison and create a positive impact on the
environment.
The overall value [of the programs]. They hold value to everybody. The
offenders get a sense of pride and give back to the community. For staff, it gives
them the opportunity to impact something more than just prison-the environment.
There is value in efforts to help environmental issues.
This LS goes on to say:
It is easy in prison to be in a routine. This breaks the routine and gives people
something new to connect to. Whether people are volunteering, doing science or
working for SPP; it makes the work in prison better.
This LS states that the prison staff members feel a need to contribute and that the turtle
program and other SPP programs gives the staff who are involved the satisfaction of
contributing to the environment. They also agree with Larch LS on the impact the
programs have on job satisfaction. This LS stated clearly their belief that the programs including the turtle program - “makes the work in prison better.” This is a clear and
44
direct positive impact the turtle program may have on the work environment of
correctional staff.
The combination of collaborating with the residents, feeling successful,
decreasing stress and feeling a sense of job satisfaction would naturally improve the
mood of the staff members working in the turtle program. One LS at Larch explains how
this mood shift changes the relationship between the staff and the residents in the turtle
program, saying that the program is a “Win for staff - less assaults - residents see staff as
people too - makes you more human.” This LS thinks that the residents involved in the
programs start to see the staff as more human and the staff start to see the residents as
people - more than just a DOC number - and this mutual respect creates a safer, more
respectful prison environment.
Safety. An LS at Cedar Creek describes the turtle program as well as other SPP
programs in the facility, stating that:
It changes how the offender behavior occurs. This is a relatively violence free
place. You are less likely to feel afraid walking through this facility.
This LS seems to contribute, in part, the low violence rate at Cedar Creek to the
programs, like the turtle program, at the facility. This indicates the possibility of the turtle
program and programs like it to help increase the safety of the prison and reduce stress in
correctional staff. The DS and IS at Cedar Creek and Larch do not all agree with this
impact on security, but this will be discussed further in their respective sections. In
addition, it is important to note that both Cedar Creek and Larch are minimum security
prisons and thus have a naturally low occurrence of violent behavior.
An LS at Larch does seem to agree that SPP like programs do have the potential
to reduce violence, however they feel the violence rate is already so low in a camp
45
setting, that the usefulness of the programs in a minimum security prison lies in the
feeling of contribution the programs give the residents involved, stating that “We don’t
have violence here, but they need something tangible to feel good about.”
However, this LS at Larch does still note a positive behavior change as a result of
SPP programs:
The joy that they are feeling with those experiences impacts their interactions
with staff and other residents…
This LS explains that animal programs impact behavior in a positive way in both staff
and residents. They believe connecting to the animals is part of what causes this behavior
change. Again, this behavior change creates a more positive working environment and
thus increases the wellbeing of both correctional staff and residents. This statement is
referring to staff who work directly within the programs, but what about some of the
impacts the programs may have on the LS specifically?
Pride. One way the LS claims the turtle program and other SPP programs impact
them, particularly at Cedar Creek, is the pride they experience in having SPP programs.
The LS at Cedar Creek reported having pride in the work they do with SPP programs
and thus getting job satisfaction out of this pride. The LS at Cedar Creek also feel the
staff members involved in the program have a similar sense of pride. One Cedar Creek
LS stated:
It’s a large source of pride at Cedar Creek and HQ - for the agency. It’s a source
of pride and commitment for the people who are involved.
This LS has experienced a sense of pride in both WADOC headquarters, Cedar Creek
and in the staff members involved in the programs.
46
In their response to a question asking how having the turtle program at the prison
has impacted the view of the prison statewide, the other LS at Cedar Creek responded:
Ask the other [prison leadership staff]. Ask them what facility comes to mind
when you think about sustainability. ….they are going to say it started at Cedar
Creek.
This sense of pride in the programs seems to impact the work environment of the LS staff
at Cedar Creek in a positive way. However, while Larch seems to hold high importance
in the turtle program and other animal programs, the interviewed LS did not talk
specifically about having pride in the programs. There are several possible reasons for
this, such as the fact that Larch’s turtle program is new and thus it may not be part of
their identity yet or that Larch has more of a focus on expanding and getting more
programs started than on getting the word out and setting a standard for other prisons.
However, this is all speculative and the real reason for the difference is yet to be
determined.
LS conlusion. The LS at both Cedar Creek and Larch seem to agree that the turtle
program - in addition to other animal programs - have an overall positive impact on the
wellbeing of correctional staff and a positive impact on the residents in the program.
There are some differences between Larch and Cedar Creek that are likely, at least
partly, due to the difference in the length of time the program has been at each facility.
There were negative impacts on wellbeing in particular staff members reported by the LS
at Cedar Creek, however, the LS stated the overall impact of the programs on the
wellbeing of staff was positive and even some of the few who had a negative reaction
could be made to change their minds through better communication. This is all from the
47
viewpoint of the LS. Now let us dive into the responses of the people directly involved,
who have or had their hands in the turtle program at Cedar Creek and Larch.
Direct staff. The DS at both Larch and Cedar Creek seem to reinforce the
thoughts of the LS on how the wellbeing of the staff members is impacted by the turtle
program. There are some areas where the LS and the DS views do not align as nicely,
which may indicate differences in perceived impacts versus actual impacts on the staff
members directly involved in the programs. The following section discusses how the DS
feel the turtle programs impact their wellbeing.
Punitive to collaborative. The DS at Larch did not directly discuss a shift from
punitive to collaborative in the prison environment with the introduction of SPP
programs. I believe the reason for this is because the DS stuck to discussing the smaller
picture of the turtle program and not the bigger picture of SPP as a whole. Nevertheless,
the DS did discuss some of the impacts of the turtle program which relate back to the
impacts of collaboration as described by the LS.
For example, the DS at Larch discussed how the turtle program broke down
barriers between them and the residents involved in the programs. One DS at Larch
discussed the different roles they had been in throughout their prison career. I will not
provide a direct quote here because of confidentiality; however, it is important to note
that this DS found that the residents had a drastically different reaction to them depending
on the role that this staff member was in. Additionally, this DS explained the strictly
punitive roles caused the residents to have a negative view of them and because of their
involvement in the turtle program, the residents have a much more positive view of them.
This seemed to improve this DS’s job satisfaction.
48
The other DS at Larch did not discuss whether or not the turtle program created a
collaborative environment based on a common ground of caring for the turtles between
themselves and the residents, as was discussed by the LS at Larch. Rather, this DS
placed more emphasis on watching the residents involved in the program learn to
collaborate with each other.
Through watching their learning process and allowing them to have ownership
in the program…The two that I supervised for turtles came from two
completely different backgrounds. Bringing them together and watching them
collaborate and learn... I could see their stress greatly reduce...gave them a
more positive outlook on life.
This collaboration between the residents was said to improve the relationship between
this DS and the residents, as well as improving the overall atmosphere of the facility
through contagious positivity.
This DS also placed more emphasis on the benefits of the time and attention they
could give the residents involved in the program. This DS felt that the time spent with the
residents in the turtle program allowed them to do their job more effectively. Through
working with the residents in this environment, this DS was able to get to know the
residents and their needs on a deeper level and felt more capable of helping them be
successful.
I was able to get a better understanding on the background of the offenders and
get a better sense for what they needed to succeed on release.
On the other hand, the DS at Cedar Creek seemed to place more importance on
the collaborative nature of the program breaking down barriers between themselves and
the residents. One DS explained:
I was trained in keeping certain barriers and although they are human you can’t
interact on a personal level. Finding offenders interested and willing to work - I
knew they were human. I knew I was supposed to treat them differently. This
was a step forward from that. Treat them as individuals and not just offenders.
49
This DS also stated that “working side by side with offenders with something not related
to prison was beneficial to both.”
Working within this collaborative framework, this DS seems to have discovered
how to and the benefits of treating all residents in the prison with respect and seeing them
as individuals, rather than offenders. This more positive and human relationship seems to
have improved the wellbeing of this DS. This person goes on later in the interview to
discuss the humanity of the residents and how it is possible to treat residents as human
while still keeping up necessary boundaries to maintain safety. However, this will be
discussed further in the section on DS and prosocial behavior.
Another DS at Cedar Creek was impressed with the amount of knowledge the
residents involved in the program had.
I found it to be very informative and learned a lot from the residents. It wasn’t as
intimidating as I expected.
The residents in the program seem to have earned some respect from this DS because of
the amount of information they learned. The residents knew enough that they were able
to teach this DS. This goes back to where the LS discussed the ability of the residents to
teach gives them value and earns more respect from the staff members.
In conclusion, the DS at Larch seem to place more emphasis on the collaboration
between the residents and the improved relationship between staff in collaborative roles
versus staff with putative roles. The collaborative nature between the staff and the
residents was not emphasized in the DS interviews at Larch. This may be because the
program is newer, and thus the results have not become apparent, or it may be because of
structural differences between the turtle program at Larch and the program at Cedar
Creek. For example, the turtle program at Larch is more hands-off than the turtle program
50
at Cedar Creek. At Cedar Creek, the SPP coordinator goes out once per week to check-in
on the program with the DS and provide educational activities, whereas, the SPP
coordinator at Larch goes out once per month. This means less structured educational
opportunities shared between the DS and the residents in the program exist at Larch. On
the other hand, the DS at Larch also seem to spend more time with the residents in order
to ensure communication between the residents and the SPP coordinator on turtle health.
Stress reduction and Job satisfaction. The DS at both Cedar Creek and Larch
reported an overall decrease in stress and increase in job satisfaction. There was an
increase in stress at times for those DS who were in volunteer positions in addition to
their regular duties as a case manager. All of the DS were passionate about the turtle
program, but the volunteer position was at times stressful and had the potential to create a
heavy workload.
…created a unique balance between work and volunteer activities. It created a lot
more work. Being a counselor was my primary responsibility and the programs
were kind of the icing on the cake. It wasn’t very balanced. It was pretty difficult
to maintain…
However, one DS at Cedar Creek explained that for them it is more a matter of
figuring out how to have a balance and learning to say “no” to certain tasks you are asked
to perform.
… I learned how to place boundaries. There is only so much one person can do in
8 hours. Before working in sustainability, I was [lists off several different
programs they were a part of]. I resigned from all except for [names one
program] and sustainability.
After struggling with a large workload through their work with SPP, this DS learned the
importance of boundaries. After setting them, they did not feel like they were
overworked. Although this is admirable that this person was able to do this, setting
boundaries is not an easy feat and the hiring of a full time sustainability staff member
51
would help solve this issue. Adding this position could help to reduce stress. This will
be discussed further in the section on constructive criticism. This was the only negative
impact on stress level and job satisfaction that was reported by the DS staff.
On a positive note, the DS at Larch reported an overall increase in job satisfaction
due to the turtle program. They reported having a better relationship with the residents
in the programs, improved communication and teaching moments between staff and
residents, increased positivity amongst residents rubbing off on staff, and breaking up
repetitive jobs tasks through having fun and learning new things.
One of the DS at Larch explained the stress relief they experienced when working
with the residents in the turtle building:
I would say that the program, for me personally, was less stressful and provided
me with a chance to get out of prison and have a different type of relationship
with the offender population and staff to achieve a common goal. I just really
enjoyed the work and interactions. It allowed me to escape for a little bit.
The program created a space of collaboration around a common goal, a similar
description to that of the LS. The program also created a getaway from the usual prison
tasks for this staff member. Anecdotally, the residents involved in the programs also talk
about how the program creates a quiet and peaceful space to get away from the regular
prison routine. This may be a common benefit between both the staff members and the
residents.
This DS went further to say how the turtle program brought them job satisfaction
and gave them something to look forward to coming to work. The increase in job
satisfaction was so significant in this person that they gave the turtle program as a reason
for motivation to come to work, as was a suspected impact mentioned by one of the LS.
Increases in job satisfaction such as this signifies how these programs have the potential
52
to help reduce staff turnover rates in prisons if there are enough staff involved in the
programs.
The other DS at Larch expressed their joy in teaching other staff about the
program.
I talk about it in meetings-how many turtles we have. Are we getting new
ones…fun to be able to talk about fun things like that that are positive.
This DS expressed an increase in job satisfaction through increased positivity in the
workplace. In addition, this is a great example of how the positivity can potentially
spread to other staff members through the DS giving them a little taste of what is going
on in the program during meetings and other interactions.
The DS at Cedar Creek reported similar positive experiences with the turtle
program. They clearly described how the program reduces their stress levels. The
following is a list of comments which make this case:
1.
It eases tension all around.
2.
It absolutely reduced my stress level.
3.
It has no impact on my workload. It is nice to pull back from busy lives
and electronics. It is very therapeutic. It is peaceful to go there in the
elements, listen and see you all do your thing.
4.
It got me out of the daily grind. I wasn’t taking breaks before when I
worked. This program made me get out of the unit and out into nature. It
was a breath of fresh air and made a difference.
5.
I get a lot more satisfaction in sustainability. When my regular job got
frustrating and I needed a break I went to check on the animals.
6.
It is relaxing to get away for a few minutes. Really enjoyed going out
there and learning and exploring
All of these comments illustrate the stress reducing impacts and increased job satisfaction
effects of the program on the DS at Cedar Creek. The DS see this program as a way to
53
escape from the typical prison work that can become repetitive, mundane and
overwhelmingly negative.
Other impacts the DS reported at Cedar Creek was the switch from punitive to
collaborative relationships with the residents. This relationship change was described as
creating an increase in job satisfaction. In addition, this DS described how the learning
opportunities in the program gave them enough information to be able to teach others,
which was also described as a positive part of the program.
This DS also went on to say that they do not want to go back to not working with
sustainability programs. They explained that they want to continue being involved in
SPP programs whenever possible. The turtle program and programs like it are clearly
important and valuable to this person.
I’m going to keep doing it and going to keep spreading it…SPP brings a whole
new angle [for the residents] to help animals and learn new things. It makes a
huge difference in behavior.
This particular person seems to have gained a great deal of job satisfaction and stress
relief from the turtle program. They referred to times when they were not involved in
SPP programs as more stressful and frustrating. The turtle program became their outlet
when they were stressed or frustrated with their regular duties. This reveals a significant
way in which programs like the turtle program have the ability to improve the quality of
the work environment of staff members, particularly the staff who are directly involved.
Finally, both the DS at Larch and Cedar Creek expressed a feeling of satisfaction
when making a contribution to helping the animals and the residents in the program;
saying things like: “Being able to help an endangered species was pretty amazing.”
And:
54
Having techs there and watching them evolve through the learning process and
experience helping animals was very enlightening.
Please refer to the ‘Prosocial Behavior’ section under the subsection entitled
‘contribution and empowerment’ to learn more about the importance the DS placed on
helping the environment.
One other revealing piece of the interview with one of the DS at Cedar Creek, was
when they discussed the negativity from some of the staff at Cedar Creek. They
explained that staff who have a negative reaction to the turtle program are bitter. This DS
explained that this bitterness does not necessarily come from negative opinions of the
program, as was believed by the LS, but instead comes from the feeling that DOC is
going to try to overwork them if they get involved. The following their explanation of
the feelings of these staff members:
The Department will use you for everything they can use you for. They are
always worried about the bottom line. “Oh, [they] volunteered for something.”
Then they use you for something else and something else…until you are so burnt
out you can’t do your normal work. They [these staff members] feel like the state
is taking advantage of them in any way possible.
Please see the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section of this paper for a more in depth
discussion of possible solutions and ways to create a balanced workload.
Chain reaction. The complex chain reactions described by both the LS at Cedar
Creek and the LS and Larch did not explicitly carry over in the interviews with the DS.
Instead, DS staff reported an improved sense of wellbeing as a result of working with the
turtle programs. If there is improved staff wellbeing, it makes sense that the mood of the
staff would improve and thus carry over to how the residents were treated. Although the
staff did not explicitly mention this chain reaction, this doesn’t disprove the claims of the
55
LS. Furthermore, one of the DS at Larch did describe a basic positivity chain reaction,
saying:
I would say it was infectious. Their [the residents in the program’s] positive
interactions produced more positive interactions in myself, other staff and other
offenders.
In addition, this DS at Larch also mentioned spreading awareness and communicating
information about the program to the other staff and residents. They described it as a
chain of communication. They talk to people and then those people talk to others and so
on and so forth.
Although both of the chains described by this DS are not the more complex chains
described by the LS, their responses do show that this DS feels that the turtle program
spreads positivity and awareness throughout the facility and the DS feedback generally
supports the idea of the chain reaction.
Safety. The DS at Larch and the DS at Cedar Creek had differing views on the
impacts the turtle program has on safety and security in the prisons. The DS at Larch did
not seem to have serious concerns with security or buy in from custody staff. They
acknowledge initial concerns, but feel those concerns have dissipated as education and
awareness of the program spread throughout the facility. On the other hand, the DS at
Cedar Creek show some concern for the residents being mostly unsupervised while
working with the turtles. In addition, the DS at Cedar Creek feel that the custody staff
are more concerned with security than the DS, who are case managers.
One DS at Larch explained how the program had initial concerns for safety and
how those concerns dissipated as this DS spread awareness to other staff members.
Initially, there were concerns regarding safety which goes with the fear of not
knowing, but once the expectations were set, staff and offenders both simply just
56
wanted to see what happened next and became more inquisitive and started doing
research on their own. I had quite a few staff and offenders come up and throw
random facts out that they’d gone and looked up on their own (all staff-custody,
counselors, admin, and even kitchen).
This DS seemed to feel the staff concern for safety was not because of issues with safety,
but because of the fear of the unknown. The program is still fairly new at Larch and
when it was first introduced, there was excitement and a willingness to learn. The
awareness of the program seems to have spread rapidly at Larch. One DS felt that this
rapid spread of acceptance of the program by custody staff in particular, was due to the
way the information was communicated. For example, this person was able to
communicate the program in a way that the custody staff could relate to and understand.
This was also proven successful at Cedar Creek, when one DS created the Turtle
Emergency Response Team (TERT), which was appealing to custody staff because, as
the LS at Cedar Creek stated: “Custody folks love emergency response stuff!”
One concern that a DS at Larch mentioned was the concern for contraband in an
unsupervised area. However, they explain that their concern is minimal, as they have not
had any push back from custody staff. This DS makes sure to support any searches the
custody staff want to do.
The only concern is this could be a great place to hide stuff, but haven’t had a lot
of criticism. I’m not having to fight. That’s what makes it easy… “Whenever
you need to do a search, just let me know.” [What they tell the officers]
This DS adds that they feel the residents are on top of things in the turtle area. They still
check up on them to make sure they are working, but overall they feel the residents are
doing what they are supposed to be doing.
One DS at Cedar Creek expressed their concern for the security of the turtle
program. They had concern for the residents being unsupervised and the potential for
57
contraband and escape. However, they also felt that the screening of the residents before
being hired onto the program and the privilege of being able to work with the turtles
helped to prevent any problems.
It impacts security. We have to screen to make sure we have the best of the best.
They are not supervised out there. There is potential for contraband and escape.
We are putting trust in them. The privilege is an incentive for them to do the
right thing.
The other DS at Cedar Creek emphasized the positive impacts on the residents
involved in these programs and how the program improves their behavior. This
improved behavior leads to improvements in the safety and security of the prison.
Learning and helping animals was particularly mentioned as something that improved the
residents’ behavior. This improved security may counterbalance the stress on the staff
from concerns of contraband, as long as the residents continue to have good behavior
while in the turtle building.
I would like to add here that there have been one or two incidents of contraband in
the turtle buildings in both facilities and those residents had to be let go from the
program. While very unfortunate, these incidences have not seemed to jeopardize the
program and there seem to be several more examples of positive behavior than negative
behavior in the turtle rehabilitators.
Job opportunities. The topic of increased job opportunities was only mentioned
by one staff person throughout all of the interviews, but the fact that involvement in
programs like the turtle program impacted a staff member in this way, even if it is just
one, is significant. This DS found that involvement in the turtle program, along with
other SPP programs improved their likelihood of promotion. In particular, they felt that
58
their willingness to volunteer for their work with SPP showed initiative and increased
their likelihood of a promotion because leadership values SPP programs.
In the review by the Department of Justice on the causes and impacts of stress in
the prison work environment, the author discusses the impact of pay on job satisfaction.
Jobs which have higher wages have been shown to increase job satisfaction (Finn,
2000) Although there are many other factors than can complicate this impact, the
possibility of involvement in SPP programs increasing the likelihood of a pay raise sheds
light on a potential direct link between SPP programs and increased job satisfaction in
prison staff.
Pride. Similar to the LS at Cedar Creek, the DS at Larch expressed a sense of
pride in the programs. They liked the feeling of sharing the programs and the positive
actions that Larch is taking for the residents. One DS talked about their enjoyment of
sharing the program during tours.
Media and visitors, they get excited about it. It’s cool to have them realize the
cool things we do here…how we get buy in and appreciation for the programs.
This DS appears to gain job satisfaction through spreading the positivity of the turtle
program to others.
Another DS at Larch explained how they get satisfaction out of seeing the turtle
program publicized on social media and other media. They explained how when they
search for news on Google and Facebook, the program showed up and they feel a sense
of pride for being a part of something positive. This positive media attention seems to
give this DS a feeling of connection with other prisons through their SPP programs as
well as a sense of being a part of something good. This is significant, as one of the main
59
stressors identified for correctional staff in the review by Finn in 2000 was negative
media attention.
They went on to explain their feelings of pride, ownership and a desire to show
off their programs to others in the community.
When I go to the Zoo, I’m like “This is one of my programs, everyone, look!”
The DS at Cedar Creek did not explicitly discuss their feelings of program pride.
However, one person mentioned their perception on how the facility feels about having
sustainability programs in general.
Cedar Creek is known for sustainability now. We are happy about that and proud
of it.
This DS seems to be referring more to the feeling of the prison as a whole and is
reflecting the feelings that the LS shared in their interviews.
DS Conclusion. Overall, the turtle programs at both Larch and Cedar Creek seem
to have a positive impact on the wellbeing of the DS. These staff members appear to
have a favorable association with the program, using words like “positive”, “rewarding”,
“fun”, “amazing” and “enlightening” to describe the programs. The LS and DS reported
that the turtle program had positive impacts on the staff such as, increased job
satisfaction, increased safety due to improved resident behavior, a feeling of pride in their
work, positive media attention, improved job security and overall stress reduction.
All of the staff members spoke of the program in a positive way, however there
was one major concern which was the issue of having the SPP Liaison position as a
volunteer position. Adding more workload on top of the regular duties of a case manager
was reported to add stress to their job. One solution to reduce stress would be to create a
60
full time sustainability position at both Larch and Cedar Creek. This position is currently
being trialed at Larch. Please see the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section for more details.
Indirect staff. The indirect staff members who were case managers at Cedar
Creek reported an overall increased sense of wellbeing in their involvement in the turtle
program. The custody staff at Cedar Creek, who had very little involvement in the
program, reported a neutral to positive impact on their wellbeing based on their
involvement in the program; while the IS in a custody role at LS discussed a mix of
negative and positive feelings towards the program. There were several differences in the
experiences between case managers and custody staff at both facilities. In addition, the
indirectly involved case managers at Cedar Creek felt that the custody staff had negative
feelings towards the program, while the interviewed custody staff did not reflect these
ideas.
Punitive to collaborative. The IS at Cedar Creek discussed how the turtle and frog
programs broke down barriers. One IS found that the punitive nature of the traditional
relationship between staff and residents is reduced through collaborative learning in the
turtle program. This IS told a story about the frog program as an example of how
programs like these can break barriers.
I remember getting sent a health diagram for the frog program and was asked to
call the frog techs into my office to look at the diagram on my computer screen.
This was not prison related. It broke down a barrier.
Learning about the frogs together with the residents, and the feelings of the collaborative
interaction are akin to the change from punitive to collaborative environment described
by the LS and some of the DS. This IS at Cedar Creek, as well as one of Cedar Creek IS
who is in a custody role, also felt impressed by the knowledge the residents in the
program had about the animals they cared for. This relates back to how the LS and DS
61
described that the residents in the program gain respect from the staff through their
expertise in the program.
The other IS case manager at Cedar Creek explained how the turtle program helps
break down the barriers between the staff and the residents through reminding the staff
that the residents are human beings.
I think it’s good…good to have the inmates feel they are humans... Being in this
work force, people who work for DOC, they forget that the offenders are human.
It’s a good time for them, when they are incarcerated, to have knowledge.
This IS feels that the animals give the residents an opportunity to show their humanity to
the staff members.
Even the Cedar Creek IS in the custody role reveal an impact in seeing the
residents as caring individuals.
Whether it’s a turtle or the dog program, this not only gives the offenders a job,
but gives them responsibility and something to generally care about while they are
in prison. Most of the guys don’t care about anything.
In this statement, this IS reveals that they do not feel most residents care about their lives
and may point towards this IS losing the sense of the residents being human. However, it
seems that, at least with the residents involved in the programs, this IS is starting to see
these residents as more human - although this impact does not seem to have carried over
to residents not involved in the program.
In contrast to the views of the LS and DS at Larch, the only IS interviewed at this
facility, who was not a case manager [exact position not revealed for confidentiality
purposes], did not discuss any impacts the turtle program had on collaboration. Although
generally supportive of the program, this IS focused more on providing constructive
criticism.
62
Stress reduction and Job satisfaction. The IS participants at both facilities had a
significant amount of constructive criticism for the turtle program. In addition, two of the
Cedar Creek IS who were case managers, described communication issues within the
facility and explained that custody staff tend to have more negative opinions of the
program than other staff. In addition, there were some feelings revealed about the
discomfort in how the LS and staff at headquarters make a big deal about a program with
a limited number of residents involved. These results of the IS interviews clearly show
how the turtle program can impact the staff involved in a negative way with the
frustration of not getting buy-in from other staff and the feelings of discomfort in the LS
and staff at Headquarters showing off the program.
On the other hand, the IS-prison location is not revealed here for confidentiality
purposes- explained that despite these issues, the turtle program does bring them greater
job satisfaction and has overall positive impacts on their wellbeing. One IS in particular,
who had a pre-existing interest in wildlife and nature, explained how the benefits of
programs like the turtle program in carrying the nature from the surrounding Capitol
Forest into the prison work environment.
When I ride to and from work, I always choose to go through the Capitol Forest.
I have always done that since I started work at Cedar Creek. The connection
between the sustainability programs at prison and driving through the
forest…continues the magic.
This person goes further to explain that with the combination of the surrounding Capitol
Forest and the sustainability programs in the prison, that
It really doesn’t feel like I work at a prison - Minus the office work and regular
duties of course.
They go further to explicitly state that the program “is not stressful, but stress relieving.”
63
This person obviously gains job satisfaction from programs like the turtle
program and adds later in the interview that the turtle program promotes a healing
environment in the prison as a whole.
It is a healing environment. Even the thought of a program like the turtle
program, seeing a poster on the wall about it or about sustainability…not
something you typically hear about in a prison setting, although we are hearing
about it more and more.
This IS feels the turtle program brings positivity and healing to the general atmosphere of
the facility.
Another IS case manager at Cedar Creek explains the increase in job satisfaction
they had while helping with the frog and turtle program.
I’m [says age] years old and interacting with the animals made me feel like a kid
again.
This IS explained how interacting with animals in the program took them back in time
and made them feel as though they were a child for a moment. This IS has a fear of
animals, which places more power in this comment. Despite the fear they had, they still
had a positive experience in the program. This fear of animals, is discussed further in the
section on fear.
Despite the concerns of the case managers at Cedar Creek that the custody staff
tend to have more negative opinions about the program, the IS custody staff who were
interviewed did not support this claim. For example, one IS custody staff explained how
their interactions with the turtle program have neither increased nor decreased their stress
level in the prison. They claimed that the program helps with cooperation between the
different staff member roles.
It hasn’t directly impacted me at all. I work in a pretty busy position and I’m used
to it. It hasn’t impacted my stress level…It helps with cooperation between all
64
parties involved. It seems to be a pretty smooth thing, at least on custody’s
behalf.
The custody staff placed more emphasis on how they were happy with how smoothly the
program operated rather than their feelings on what the program content was doing for
the residents and the staff. This makes sense, because their role in the program is to
assist with emergencies, provide escorts and assist in keeping a safe and functioning
environment.
However, one IS custody staff at Cedar Creek did go on to express interest in the
content of the program and the other IS custody staff discussed the knowledge they
gained from the turtle program. The IS who expressed interest stated that they believed
the programs with an environmental focus are very important and affect everyone.
Although this statement does not clearly portray any job satisfaction gained from
the turtle program specifically, it does show that this person believes programs like the
turtle program have value.
Larch interviews, on the other hand revealed an inverse miscommunication
between case managers and other staff roles. Neither the DS case managers nor the LS
[no IS case managers were available to be interviewed] did not think there were any
negative feelings towards the turtle program from any staff members besides initial
security concerns. In contrast, the non-case manager Larch IS did reveal their concerns
for the additional workload the turtle program added to their responsibilities. Although
they had these concerns, they went on to say that the switch from a case manager
volunteering for the position of SPP Liaison to a full time sustainability position did help
reduce some, but not all of the workload.
65
Safety. Speaking of the differences in the IS case managers and the IS custody
staff, one would think that the custody staff would voice more concerns about safety than
the case managers. On the contrary, the case managers at Cedar Creek seemed to have
more safety concerns as well as concerns that the custody staff had safety concerns. The
residents work outside of the gate in a building that is mostly unsupervised. There are
officers that check in and there are surprise visits while the residents are working, but
most of the time the residents are alone. This came up as a concern for three of the Cedar
Creek case managers involved in the program and was not a concern for the custody staff
participants. One case manager felt the need to increase security through having
someone out with the residents at all times. This person was worried that with down time
in the program, the residents could potentially jeopardize the program.
Another IS at Cedar Creek, who is a case manager, discussed how they were
careful with who they recommended for the turtle program. They described how they
were careful to screen so they did not get someone out there who would negatively
impact the program.
I have never referred someone to the program as a behavior fix. It has always
been due to interest in the program. Watching out during interviewing and
screening is important. I fear that someone could so easily jeopardize the
program... Need to be careful about who you would recommend to it.
Residents working with animals is something all prisons need to be careful with,
especially when dealing with an endangered species. There is a screening protocol in
place at both Larch and Cedar Creek in order to ensure the residents involved in the
program do not have a history of violence towards people or animals and will be less
likely to use the opportunity of being unsupervised to bring in contraband.
66
Another case manager concerned about contraband was focused primarily around
custody staff finding contraband instead of the program being jeopardized due to
concealed contraband. They stated that:
It [the turtle program] could spiral into being very negative [with the custody
staff] with concerns of contraband unless there is more communication.
Another classification counselor expressed direct concern that the residents may
jeopardize the program stating that they “don’t want them [the residents] sitting there
doing something to jeopardize the program.”
The concern for the residents being unsupervised is present in the interviews with
the Cedar Creek IS in the case manager role, but what about for the custody staff who are
in charge of supervision and keeping the prison safe? The custody staff participants did
not seem to be concerned. They are aware of the risk and there was initial concern,
however they expressed over time the residents gained their trust. One custody member
spoke of one particular resident:
[the resident] goes out and does his job and comes back. It’s built up trust
between him and me. He obviously has a level of caring because he maintains
good behavior…every time you or a counselor shows up, they are out there doing
what they are supposed to be doing.
This IS, who was a custody staff member, also went further to say that they were not
concerned with the security of the residents and the program. Instead, this IS felt the
program improved security saying the program “Impacts security in a positive way in that
it keeps them busy and out of trouble. This makes a safer and more secure place.”
This disconnect between Cedar Creek case managers’ concerns and the concerns
of the custody staff was a common theme at Cedar Creek. This may be because the
custody staff the counselors are referring to are people who have not been involved in the
67
turtle program in any way, and are therefore unaware of how the program operates, but
this will be discussed further in the section on constructive criticism.
All of these concerns from the Cedar Creek IS who are in the role of case
managers, could cause slight increases in stress at times. However, these staff members
did not emphasize security of the programs as stress inducing. This may be because their
concerns are something they have to deal with on a daily routine in other programs as
well and it is just part of the job as a case manager. The IS who are in the role of custody
staff do not seem to have imminent concerns for the residents jeopardizing the program.
There may have been initial concerns, but for the most part, the residents have proved to
be trustworthy.
Fear. On another note, the fear of the animals in the program was an issue
mentioned in the Cedar Creek IS interviews. The fear of animals was not a common
theme throughout for the staff members, but it is worth mentioning as fear was a very real
concern for one of the IS. As mentioned earlier, not all people have positive interactions
with animals, and as a result can develop a fear of that animal, which can result in
negative impacts on both the animal and the person involved in an interaction (Banks and
Banks, 2002; Carlst, 2009). This particular staff member spoke of their fear of animals
and their experience in the frog program. They touched a frog for the first time, saying “I
squirmed a bit.” They mentioned that their only other interaction with animals was in
zoos and they had never touched them. In discussing their participation in the frog
release, they said that they had never been in waters like that before because they had
“always been kinda scared.”
68
Even though the frog program was different from the turtle program in many
ways, I am including these experiences because they express the beginning stages of a
shift that seems to have occurred with this particular staff member through a mix of
interactions with the frogs and the turtles. Later in the interview, they expressed how they
were surprised by the turtles.
I didn’t know they [the turtles] were so…I didn’t know they were so loving. I
didn’t know they would swim towards you. I didn’t know they were friendly like
that. I didn’t know the environment was actually affecting them and their health.
Finally, they ended the discussion of their fears by saying:
I love nature and butterflies and I want to know more even though I’m afraid.
Maybe it would make me not afraid. It’s made me want to…I’m [gives age] and
interacting with animals made me feel like a kid again.
After experiencing the combined interactions with the frogs and the turtles at Cedar
Creek, this staff member seems to have stretched their boundaries and started to face their
fears with positive results. They may not be completely over their fears, but they are
open to the idea of not being afraid anymore. They also seem to have gained a sense of
empathy for the turtles. They started relating “human” emotions to the turtles and
expressed a new concern for the way the turtles’ health is impacted by their environment.
This one staff member’s experience and results of their experience is not enough
evidence to say that the turtle program will help everyone overcome their fears.
However, this does show a potential for wildlife programs in prisons, like the turtle
program, to help change people’s minds and create empathy and compassion for animals
among staff members. It shows that just because someone is afraid, it does not mean they
will automatically have a negative experience with animal programs.
69
Pride. One of the IS seemed to have pride in Cedar Creek having the turtle
program because they mentioned the reaction of the residents when they find out the
turtle program is present at the facility. Although not explicitly stated, this IS seemed to
have a sense of pride that novel programs like the turtle program existed as opportunities
for the residents even though the programs were available to only a select few. However,
another IS at Cedar Creek had mixed feelings on how that sense of pride was handled in
the LS and at Headquarters. Although this was one person, there is a possibility that
others feel this way too, and this may relate to the concern of many social and
environmental justice activists of greenwashing. A brief discussion on the relationship
between pride and greenwashing can be found in the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section.
IS conclusion. Overall, the turtle program at Cedar Creek has a positive impact
on the wellbeing of IS. These staff members have little involvement in the program.
Most only had hands on experience with the program once. This indicates that this
program is impacting staff that are not directly involved and may even impact staff who
have not had any hands-on experience in the program. As one IS explained, just the idea
that the program exists and seeing posters on the wall in the facility impacts them in a
positive way.
On the other hand, through the interviews with the IS at Cedar Creek, it became
apparent that there is room for improvement in the programs. The IS gave several
suggestions as to how the program could be improved for staff members. A more in
depth discussion of these suggestions can be found in the ‘Constructive Criticism’
section.
70
In addition, the IS in the case manager role agreed with the LS staff at Cedar
Creek in that there is a struggle for custody staff buy in. After interviewing the IS, who
are custody staff, this issue has either been resolved, there is a miscommunication or the
custody staff I interviewed were not the staff who were not supportive of the program in
the first place. Please see the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section for a more in depth
discussion on the relationship between the custody staff and case managers and staff
suggestions for improved communication.
Staff wellbeing conclusion. Most of the staff members reported overall positive
impacts on their wellbeing from the turtle program. There are some concerns for security
and workload, which impact the staff wellbeing in a negative way. However, the positive
comments far outweighed the negative. This increase in wellbeing can be improved
through acting on some of the constructive criticism that was given during the interviews.
See the section on ‘Constructive Criticism’ for an in depth discussion.
The common theme of the positive impact of collaboration in the programs seems
to lead to a positive chain reaction with come complications added with workload issues
and differences in beliefs. Please refer to the figures below for a simplified visual on the
summary of the overall impacts of the turtle programs at Larch (Fig.1) and Cedar Creek
(Fig. 2).
71
Turtle
Program
Improved
resident mood
Improved
well-being
of residents
Job
satisfaction
residents
Improved
Safety
Resident
Success
Staff
Success
Improved staff
mood
Improved
well-being
of staff
Job
satisfaction
staff
Learning and
collaborating to
help turtles
Increased
workload
Negative impact
Positive impact
Addition of full
time
sustainability
position
Figure 1. Summary of Staff Wellbeing Impacts of the Turtle Program at Larch Corrections Center
.
72
Improved
Safety
Improved
resident
mood
Improved
staff mood
Improved
wellbeing
of staff
Improved
wellbeing
of
residents
Job
satisfaction
Staff
Job
satisfaction
Residents
Staff
Resident
Success
Staff
Success
Professional
Staff or those
with positive
view
Decrease in
staff wellbeing
Personal staff,
custody staff or
those with a
heavy workload
Decrease in
negativity
Increase in
staff wellbeing
Turtle
Program
Learning how
to & helping
animals
Negativity
bleeds into
work
Increase in
job
satisfaction
Increase in
understanding
and feelings of
inclusion
Decrease in
job
satisfaction
Teaching and
interpreting
program to staff
interests
Figure 2. Summary of the Staff Wellbeing Impacts of the Turtle Program at Cedar Creek Corrections
.
73
Before we go on to the constructive criticism, there is one more significant theme
to be discussed -prosocial impacts.
Prosocial
Leadership staff. Prosocial behavior was a common theme during the interviews
of LS at Cedar Creek and Larch. Prosocial behavior includes: improved communication,
relationships, empathy and empowerment. As previously mentioned, particular staff at
Cedar Creek were not as accepting of the program than others. Therefore, the program
had either a neutral or negative impact on their prosocial behavior. The following
sections pull out and discuss different themes related to prosocial behavior based on the
interviews of the LS.
Communication. The two LS at Larch described improved communication in the
facility due to the turtle program, however, they did hint at areas where communication
could be improved. A powerful way in which communication has been improved is
through the creation of a common new language for the residents and the staff to use.
This new language is the language of science and nature. This allowed the sharing of
knowledge, as opposed to the punitive form of communication where the people in
charge direct the prison residents.
In telling how stories within the prison have changed with the addition of SPP
programs in general, one LS at Larch gave an example of how communication has
changed.
…not as many about drug busts or who got in a fight on the basketball court-more
about experiences in these programs. “Do you know how many leaves we
harvested?”… They [the residents in the program] get to share…
When this LS mentions the question “Do you know how many leaves we harvested?”
They are referring to a resident in the program who had approached them with that
74
question regarding the harvesting of plantain leaves for the endangered Taylour’s
checkerspot butterfly larvae. This LS stated that the stories from the residents change.
The residents feel they have something to share and seem to have a sense of pride in their
work. This ability to share with the correctional staff opens up friendly dialogue. This
seemingly simple change has the potential to change the dynamics inside the prison
through changing adversity into solidarity.
A similar communication impact was reported from the LS at Cedar Creek. One
LS stated:
But they can talk the same talk. If the talk is about a common subject it relaxes
the conversation. Talking about the corrections or the art of correcting people,
creates conflicts. Communication is the biggest issue.
The other LS at Cedar Creek said: “Interests start evolving; it builds a spirit of
cooperation around a centralized focus.” Both of these statements explain the important
role the turtle program plays in creating a new way for the residents and staff members to
communicate collaboratively around a common topic.
However, as mentioned earlier, based on the reports from the LS and DS at Cedar
Creek not all of the staff members may embrace the program. Thus, those staff members
might not engage in two-way conversations with the residents. This may limit the scope
of which the impacts of the turtle program and programs like it can spread throughout the
prison. However, the overall impact on communication was reported to be positive at
Cedar Creek.
Based on these interviews, the reported communication shift has happened on an
individual level. The current programs would need to expand or new SPP-like programs
would need to be added in order to have impacts prison wide. For example, Larch has
75
multiple SPP programs including: cats, dogs, plantains, house plants and - of course turtles. Animal programs, like the turtle program are limited in their scope both because
of program capacity and the requirements for the residents in the program to pass a
screening to be cleared to work with animals. Other programs, such as house plants, have
the ability to reach nearly every resident. More programs that are focused on nature, as
well as adding more science education courses, could potentially shift the conversations
to a dialogue in the majority of the prison and not the minority.
The turtle program is particularly small and limited in its capacity to make
change, with one SPP liaison and three residents at a time. This program is also fairly
new at Larch. Because the program is still in its infancy, some impacts on communication
may not be apparent or happening at this facility yet. One LS at Larch touched on this
issue, by describing how they were not sure whether the turtle program had an impact on
how the facility was seen by other prisons.
I’m not sure. I would like to think that it has. I haven’t had any calls about the
turtles yet…I don’t know if residents even know if we have a turtle program.
This LS also did not think the residents besides the turtle caretakers knew about the turtle
program. Later in the interview, this LS went further to say:
But definitely for the people [that have] been involved in it. It’s been a good
thing- for the rest of them-out of sight, out of mind.
The other LS at Larch does not seem to agree with this LS. They describe how
the residents in the program share with other prison residents.
The men go back and share with the others and then the others want to get
involved. It’s an important part of change.
This difference in opinion may imply that one LS was being careful to be clear on the
program's limitations while the other LS was focused on communicating how knowledge
76
of the program spreads throughout the prison. The reality may lie somewhere in between,
where the residents in the program do communicate with other residents in the prison, but
the knowledge of the program does not spread to all residents.
One LS mentioned that the residents directly involved in the program benefit from
the knowledge communicated to them, while the residents not involved do not gain
knowledge. This LS may have been trying to emphasize the important role animal
contact plays in communicating the message of the program to others. This program
brings visual and hands-on communication between animals and humans into prison.
This LS describes the importance of this communication of information when discussing
how the program impacts staff members:
Once you get around them [the turtles], you can’t help but care. When you get a
chance to see them, all of the sudden you start to change the culture.
Although this particular quote it not about the residents in the program, this LS shares
their views about the importance of being close to the animals, and that closeness aids in
communicating the importance of the program and developing a sense of respect and
empathy while caring for the animals. This lines up with the research by Clayton et al in
2008 on zoo visitor-animal interactions. This study showed the closer the proximity to
the animal, the more visitors care about that animal and develop a desire to learn more
(Clayton, 2008).
On another note, the other LS at Larch mentions another way the turtle program
impacts communication in the prison. This LS expresses the way in which Larch holds
the SPP programs at a high level of importance and how this communicates out to other
prisons. This LS feels that if Larch continues to place SPP and SPP-like programs as a
priority, that other prisons will follow. They state that:
77
It’s important to me and the way we are approaching it makes it important to
others as well.
This LS was referring particularly to the effort Larch had put into creating a new
sustainability position to take on the programs instead of having a case manager take on
extra duties voluntarily.
The LS at Cedar Creek also felt a sense of pride in their emphasis on the
importance of SPP programs. Cedar Creek is where SPP began and, as a result, there is
more of an emphasis on setting the guidelines and showing other facilities what can be
done. However, this prison has not yet been able to create a full-time sustainability
position. I will discuss this further in the ‘Constructive Criticism’ section of the results.
Relationships. The theme of communication and collaboration led me to highlight
some examples of how the turtle program has impacted different relationships. The
following is a report on how the LS feel the program has impacted different relationships
inside and outside of the facility.
Staff-resident relationships. A common theme of seeing the residents as more
human rather than as offenders came up in all of the LS interviews. This is a powerful
message of the change that the turtle program and other SPP programs are capable of
having on a prison. There is a common narrative of prisons being a place where bad
people go. One could imagine when placed in a punitive role of us-versus-them, there
may come a time when that person in the putative role starts seeing residents as offenders
identified as a number, rather than a name. Here are three examples of how this theme of
resident humanity came up with the LS at Larch:
1. When you see them with a dog or cat or things like that, you start to see
them as human. It used to be slave driver and slave.
78
2. That’s how it was when I first started. That is breaking down. Treat
people the way you want to be treated. It’s hard to stay mad when they
start becoming John Smith, not offender.
3. Initially when you have folks who have spent time working in prisons,
they are like “What are you thinking bringing turtles in here?”...You can
watch where the techs spout the information and what they are doing to
care for these programs.
The first quote shows how seeing the residents work and care for animals - another living
creature - in prison, suddenly more human. In the second quote, the LS explains their
experience working in prisons before SPP-like programs and how the work environment
has changed since these programs were introduced. This LS specifically mentions the
change in seeing and treating the residents as human beings with a name rather than as an
offender. Later, in this section, you will read about the DS at Cedar Creek who explains
there are people who work in Washington State prisons who believe in poor treatment as
a form of punishment that the residents deserve because of their crime. However, there
does seem to be a transition happening with at least the staff who work with residents in
SPP-like programs. In the 3 quote, a LS at Larch explains how some staff were
rd
skeptical about the programs at first, but as time goes on, these staff change their minds
when they hear the residents in the program talking about their program and telling them
about the turtles.
In addition, one LS at Larch explained that it is not just the staff seeing the
residents as more human, but the residents seeing the staff as more human.
Win for staff-less assaults-residents see staff as people too…makes you more
human.
79
After being treated in a punitive way by staff members and expecting that, seeing the
staff work with animals and working in a different and more collaborative way has the
potential to change the resident’s view of staff.
The LS at Cedar Creek also mentioned, albeit less directly, the impact on staff
seeing the residents as more human. They placed more emphasis on seeing the residents
as valuable collaborators, which seems to place a more human quality on the residents. It
is a change in the traditional view. One LS stated:
Environmental factor is a lessening of the adversarial roles. If you and I are not
adversarial, we have a better working relationship-allows us to work better
outside of SPP programs too.... Not just about doing something negative…I might
be coming to talk about frogs, turtles or fun events…
This LS is explaining the change in the relationship between staff and residents in the
program; specifically in their roles to collaborate to make the programs successful. This
LS saw an improvement in the relationships between staff and residents in the turtle
program.
The other LS at Cedar Creek made a similar statement:
There is respect for the inmates in the level of skill being learned. This is true of
any working relationship.
This LS explains that the residents earn respect from the staff because of the technical
skills and knowledge that is required to care for turtles. In stating that this is “true of any
working relationship” this LS seems to show their feelings that the resident-staff work
relationship is equal to other working relationships. This may represent a shift in the LS
point of view and, as a result, they may start to take the residents more seriously.
This brings us back to the topic of collaboration. The LS at both Cedar Creek and
Larch agree the collaboration between staff and residents through working in SPP
80
programs, like the turtle program, seems to improve staff wellbeing. However, it also
seems to improve resident wellbeing and thus improves the relationship between staff and
residents as a whole. The residents and the staff members work together to reach a
common goal. This develops respect and trust between the staff and the residents that
directly work together.
In addition, the residents in the programs can gain satisfaction through caring for
the endangered animals and take pride in their contribution to save an endangered
species. Feelings of satisfaction and pride improve the mood of the residents, which, in
turn, improves the mood of the staff members. As described by one LS at Larch, this
impact is not only between the residents and the staff directly involved in the program,
but impacts the relationships throughout the facility:
It improves the moral of the residents and therefore the interactions with the staff
improves. The joy that they are feeling with those experiences impacts their
interactions with staff and other residents.
On the other hand, in addition to the majority of positive impacts in the
relationships between staff and residents at Cedar Creek, the LS also acknowledge that
some of the staff members who feel negatively about the program may not treat the
residents differently. The turtle program could either have a neutral or negative impact
on staff-resident relationships in this case. These staff members will either keep having
the same kind of working relationship with the residents as they did before or the staff
could treat the residents directly involved in the program with less respect because of
their association with the program. However, based on the previously mentioned
comments on how even the staff who do not like the program see the benefits, the neutral
impact may be more common.
81
According to one LS at Cedar Creek, residents developing a complex understanding
for the turtles and gaining knowledge in program earns them more respect from the staff they
encounter, saying that “There is respect for the inmates in the level of skill being learned.”
As the residents gain knowledge, respect from staff has the potential to increase. This
shows the possibility of programs, like the turtle program, to allow the residents to earn
the trust of the staff on some level.
Trusting an incarcerated individual is a topic that needs to be approached
carefully. There are strict boundaries staff members are trained to keep to promote prison
safety and to avoid being manipulated by residents. The trust I am about to discuss is not
blind trust. The residents in the program still need to be checked on just as frequently and
there is still a need for staff to sustain boundaries. However, there does appear to be
some level of trust built up once the residents have proven they can care for an
endangered species successfully and do it under less than normal supervision. Both the
turtle buildings at Larch and Cedar Creek are outside the fenced in units and away from
constant supervision.
The Larch and Cedar Creek LS do not mention trust specifically, but they do
mention being impressed by the skills the residents learn through caring for the turtles.
Therefore, the residents earned the trust of the LS and the staff members based on the
fact that staff trust the residents to do their jobs well. Trust comes up in a larger way in
other staff members. See the ‘Relationships’ section of the DS and IS results for more
information.
Overall, the LS at Larch and Cedar Creek agree that the majority of relationships
between the staff and the residents have improved through the turtle program and
82
programs like it. This improvement is achieved through: collaboration, learning, resident
success in caring for the animals and through the building of trust in the residents to care
for the animals.
Staff-staff relationships. Relationships between correctional staff members and
other correctional staff members were not directly mentioned by Larch LS, but were
mentioned a few times by LS from Cedar Creek. One LS at Cedar Creek separated the
staff members into two different categories - personal and professional. They then
explained how the personal staff do not have a positive view of the turtle program
because of their relationship with leadership in the prison.
Mostly from staff who are adversarial anyhow-because it was a source of pride
for the [LS]. All they can think about is their relationship with the [LS]. It’s not
about the program. It’s about their relationship with leadership.
This dynamic between the “personal staff” and the LS in the turtle program could do one
of two things. It could reinforce the negative relationship and thus cause the turtle
program to have a negative impact on how staff view LS. On the other hand, the LS
discussed later that some of the “personal staff” cannot ignore the positive impacts of
rehabilitating and releasing an endangered species has on the environment. Instead of
reinforcing a negative relationship, the turtle program could create shared positive
feelings for the program between the LS and the “personal staff.”
The other LS at Cedar Creek discussed how even though there are some staff that
don’t always get along with other staff members, SPP programs promote a collaborative
and calm atmosphere. The staff may have arguments, but they work together to problem
solve to get a job done.
83
This LS also described how the turtle program created opportunities for staff in
different programs to collaborate and work together in an unusual way. This LS was
referring to when the turtle program was in need of a storage area and the building
maintenance crew from Centralia College was inspired to help. Instead of building a
standard shed, the building instructor and his crew worked together to build a shed with a
turtle shaped roof.
It [the turtle program] has enough atmosphere that even maintenance jumped on
board with the turtle shed. Added to vocational skills.
This collaboration between programs allowed staff to work together and thus create a
new working relationship. This also allowed the residents on the building crew to gain
insight into the turtle program and make a contribution to the program while also
benefitting themselves through gaining new vocational skills.
Staff-family relationships. None of the LS at Cedar Creek or Larch directly
mentioned any impacts the turtle program had on relationships between staff and their
families. However, one LS at Cedar Creek did mention a direct impact the Oregon
Spotted Frog (OSF) program had on their relationship with their child.
My [kid] went to college and was volunteering at [names wildlife organization]hunting bull frogs because they were eating all the OSF. Being aware of Cedar
Creek, I was able to tie in what I’m doing with what my kid wants to do in the
future.
Although this is referring to the OSF program, this experience could have occurred with
the turtle program. In addition, when the OSF program was in operation, the program
was connected with the turtle program. This experience with the OSF program shows
one significant way SPP programs, like the turtle program, could create a path for
correctional staff to relate more to children with an interest in science. These programs
84
give the staff interesting knowledge to contribute to a conversation about endangered
species and science with their children.
Resident-resident relationships. One of the LS at Larch mentioned one impact on
relationships between the residents, which includes the sharing of knowledge between the
residents in the program and the other residents. This would most likely be between
those who the residents in the program are either friends with or who live in the same
living unit. Spreading of knowledge to others in the facility could have many impacts.
One impact could be the increase of scientific knowledge among the prison residents,
another could be an increase in awareness of the issue of endangered species. These
would both be positive relationship changes.
Another possible impact - which could be viewed as positive, negative or neutral
depending on the person interpreting - could be that the residents in the program become
infamous in the prison and gain a nickname, such as “The Turtle Guy.” This could be
seen as a benefit to the residents in the program to be known for something positive or it
could serve as a means for some of the residents to make fun of the residents in the
program for being a quote unquote “nerd” or “animal lover.” To know the impact for
sure, one would have to interview the residents in the program.
Resident-family relationships. While explaining why SPP programs were
important to them, one LS at Cedar Creek brought up how SPP programs, like the turtle
programs have the potential to impact the relationships between the residents and their
family members.
1st word, sustainable-is something we should teach people…Sustainability is the
basic premise of everything you want to do in life: relationship…job…
85
This LS felt that the concept of sustainability that is underlying in programs, like the
turtle program, relates not only to the environment, but to a way of life. They feel that
teaching sustainability to the residents teaches them to live their lives in a way that can be
sustained. This means learning how to sustain relationships and jobs, for example. If this
sustainability message is effectively carried out, it could potentially help the residents
build a stronger and healthier relationship with their family and friends on the outside.
The tricky part may be effective communication of how to live sustainably. Currently,
there are no sustainability curriculums used specifically for the turtle program. There are
certain sustainability themes which are incorporated in the readings, however, structured
lessons on sustainability and connecting that to the lives of the residents does not
currently exist and is an area of opportunity for improvement.
Contribution and empowerment. There was a common theme discussed by LS at
Cedar Creek and Larch of staff and the residents wanting to help the environment and the
animals that are suffering due to humans. This need to contribute was underlying and
preexisting. In other words, the turtle program did not create this need to contribute;
instead, it gave both the staff and the residents the opportunity to fulfill that desire.
Personally I’ve never seen…when I was a little girl going to petting zoos-there
were enormous turtles, but I had never been around other populations and species.
The first time I saw one of the turtles when they first came in….they were so
injured. It’s a helpless feeling that you didn’t know about this and didn’t help
them sooner. I didn’t know enough to help them. Now I know they eat things
like mealworms and their temp needs to be higher. I never realized this was a
problem…it had a positive impact.
The LS at Larch who made this statement felt the need to help the turtles once they
learned about the shell disease. At first, they felt helpless, but the program gave them the
86
means to make a difference. It provided them with an opportunity to fulfill their desire to
contribute to positive actions on a larger scale.
This LS had a pre-existing appreciation for animals and has strong feelings about
the wide range of benefits animal programs can provide, however, their focus before was
mainly on cats and dogs. The turtle program seems to have opened up a new avenue to
help animals and benefits the residents. This LS goes on to acknowledge that the
opportunities for helping the environment are endless. They mention specifically the
“broad spectrum of things we can do to lower our footprint”. The turtle program, as well
as other animal and sustainability programs, seems to have empowered this LS through
providing useful tools to make positive change.
The other LS at Larch describes how the programs are particularly helpful to staff
that are interested in animals and have a desire to contribute.
I think it's been positive. Not only for the residents involved, but for the staff as
well - especially for those who love animals and like to do something positive turtles added to that.
Therefore, the program may attract staff members who are predisposed to having a need
to contribute to either helping animals, helping the residents or helping the environment.
This could have many impacts on how the program affects the staff involved. This
comment could mean that the programs are not changing anyone’s minds because the
staff coming into the program already have a nontraditional mindset. Another possibility
could be that some staff go into the program with a desire to help nature or a desire to
learn and while working in the program, their view of the residents shifts positivity. A
hint to the answer to this question comes from the IS interviews later in this section.
87
The clear power in programs like the turtle program is its ability to empower both
the staff and the residents to contribute through providing opportunities that are not
traditionally present in prisons in the United States. One of the LS staff went into a
detailed discussion on the benefits they feel SPP programs have on the residents.
SPP allows them [the residents] to relate to other creatures and also relate to their
own life. There is a lot of stuff they can relate to their own life. The turtles are
sick, injured and damaged and there is absolutely no one to care for them.
Creating a safe place for them where they can heal and recover-very similar to
what we [the prison] do-it’s a good way for understanding it’s not all their fault as
to why they ended up the way they did. They can really begin to see that you [the
residents] were not given the best chances. This is an opportunity giving back
what’s been taken away. It the ability to give reparations, even on the smallest of
things.
From the point of view of this LS, the residents are in prison often because they were not
provided the right opportunities in life. They believe that all SPP programs offer an
opportunity for the prison to help the residents understand this about themselves and give
the residents an opportunity to succeed and do something positive.
The LS at Cedar Creek made similar comments on the benefits of making a
contribution to the residents and the staff:
They hold value to everybody. The offenders get a sense of pride and give back
to the community. For staff, it gives them the opportunity to impact something
more than just prison-the environment. There is value to efforts to help
environmental issues.
This LS emphasizes the tools these programs - like the turtle program - give to staff
which allow them to have an impact on something more than just prisons. These tools
allow staff to have a direct and positive impact on the environment and natural world.
On another note, the LS in particular seemed to feel a need to contribute
positively and change the Washington State prisons for the better. A common theme in
both the LS at Larch and the LS at Cedar Creek was their pride in the SPP programs they
88
had in their facilities and their desire to share these programs with other facilities. The
SPP programs at Larch are still fairly new, but the LS believe they are approaching the
programs in a more dedicated way by adding a full time staff member for sustainability
programs. Cedar Creek was the first prison to ever have SPP programs, and thus, the LS
at Cedar Creek feel a sense of pride for being the first prison involved. They feel that
they helped lay the groundwork for the many other SPP programs to take off in other
prisons.
Empathy. The final impact on prosocial behavior that appeared in the LS
interviews was empathy. None of the LS staff directly mentioned the word “empathy”.
Some aspects of the empathy results have already been discussed in the staff-resident
relationship section. Particularly, I am referring to the part where the LS describe the
staff and residents seeing each other as more human. One piece about empathy that the
LS at Larch brought up that has not been mentioned, is the feeling of empathy towards
the animals from both the staff and the residents.
While explaining how the residents benefit from caring for and being responsible
for a living turtle, one LS referred to the turtles as people. After inquiring further, the LS
explained why they used the word “people” to describe animals:
I don’t view animals a whole lot differently. I like animals more than people.
They have too many similarities. They breathe, they feel, they have emotions
just like a person does. I think they experience loss. I think the research backs
this up. Maybe they feel it in a different way, but they still experience it.
This LS believes that animals share many similarities emotionally to humans and that
they can relate to animals in this way. When people realize that animals have emotional
intelligence, they may find they can relate to the animals on a deeper level. This LS
relates animals to children and hints to the residents gaining empathy and parenting skills
89
from working with the turtles. In discussing the release of the turtles back into the wild,
this LS states that watching the residents is “like watching a parent watch their kid go off
to college.” While describing the shell disease and how the residents care for the turtles,
they say:
The turtles remind me of a toddler that has a belly ache, but doesn’t know why.
The techs help them feel better.
If the residents also see the turtles as children, one could imagine residents gaining
empathy and parenting skills from caring for the turtles. However, a follow up study on
resident program participants would be needed to understand the impacts on the residents
in the program. If caring for turtles does build empathy, then the residents might start to
have more empathy for the prison staff and other residents, as well as empathy for
themselves and their family on the outside.
Another LS at Larch describes the personalities all animals have and the feelings
relationships that animals and humans can develop with each other feel good.
Watch any animal for a long period of time, they have personalities. Makes you
feel good that you can relate to them and they can relate to you.
This LS feels that relating to animals, or feeling empathy for animals, has the potential to
give an individual positive feelings and brightens their mood. This LS particularly refers
to the animals in the prison - specifically their experience in the dog program - having the
ability to put the staff in a better mood and thus treat the residents better.
In addition, this LS at Larch describes their pre-existing feelings of empathy and
about their thoughts on how to treat residents:
The people in prison are broke. We are all a little broke…it’s not our job to
punish, it’s our job to help-find out what their [the resident’s] needs are. We give
them a purpose.
90
This LS was saying that through all SPP programs, the prison is given a toolkit to help
the residents find a sense of purpose. It gives the LS one way to act on their empathetic
feelings towards the residents in a positive way.
In conclusion, many of the LS had pre-existing feelings of empathy towards the
animals and residents. The turtle program and other SPP programs, like the dog and cat
programs, give the LS one set of tools to act on their feelings and facilitate the growth of
empathetic emotions in the residents and staff through helping the animals.
LS Conclusion. Overall the LS at both prisons claimed that the turtle program and
other SPP programs increased staff’s prosocial behavior with other staff members and the
residents. The program was reported to increase communication between both staff and
residents, however, better communication is needed to spread awareness of the turtle
program amongst more people in the facility. Close encounters with the turtles was said
to be the most effective way to raise program awareness. There was an inherent need for
the LS at Larch in particular to contribute to resident success and the environment. This
program provided a way for the LS to fulfill that need. At Cedar Creek in particular,
there was an increase in job satisfaction amongst the LS and in the overall atmosphere of
the facility.
In addition, the relationships between staff, residents and their families was said
to be impacted in a positive way. The staff gained knowledge and job satisfaction in the
program, which they brought home and share with their families. The residents gained
knowledge and respect in the program and the staff start to see the residents as more
human. This empathy gained by the staff and their pre-existing empathy and desire to
impact the animals and the residents in a positive way places an importance for the turtle
91
program to provide that opportunity. With this increase in prosocial behavior, comes
better communication and respect inside the prison facility. If these responses from the
LS are a good representation of the impacts of the turtle program, this could have a great
positive impact on the job satisfaction of staff members and prison safety.
Direct Staff. DS from both Larch and Cedar Creek spoke of a common theme in
which the turtle program supported and increased prosocial behavior in staff and
residents. The prosocial results from the DS interviews on this topic differed slightly
from the results from the LS. The most likely explanation is that DS have more direct,
face-to-face interactions with the residents and the turtles that the LS. The DS have
experience working with the residents on at least a weekly basis. This allows the DS to
develop a working relationship with residents instead of a purely supervisory
relationship. The following section describes the pre-existing prosocial behaviors of the
staff and the prosocial behaviors that seem to have developed with the assistance of the
turtle program.
Relationships. The following sections break down the different impacts the turtle
program have on DS and the residents in the programs at both Larch and Cedar Creek.
Staff-staff. The DS at Larch reported a more positive impact on the relationships
between staff members than the DS at Cedar Creek. The DS at Cedar Creek reported
negative relationships with some staff because those staff did not support the turtle
program and thus were not supportive of the DS; whereas the DS at Larch reported a
positive impact on their relationship with other staff.
Both of the DS at Larch explained that all staff at Larch showed support of the
turtle program. They did say that there were some initial concerns for safety with the
92
residents being mostly unsupervised while in the turtle building, but the concerns seemed
to dissipate as the awareness of the program and its importance spread throughout the
prison. One DS at Larch explained that the key to the overwhelming amount of positivity
towards the program was due to the way the program was interpreted to the other staff whether it be custody, case managers, or maintenance. The program was explained to
each staff in a way that was relevant to them. This caused staff who were not involved in
the program to become excited. This DS described the excitement when the turtle
program first started:
…staff and offenders both simply just wanted to see what happened next and
became more inquisitive and started doing research on their own. I had quite a
few staff and offenders come up and throw random facts out that they’d gone and
looked up on their own (all staff-custody, counselors, admin, and even kitchen)
The DS said the other staff became interested in helping and supporting the program.
This excitement, sharing of knowledge and helpfulness between staff members seems to
have impacted the relationship between DS and other staff members in a positive way.
On the other hand, the DS at Cedar Creek reported positive relationships with
people other staff who are supportive of the program, but negative noted a negative
impact on relationships with staff who were unsupportive of the program. The DS
reported a need for more effective communication to other staff not directly involved in
the program. They also reported they felt some staff members’ minds would not be
changed. Staff whose minds are against the program may feel that the residents do not
deserve anything except punishment or just not be well educated about the purpose and
impacts of the program. The DS believe that staff who do not understand the program
but believe the residents deserve opportunities in prison can be.
One DS at Cedar Creek reported:
93
Most people who work at prison don’t realize it's more than turtles. There needs
to be more connection. People need to know that this program equips the techs
with prosocial behaviors and skills that try to equip them for when they go out.
Please see the section on ‘Constructive Criticism’ for a more in depth discussion on the
need and possible solutions for better communication and improved relationships
between the DS and other staff at Cedar Creek.
Staff-community. Cedar Creek DS did not discuss direct impacts between
themselves and their community. Whereas, one Larch DS discussed this a great deal.
This DS talked about how they see the media on the turtle program on Facebook and at
the Oregon Zoo and share it with their family. The positive media attention gives them a
sense of pride and an opportunity to engage and educate their friends, family and the
community as a whole on the positive prison program they are involved in. This DS
talked about the enjoyment of describing the turtle program to an acquaintance and the
acquaintance being shocked and excited that a program like that existed inside a prison.
This DS seemed to gain a great deal of satisfaction sharing their knowledge about the
program. They said:
It’s fun to talk about. We are only one of two that have this program. It broadens
understanding…people take that back and talk to their friends and family.
This DS went on to say that spreading the word of this positive program not only starts to
change the view of the prison, but also starts to change the community's’ view of the
residents. This is an interesting point that no other staff members mentioned in the
interviews. The impact on media attention on the prison as a whole was mentioned
several times, but not the impact on the view of the community on the residents. The
media could potentially help communities see the value in the resident population.
94
Staff-family. Both the DS at Larch and Cedar Creek discussed impacts of the
program on their relationships with their families. The DS who described the impact on
their relationship with the community, above also mentioned one impact between them
and their family. The turtle program gave this staff a sense of pride as well as something
to share and talk about with their family.
On another note, one DS at Cedar Creek discussed bringing the things they
learned in the program back to their family in the form of environmental action. This
person was inspired by climate change discussion groups held between the turtle program
SPP Student Coordinator, SPP Student Coordinators from other programs, the residents
and the SPP Liaison. This DS had previous education in sustainable practices, but did
not have many people in their life that shared those values. They described the turtle
program experience as good reminder of these values. This staff person’s family is not
supportive of taking positive environmental actions, so their worm bin they installed may
not have a positive impact on their family relationship. Nevertheless, this DS seemed
excited about the changes and potential that they will be able to get their families buy-in
in the future.
Resident-family. Only one DS at Cedar Creek mentioned the impact they felt the
turtle program had on the relationship between residents in the program and their
families. This DS stated:
This program is awesome. It gives the techs compassion to take home to families
and their lives. It’s not just turtles.
This quote not only touches on the topic of the program impacting the relationship
between residents and their families in a positive way, but also touches on the empathy
95
the staff report the residents gaining from this program. See the DS section on empathy
for a more in depth discussion.
Resident-resident relationships. One DS at Larch talked about the impact the
turtle program has on the relationships between residents in the program and residents
outside the program several times throughout the interview. This DS described the
infectious positive attitude of the residents in the program carrying out to other residents.
In other words, when the residents in the program come back from working with the
turtles, this DS feels they come back with a positive attitude and that positive attitude
impacts the other residents and the entire atmosphere of the prison.
This DS also described their observations of the relationship between two of the
residents in the program. They explained that the two residents in the program were very
different from each other and that the program brought them into a work environment
where they needed to work as a team towards a common goal.
The two [residents]… came from two completely different backgrounds.
Bringing them together and watching them collaborate and learn; I could see
their stress greatly reduce. Gave them a more positive outlook on life.
The fact that this DS describes this relationship between the residents as stress reducing
and positively impacting their outlook on life for the residents signifies potential for the
turtle program to impact the behavior of the residents in a positive way. If the residents
are less stressed and more positive, their behavior would likely improve and thus improve
the safety of the prison. In addition, watching this positive relationship develop between
the residents seemed to bring job satisfaction to this DS, as they felt the program they
were running was helpful.
96
Staff-resident. The DS at both facilities reported overall positive impacts of the
program on the relationship between the residents in the program and themselves. The
DS at Larch that discussed the resident’s positivity in the program also discussed that the
program gave them job satisfaction because it gave them time to get to know the
residents on a professional level. This DS felt that spending time with the residents in the
program allowed them to be more successful at their job because it allowed them to gain
a better understanding of the needs of residents. The other DS at Larch had a slightly
different response. This DS seemed to not have as much faith in the capabilities and
trustworthiness of the residents. At the same time, they discussed how the residents were
good communicators and how important it is to treat the residents with respect and like
human beings preparing to re-enter the community. This was a subtlety that can be
interpreted a number of ways. Given this DS has doubts about the capabilities and
trustworthiness of residents, this person may be in a transitional process of figuring out
how to collaborate with the residents as partners in the program. They did mention this
being a challenge:
Yeah, it’s funny…have to find a balance of being respectful [towards residents]
and understanding and also hold them accountable.
This DS at Larch also discussed the other prison staff roles they had been in and
how the residents reacted to them differently in each role. They explained the strictly
punitive roles as causing negative interactions with the residents. Involvement in the
turtle program was a positive change for this DS because the residents view them as more
positive. Therefore, the program seems to have a positive impact on the relationship
between this DS as well as a positive impact on job satisfaction.
97
One DS at Cedar Creek focused on the impact the program had on their view of
residents and how this impacted their relationship with the residents. This DS explained
that working side-by-side with the residents in turtle program and other SPP programs,
played a role in helping them to see and treat residents as humans.
I was trained in keeping certain barriers and although they are human you can’t
interact on a personal level. Finding offenders interested and willing to work-I
knew they were human. I knew I was supposed to treat them differently. This
was a step forward from that. Treat them as individuals and not just offenders.
Seeing this humanity in the residents not only helped them be more positive towards
residents, but also helped the residents see humanity in the DS.
The best compliment I have ever gotten was from an offender on my caseload
who was not getting out until 2053 if ever. He said “I can’t believe you just talk
to me. It’s just a humanity.” He is articulate and intelligent, but couldn’t even get
it out. He has been treated as scum, not as a human.
Seeing the humanity in the residents seems to have the potential to significantly improve
relationships between the residents and the staff. This improvement could be especially
helpful for case managers, because if the case manager is viewing the resident as an
individual and a human being, they might be able to assist the residents with
programming and re-entry in a more effective way that is tailored to that particular
individual.
The other DS at Cedar Creek also reported a positive impact on their relationship
with the residents, but did not go into detail. This person specifically mentioned the
residents in the program coming into their office to ask questions about the program.
This seemed to bring this DS job satisfaction through breaking up their usual routine and
discussing topics not related to prisons.
98
Partnerships. There are many partnerships which make the turtle program
possible. These partnerships include Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Oregon Zoo (OR Zoo), Woodland Park Zoo (WPZ), and PAWS Wildlife
Rehabilitation Center (PAWS). Both the DS at Larch and Cedar Creek discussed benefits
gained from relationships with partner organizations.
One DS at Larch explained when the partners come in to visit the program and
check up on the turtles, they bring educational opportunities. These learning
opportunities give the DS more information to share with other staff and partners.
One of the DS at Cedar Creek also mentioned the knowledge gained from the visiting
partner organizations. They had a focus more on the emotional knowledge gained - such
as compassion and empathy- rather than factual knowledge. They described how the
veterinarian from WDFW who visited the program helped to teach empathy towards the
turtles to the residents involved in the program:
It was really cool to see the doctor come out and explain that she would not be
cleaning out the wounds entirely without pain medication. It teaches the
technicians that the turtles feel pain just like we feel pain. The care she had
handling them. They are like people, they are like children.
Watching this interaction between the residents in the program and the veterinarian
seemed to give this DS appreciation for outside experts. In this instance, the DS
appreciated the important knowledge the residents were gaining from the veterinarian.
The knowledge that was shared by the veterinarian was that all living creatures feel pain,
just like you do and that all creatures deserve respect, compassion, and empathy. This is a
helpful lesson on empathy that may help a resident with challenging times during
parenting.
99
Contribution and Empowerment. Like the interview responses from the LS at
Cedar Creek and Larch, the DS at both facilities described the turtle program as having a
positive impact on their ability to contribute to something on a larger scale and empower
them to make meaningful changes. For example, one DS at Larch described how the
turtle program, and other SPP programs, helped bring an awareness of their
environmentalism This newly discovered knowledge led them to spread environmental
awareness to others and become a kind of activist inside the prison though encouraging
people to compost, use less water, et cetera.
The things they learned from working in the turtle program empowered the DS to
make a difference and share their knowledge so others could make a difference too. One
DS at Larch stated:
I can talk to people and they talk to people-it’s a chain.
Like the LS, the DS seemed to have a pre-existing desire to make a positive contribution
to the residents and animals. This program gave them a means to make a tangible
positive impact. The prison work environment was described as being redundant and
frustrating. This program seemed to allow the DS at Larch and Cedar Creek to put their
energy into something that was positive and rejuvenating.
In addition to using the turtle program to contribute positively to the prison
environment, the DS at Cedar Creek reported being empowered by the environmental
education piece of the program to make change in their personal lives outside of prison.
They started making changes in their own home to live more sustainably in the face of
climate change. One DS who emphasized this impact explained they had previous
100
knowledge of sustainability, but that knowledge was reawakened after discussing climate
change with the residents in the turtle program. This DS went on to state their belief that:
We need to do all we can to keep the planet safe for our children, the animals and
everything on this earth.
The other DS at Cedar Creek shared this pre-existing interest in helping the environment,
but also found themselves to be empowered to contribute in a way they never thought
was possible before. This DS stated:
I’ve always been interested in, but I didn’t think I could ever impact an
endangered species. Now that I know, I know I can get involved any way I want
to. I started looking stuff up. They’re doing plantings right by the river here in
fact!
This quote shows how the program made this DS feel empowered to make a difference
and opened up a whole new world of opportunity to help the environment and the
animals living within it.
Contributing to the environment was not the DS’s at Cedar Creek’s only interest.
They also showed a serious interest in helping the residents in the prison. The DS at
Cedar Creek discussed how the program helped the residents learn, gain experience,
increase prosocial behavior and build empathy. One DS stated
You are giving them the experience and help they need. The experience they are
getting from this, with these turtles, is just a small portion of the experiences in
the program.
This DS was expressing their thought of the program as a means to assist the residents in
a successful re-entry. The DS at Cedar Creek feel this program is a means to make a
positive impact on the behavior and success of the residents in the program.
Empathy. In addition to the change from seeing residents as offenders to seeing
them as individual human beings, the DS staff at Cedar Creek also reported pre-existing
101
feelings of empathy towards animals. This is similar to the previously discussed report
from some of the LS. One of the DS described the similarities between humans and
animals and how the turtles needed to be cared for like a human child, as with other
animals. They explained that we all have the same basic needs and in this sense the
turtles are able to teach the residents empathy through caring for them.
DS prosocial conclusion. There were overall positive impacts on prosocial
behavior discussed during the interviews of the DS at Larch and Cedar Creek. There were
pre-existing prosocial behavioral tendencies apparent in all of the DS and the turtle
program seemed to give them a way to act on and embrace those tendencies; such as
being empathetic and helping through positive contribution. Although there was some
pre-existing empathy, a deeper level of empathy and respect for the residents seemed to
develop with program participation. The collaborative environment of the program led
the DS to start to see the residents as more human rather than offenders. Many of the
relationships between staff, residents, the community and families were impacted in a
positive way. However, negative impacts were reported at Cedar Creek. Some of the
staff have negative opinions about the turtle program and thus share that negativity with
the staff involved in the program. This may be partially counterbalanced with education
and interpretation, but the DS feel that some people will not be won over because of their
strong opinions. However, overall there was an overwhelmingly positive impact on the
prosocial behavior of staff from the turtle program.
Indirect Staff. As expected, the IS who were interviewed did not report as many
prosocial impacts from their involvement in the turtle program than the LS and the DS. In
addition, the impacts they reported were equally split between constructive criticism and
102
positive impacts. Again, the majority of IS interviewed were from Cedar Creek, with
only one IS from Larch. The interviews offer a better picture of the views of the IS at
Cedar Creek than from Larch. The following section describes the prosocial impacts
from the point of view of the IS with a focus on the complex relationships at Cedar Creek
between custody and case managers.
Relationships. There was a difference between the views of the IS staff who were
in the role of case managers and the IS staff who are in a custody role. Custody staff
members refer to those in charge of security and emergency response. Case managers are
in charge of a certain number of residents on their caseload: this involves knowing and
assisting residents through their casework and assigning them to different educational
programming and jobs. The following section on impacts of the turtle program on
relationships breaks down the different viewpoints between custody and case manager IS.
Staff-staff. The IS case managers at Cedar Creek reported positive views of the
program, but also explained that in particular, custody staff members seemed to have
negative views of the program. One IS said how they think the custody staff do not see
importance in the program because they do not see the results of the program:
The impact on the officers…they don’t like it. They don’t see how it affects the
offenders. They don’t see how it benefits them.
When I asked them how this might be changed, they said:
It would be very hard. I don’t know that it can change. It’s not a part of their
program. They are so used to seeing them [the residents] as liars and
untrustworthy. We all make mistakes in our lives. We can’t continue to discredit
them because they are human. They [the officers] really need to learn to be
humble. Whatever they say, I see them take whatever is going on in their lives
out on the offenders. The only way the offenders are going to learn is through us.
We are their models. It’s not good to model negative behavior and expect them to
go out in the community and be humble. We have to be their light.
103
This IS believes that custody staff members do not think highly of the turtle program and
are not aware of the positive things the program is doing. Based on the feedback from
this IS, there seems to be a disconnect between the case managers and the custody staff. It
was not made clear if this claim was based off of certain custody staff members or was an
overarching claim about all custody staff.
However, the custody staff who were interviewed at Cedar Creek do not appear to
have negative feelings towards the program. Although, these are the custody staff who
have been exposed to the program on some level, so maybe there is negativity coming
from other custody staff members who were not interviewed for this research.
Nevertheless, the custody staff who were interviewed had an overall positive view of the
program. Even though their roles in helping with the program were small, they are
important. The custody staff interviewed felt responsibility for the program. One custody
staff explained that they felt the turtle program helped with cooperation amongst staff
members involved in the program. They also commented on their appreciation for how
smoothly the program runs on the custody side of things. In addition, they acknowledged
there was an initial issue with the custody staff not understanding the purpose of the
program:
A lot of staff now understand the importance of the program. They didn’t
understand and now they do.
However, when asked what they knew about the program, this IS responded:
To be honest, not much, but I know about how they survive in the environment
and that they are tracked and numbered.
I believe this response points to the importance of program interpretation. Even though
this staff member knew very little about the program, they did know information they
104
could relate to, such as the turtle tracking system. This tracking system can be related to
the numbering system used to keep track of the residents in the prison. Although this
may seem cold or disengaged with the goals of the turtle program, the numbering system
grabbed the attention of this custody staff member. It is important to note that this
custody staff member also noted they believe environmental programs are important in
the prison and that anything positive the prison can do to help the environment is
beneficial to everyone.
The other interviewed IS who works in custody at Cedar Creek shared similar
views of the turtle program. This IS also explained that they developed a trust in the
residents in the program to be unsupervised and still do their job - what they are supposed
to do. This counteracts the previous case manager statement that officers feel that all
residents are untrustworthy. This IS went further to say that:
[The turtle program] Impacts security in a positive way in that it keeps them busy
and out of trouble. This makes a safer and more secure place.
Therefore, this IS appears to feel positively about the program and the residents in it.
This seems to counterbalance some of the ideas the case manager had about the views of
the custody staff. However, the following quote indicates that some of the views may
pertain to this custody staff in some ways, but the program may be a start to changing
their opinions about the residents:
Whether it’s a turtle or the dog program, this not only gives the offenders a job,
but gives them responsibility to generally care about while they are in prison.
Most of the guys don’t care about anything.
This IS makes the claim that the majority of residents in the prison do not care about
anything, but the residents in the turtle program do. This implies that it is possible for the
105
custody staff to see the more human qualities in the residents because they care and
nurture the turtles.
It may seem as though this section has gotten off topic from the relationships
between staff members, however, it is important to note that there are contradicting
viewpoints between the case managers and custody staff. The contradictions represented
by these two groups of staff - who were indirectly involved in the programs - represents a
disconnect and need for better communication between the case managers and the
custody staff at Cedar Creek. If communication was increased, the staff roles would
realize their shared values and possibly open up the opportunity to engage those who may
have a negative view of the program. See the section on ‘Constructive Criticism’ for a
discussion on possible solutions to this problem.
After interviewing one IS at Larch who was a custody staff member, there was
also a disconnect revealed between the custody staff and case managers at Larch,
however, the miscommunication was quite different from the one revealed at Cedar
Creek. At Larch, the case managers believed the custody staff had only negative view of
the program and the custody staff reported positive views of the program. The case
managers at Larch reported the custody staff as having positive views of the program,
while the custody staff member interviewed reported the program having a negative
impact on their workload. The IS at Larch felt the turtle program was positive, but there
were challenges. They felt the program added to their workload and that the prison’s
structure was not made to house animals. These were challenges that this IS seemed to
be willing to work with, but challenges nonetheless. This indicates the need to open up
106
more dialogue between custody staff and case managers at Larch as well in order to
address concerns thoroughly and come up with solutions.
Staff-family. Only one IS at Cedar Creek explained that their involvement in the
turtle program impacted their relationship with their family. It gave the IS an opportunity
to share knowledge with their family. The IS explained that they always had an interest
in nature and being outdoors, but after experiencing the turtle program, they would stay
longer in certain areas in nature to observe in order to try to catch a glimpse of a turtle
with their family. This IS also showed interest in learning more about other opportunities
to share the turtle program with their family. The program has opportunities to improve
educational outreach for IS interested in learning more about SPP.
Resident-family. Two of the IS at Cedar Creek mentioned how the turtle program
may improve the relationship between residents involved in the program and their
families. One IS described how the knowledge of the turtle program has spread
throughout the facility. They mention that the program is included in family friendly
events and the annual science fair at the prison. Another IS mentioned how the turtle
program gives the residents in the program knowledge to pass on to their children. Both
of these impacts could potentially improve their relationship with or at least give the
residents something new to talk about with their families. This could increase the
wellbeing of the residents and thus improve their attitude or behavior towards the staff.
Staff-resident. At Cedar Creek, the turtle program appears to have a positive
impact on interactions between IS and residents who are in the program... For example,
one IS in the role of case manager at Cedar Creek, explained that the turtle program
broke down a barrier between this IS and the residents:
107
I remember getting sent a health diagram for the frog program and was asked to
call the frog techs into my office to look at the diagram on my computer screen.
This was not prison related. It broke down a barrier.
In other words, like the LS and the DS have described, this IS felt that the turtle program
helped to break up the prison routine. This IS feels this is refreshing and opened up an
opportunity for an interesting conversation and learning opportunity between the
residents and themselves.
In addition, another IS at Cedar Creek showed that they felt the program gave the
residents an opportunity to feel and be viewed as humans. They explained how some staff
members forget the residents are human and this program is a good reminder and
awakening:
I think it’s good…good to have the inmates feel they are humans; that they’re not
bad people. Being in this work force, people who work for DOC, they forget that
the offenders are human. It’s a good time for them, when they are incarcerated, to
have knowledge. Being around animals connects us to the world.
This IS the interaction between the animals and the knowledge the residents gained from
the program brought out the humanity of the residents. The other IS at Cedar Creek in
the role of case manager agreed, saying:
It is a link to something that is more human even though it’s turtles…figure that
out!
This was important to this IS because they felt this helped staff members who may have
forgotten that the residents were human remember. This IS possibly improved how staff
not involved in the program treated residents. This IS felt that the job of all staff
members is to demonstrate what prosocial behavior looks like and treating the residents
poorly sends an unproductive message to the residents.
108
The IS at Cedar Creek in the role of custody staff seemed to reflect the result of
this reminder to some extent. One of these IS discussed how they began to trust the
residents in the program. They were impressed that every time myself, as the SPP
student coordinator, or the SPP Liaison went out to the turtle building, the residents were
doing what they were supposed to be doing, even without supervision. This IS also
mentioned how they saw these residents obviously cared about the turtles, and thus they
viewed the residents as caring. This IS did not feel other residents shared this level of
caring, but for the individuals in the program it made a difference.
The other IS at Cedar Creek in the role of custody staff was impressed by the
knowledge the residents had in the program. As a result, this IS began to respect the
residents. They explained that the residents were so well informed about the protocols in
the program, that it made responding to any emergencies go smoothly. They stated that
they “have been surprised and impressed by the knowledge the technicians have.”
On another note, the one IS at Larch in the role of custody staff felt that the
program had little to no impact on their relationship between themselves and the residents
in the program. They did mention that they sometimes ask the residents about how the
program going, but that was only to engage them in conversation while inspecting the
building. This IS explained that they were interested in the program and always has been,
but did not want to get involved because they were being careful to set boundaries. In
other words, they did not want to be taken advantage of and overworked. This goes back
to the topic brought up by one of the DS at Cedar Creek. There seems to be a common
concern that WADOC will take advantage of people who show initiative and volunteer to
109
help with projects outside of their typical duties. Please see the ‘Constructive Criticism’
section for a discussion on opportunities for improvement on this issue.
Contribution and Empowerment. A common theme noted by IS staff at Cedar
Creek was an increase of environmental awareness through the turtle program. One of the
IS, who is a case manager, had previous knowledge and interest in nature. The program
added to the interest in nature and furthered the IS’s knowledge that there is an
endangered native turtle in Washington. The IS then passed on knowledge of the
endangered turtle to their family. This IS also felt thankful that the program existed and
the turtles were trying to be brought back from the brink of extinction.
The other IS who was a case manager felt that the knowledge of the program led to an
interest in contributing to the program. They became more interested in getting involved.
They also mentioned the awareness the program brought to them about the turtle and the
environmental impacts the turtle was experiencing. This IS described the awareness they
gained about the turtles:
I didn’t know they were so…I didn’t know they were so loving…I didn’t know
they would swim towards you. I didn’t know they were friendly like that. I
didn’t know the environment was actually affecting them and their health.
The program not only brought awareness of environmental issues and inspired this IS to
think about becoming more involved, but also brought an awareness of the so-called
“human emotions” and different personalities the turtles seemed to have. In addition, this
IS explained that their interactions with the animals helped the residents and this seemed
make the IS feel that the program was making a positive contribution to the residents.
The IS in the custody staff position also awareness gained about the turtles. There
was no discussion of sharing that knowledge with others, but they themselves did become
110
aware of the plight the turtles were facing. Overall, the staff seemed to gain awareness
about environmental issues and two staff members felt a pre-existing desire to contribute.
Although other IS developed an internal sense of environmental awareness, only one
staff is a case manager mentioned spreading this awareness to people around them.
Empathy. Besides the humanity the residents appeared to gain through working
with the turtles as described above. The IS at Cedar Creek who were case managers
experienced felt a sense of empathy towards the turtles as well. This was a pre-existing
feeling for one IS, but a new feeling for the other.
IS conclusion. IS in this research were minimally involved in the turtle program.
Despite their minimal involvement, they seemed impacted by the turtle program through
learning, gaining awareness of environmental issues facing the turtles and gaining trust in
some of the residents in the program. Improved communication about the program and
between different staff roles would help the relationships between case managers and
custody staff. This being said, the relationships between the residents and the IS appear
to be positively impacted by the turtle program. These results are significant for staff
who had so little involvement and, therefore, shows possibilities in this program
impacting staff beyond those directly involved.
Prosocial Conclusion. Overall the experiences of LS, DS, and IS involved in the
turtle program increased prosocial behavior. There were differences between the level of
impact the programs had based on the different roles in the program, but every staff
member seemed to be impacted in a positive way. Many staff members had pre-existing
feelings of empathy towards animals and the residents and the program gave them a tool
to act on those feelings. In addition, the program seemed to improve how view residents.
111
Staff appear to view residents as humans instead of simply a number. These prosocial
impacts indicate the possibility of the turtle program and other programs like it to provide
a way to improve working relationships between the staff and residents in a positive and
productive way. The following table (Table 1) summarizes the major findings on the
impacts of prosocial behavior on all staff involved in the turtle program at both facilities.
Table 1. Simplified Summary of Notable Reported Prosocial Impacts of the Turtle
Program on Staff at both Prisons.
Staff-resident
relationships
Staff-staff
relationships
Staff-family
relationships
Contribution and
Empowerment
Collaboration
Improved
communication
Ability to relate to
children
Empowered to
make a difference
in resident lives
Staff view residents
as human
Negativeunsupportive staff
Desire to teach
family
Inspired to bring
lessons home
Residents
view staff as human
Inspired to face a
fear of animals
Break down of
barriers
Inspired to learn
more
Improved
communication
Increased
environmental
awareness
Increased empathy
Inspired to take
environmental
action
112
Constructive Criticism
This section is broken up a bit differently than the section on staff wellbeing and
prosocial behavior. In order to make the needs at each facility clear, this section is
broken up into different recommendations with a breakdown of specific constructive
feedback for each facility and SPP as a whole. In the discussion of each
recommendation, the staff who made the suggestion - whether LS, DS or IS - will be
made clear.
Full time sustainability position. When staff members take on extra
responsibilities on top of their already full time position, this can lead to burnout and
decreased job satisfaction. A full time sustainability position is currently being trialed at
Larch. At this time, Cedar Creek has not implemented a full time staff member. The
following two sections break up the feedback at Larch and Cedar Creek on this issue.
Larch. Having a permanent full time sustainability staff member would help
reduce the workload of the staff at Larch and improve programming. The LS and the DS
both mentioned the importance of this position and the need to make the position
permanent. The position is currently being trialed at Larch. One LS explained this was
made possible through prioritizing the position and struggling with the budget.
Originally the SPP Liaison position was covered by a full time case manager. Case
managers already have a full workload and through taking on the extra tasks of SPP
programs, like the turtle program, this person was juggling too many things. This impact
on workload was described by one of the DS as “difficult to maintain.” As explained by
the DS at Larch, the creation of a full time position helps with programming and reduces
workload issues. This DS believes this should be a permanent position; particularly in
113
regard to the expansion of sustainability programming happening at Larch. Larch now
has a cat, dog, turtle, honey bee and plantain program. Managing these programs
provides more than enough work for one full time staff member.
Cedar Creek. Unlike Larch, a full time sustainability position has never existed
and is not yet on trial at Cedar Creek. However, the importance of adding this position is
equally important as it is to Larch, if not more so. Cedar Creek has a number of
sustainability programs including: composting, honey bees, turtles, aquaponics, dogs,
gardening and more in the works. The LS at Cedar Creek mentioned the issue of the
program involvement being voluntary for the case managers. They explained that if no
one volunteers for the position, then the LS have to assign the role to someone. The
person assigned initially has a negative view of the program because of extra work, but
the LS felt this dissipated as the SPP Liaison begins to learn more and enjoy the program.
This LS also mentioned the importance of having an SPP Liaison who is passionate
about the program.
Both of the interviewed DS at Cedar Creek did volunteer for the position, so the
opinion of someone who was assigned to the program will not be able to be included in
this research. As for the DS who volunteered, they did not feel any significant workload
increases from the turtle program. However, one DS explained many staff members are
concerned that if they volunteer to help with something outside of their regular duties,
then “the state” will take advantage of them and add more and more extra work until they
are burnt out. When asked if they could relate to this concern, the DS replied:
I see it, but I learn how to place boundaries. There is only so much one person
can do in 8 hours. Before working in sustainability, I was [lists off several
different programs they were a part of]. I resigned from all except for [names one
program] and sustainability.
114
The solution to this issue, as described by both a DS and IS at Cedar Creek, would be to
create a permanent full time sustainability position to help coordinate all the SPP
programs.
Increased staff inclusion. Both the staff at Larch and Cedar Creek felt there was
a need to include more staff in the programs in order to not only raise awareness, but to
increase the number of staff experiencing the programs. A common theme staff was the
idea that the best way to raise awareness of the programs was for staff involved to share
their work with others and to give a tour of the program and the turtles. This idea is
supported by the research discussed at the beginning of this thesis, which shows that the
closer the encounter with an animal at a zoo, the more interest a visitor has in learning
and helping the animal (Clayton, 2008).
Larch. The one obstacle that the staff at Larch saw with including more close
interactions with the turtles is the need to avoid overexposing the turtles. There was
concern expressed about too much interaction stressing the turtles. In actuality, the only
issues with the turtles would be them being exposed to too much noise and any physical
handling. Therefore, the staff are okay to have a tour of the program, but most of the
talking and discussing of the program should be done outside of the building, then the
staff should be briefed on the need to be quiet in the turtle building and then allowed to
walk through the building to view the turtles. Touring more staff like this and/or
including more interested staff in educational opportunities may help increase awareness
and staff inclusion at Larch.
Cedar Creek. Most of the suggestions for more staff inclusion from Cedar Creek
came from DS and IS. One DS mentioned that the program reduced their stress at work
115
and increased their desire to learn, as well as offered stimulation. Thus, it makes sense,
that more staff inclusion may be a good idea. Currently, the only people who get handson interaction with the turtle program are case managers. All of the custody or
maintenance staff involved have minimal indirect involvement. In addition, there are
many other staff members, such as administrative workers and medical staff that could
benefit from involvement in the program.
The IS staff explained how one of the only ways to possibly gain more staff
support, especially from those that may have a negative opinion of the turtle program,
would be to create and advertise opportunities for outside staff involvement. The
following is a quote from one of the IS in the role of case manager:
They [admin staff and officers] don’t have interest in one on one. They don’t
know what the offenders go through. We [case managers] know. We deal with
everything. If we could get them and the officers involved in the program…it
would be great to have the whole facility involved. We are a small facility, but
we are divided.
This IS was explaining the need for more staff involvement and the potential for
increased staff involvement to help with better understanding and communication
amongst all staff.
How would the program successfully include more staff? Some staff who are
worried about workload may be interested in a noncommittal opportunity throughout the
year, just to engage with the program. However, these opportunities need to be
communicated in a meaningful way to the staff. One success described by LS and DS in
involving more staff was through the Turtle Emergency Response Team (TERT). Staff
members usually not involved in the program were able to be trained as back-up during
116
any emergency situations. As one LS explained, this effort made the program relevant to
custody staff:
Custody folks love emergency response stuff! It’s what they do all of the time.
It’s their focus.
Interpreting the opportunities for program involvement in an interesting way to a specific
audience - an example being custody staff and the TERT could help get more staff
involvement and buy-in for SPP programs.
However, more opportunities for all staff, including those already interested and
indirectly participating, are needed. The IS expressed a desire for increased learning
opportunities and better communication about opportunities involving environmental
learning and action inside and outside the prison. Suggestions made by staff for a
solution to these issues include increased communication through program updates,
opportunities in the staff newsletter and more information on outside events shared by the
SPP student coordinator.
Increased communication. The following section uses the arguments of the
interviewed staff members to make suggestions on how the programs at each facility can
improve communication between and engagement of all staff members in the facility
about the turtle program.
Larch. At Larch, the overall the education and communication about the turtle
program to the staff members was effective, however, there is always room for
improvement. For example, one of the LS at Larch stated that they did not think many
other residents besides the ones in the program knew much about the program, if they
know it exists at all. The awareness between staff members seems to be well
communicated at Larch, but the awareness of the program still may need to be spread
117
amongst the residents. One of the most feasible ways this can be done is through lectures
to the general population on the program and other related topics around the program.
The limitation here would be the time and energy it takes to contact and schedule guest
speakers - perhaps the full time sustainability staff member can assist in contacting and
scheduling speakers with help from SPP staff on the Evergreen side.
More communication between the DS and the IS needs to happen as well. The
DS felt everyone was completely on board with the program with no complaints,
however, the one IS who was interviewed at the facility shared concerns about their
workload. This IS felt the new full time position was helping decrease their workload,
but this is something DS and LS need to be aware of in order to be careful not to
overwork IS. On the other hand, these programs require help from other staff in certain
situations. If there is a way to communicate the level of commitment needed to IS when
they are asked for help, it could be beneficial in reducing stress resulting from a
temporarily increased workload.
Cedar Creek. As mentioned in several other sections of this thesis, there seemed
to be a significant difference between the actual opinions of IS in the role of custody staff
and the LS beliefs the custody staff opinions of the program. This disconnect could be
due to the small samples size of this research as well as the possibility of the custody staff
with negative opinions having no involvement in the turtle program and thus were not
interviewed.
Nevertheless, the case managers in particular seemed to feel that not all of the
staff supported the turtle program. More communication, with the end goal of reaching
all staff, could educate individuals about the programs and opportunities for staff
118
involvement at the facility. More opportunities for the staff in different roles to work
together may be able to begin to create rapport and understanding between staff
members.
On another note, one of the IS at Cedar Creek also expressed the interest in better
communication from SPP on the impacts of the programs. Specifically, they asked
information on what the residents in the SPP programs have done after release. This
information is limited, because after leaving the SPP programs, the residents can contact
SPP, but SPP cannot reach out to the residents. However, an Evergreen thesis by Emily
Passarelli was just completed on the impacts of SPP programs on life after incarceration.
Results need to continue to be collected when possible and sharing the results of
Passarelli’s thesis would help to provide this knowledge.
Program expansion. All staff in both facilities expressed the desire for program
expansion to more residents and staff. Currently, there are usually only two or three
residents in each program working at one time. This an extremely small number of
participants compared to the entire resident population of around 480 people. If the
program is as important and helpful as the staff say it is in these interviews, then the more
residents and staff that can be involved, the better. The following sections describe how
the staff members at the two different facilities suggested to expand the programs.
Larch. The staff at Larch, particularly the LS and DS, went into detail about the
importance of having a program, like the turtle program, that had the potential to increase
job satisfaction through stimulating learning opportunities and breaking down barriers
through collaboration with residents. One LS mentioned the small size of the turtle
program only being able to make a limited impact. One of the DS mentioned the need for
119
more science programs. A solution to this may be combining individual programs into
one large sustainability program. This is naturally starting to happen at Larch. Quickly
after the turtle program began, the honey bees and plantain programs were also started.
The residents in the turtle program and two residents from another sustainability program
called Roots of Success took over these programs. Combining these programs into one
large sustainability program, adding more educational and vocational opportunities and
more residents would create a higher impact program for all involved.
One challenge to implementing such a program expansion is the education factor.
An investment of time and energy would be needed from SPP and the sustainability staff
person to coordinate the development of more education materials. In addition, SPP has
limited capacity to assist with program expansion at Larch given funding restrictions and
travel distance. A possible solution could be seeking additional program funding and
creating new partners with outside organizations who are able to help provide more
educational opportunities, such as a local college.
Cedar Creek. All staff at Cedar Creek expressed the multifaceted benefits of the
turtle program and one IS and one LS discussed their desire for program expansion in
order to reach a wider population of residents and staff. The LS explained that they
wanted the programs to be expanded, but the capacity of the facility was limited. They
explained that there is a great deal of programming and jobs in action at the facility, such
as educational programming, vocational programming, family reunification, parenting
training, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), off site crews, kitchen workers and
more. This LS claims that there is not enough programming space or enough residents in
the facility to expand the programs. This idea of having an excess of programming and
120
not enough residents for programming is an interesting concept. This concept does not
seem to be widely held or understood among other staff members at the prison.
The IS who expressed an interest in program expansion offered a suggestion which may
be an acceptable solution to the concern expressed by the LS above. This IS suggested
that all of the programs be combined into one full sustainability program, similar to what
is happening at Larch. This would not require additional programming space and would
expand the program to more residents. The programs which could be easily combined
are: the turtle, honeybee, aquaponics and the newly developing woodpecker program. As
the SPP student coordinator, I suggested this idea in a meeting after the interviews at
Cedar Creek had been completed. This new program structure is in the process of being
implemented.
In addition, this same LS mentioned the need to expand programming to staff
members though creating a class on sustainability where the staff could learn with the
residents and gain an educational certificate. This staff member had a strong desire to
increase educational opportunities, improve behavior of residents and increase learning
opportunities for staff. This collaborative sustainability class in addition to combining
the current sustainability program could benefit the residents and the staff work
environment.
Facilitate continued change. Many of the staff expressed the turtle program’s
importance in increasing their wellbeing in the prison work environment through many
different means. The major theme that seems to be where all of the benefits stem from is
collaboration between staff and residents. For example one LS stated:
It used to be slave driver and slave. That’s how it was when I first started. That
is breaking down… It [sustainability programs] brings us closer together.
121
This LS was referring to the collaborative nature of the programs. The programs have
helped begin to change on the traditional punitive relationship between residents and staff
into a more team oriented relationship. This was described as a positive step in the right
direction. One of the DS at Cedar Creek, mentioned that working side by side with
offenders with something not related to prison was beneficial to both offenders and staff.
The staff began to see the offenders as humans instead of just a number. The
importance of collaboration, as noted by staff from both prisons, signals a step in the
right direction to create a healthier work environment and environment as a whole for
staff and residents. A creation of a healthier environment could be achieved through
increasing collaboration opportunities in the current programs and/or expanding
programs. In addition, I would like to add that one thing which may help in creating a
more prison wide collaborative approach. I believe it could be helpful to change the
focus during staff trainings from what not to say to residents to how to communicate with
residents in a safe and collaborative manner. As one of the DS at Cedar Creek states:
DOC is the Department of Change, why not make it a positive one?
Increased education. Both the staff at Larch and Cedar Creek made suggestions
for how to improve the educational aspect of the turtle program. However, Larch focused
more on one how to improve the education for the residents and Cedar Creek discussed
how to improve education for both residents and staff.
Larch. As mentioned previously, Larch’s turtle program does not receive as many
educational opportunities from the SPP student coordinator because of its distance from
The Evergreen State College, located in Olympia, WA - where the coordinator comes
from. Both of the DS at the facility expressed a need room for improvement in education
122
programming. One DS mentioned their interest in adding more vocational opportunities
which can be linked directly to specific jobs; for example, teaching the residents about
solar power, wind mills, waste water, gardening and beekeeping. Some of this education
could be brought into the turtle program and some of these could be new “green job”
programs to be added to the facility.
The other DS at Cedar Creek showed an interest in bringing more science into the
turtle program and the prison as a whole. They noted that the turtle program was the only
science based program in the facility and that this program brings opportunities for jobs
that appeal to the residents. Therefore, more science education for the residents and more
science and vocational programming at Larch may be beneficial to the residents. When
programs are beneficial to the residents, the staff may successful, and thus have increased
job satisfaction.
Cedar Creek. One DS at Cedar Creek made the suggestion to have more partner
involvement. They particularly felt the veterinarian from WDFW’s visit was beneficial
and taught empathy to the residents. Outside partners are full of knowledge and bring
stimulation and a connection to the outside community. Bringing in more professionals
and guests from the outside community could benefit and improve the education in the
program
When one LS at Cedar Creek was describing why sustainability was important to
them, they explained the importance of tying in environmental sustainability into the
personal sustainability of the lives of the residents. This gives an important message to
the residents on how to use the idea and practice of sustainability in their relationships
and jobs on the outside. In my experience as the SPP student coordinator, this message is
123
not always communicated well. There is an opportunity here for the Evergreen and the
WADOC sides of SPP to work together to develop an effective way to communicate this
lesson on how to live sustainably in life and in relation to the environment. This could
benefit Larch as well, but was mentioned only by the LS at Cedar Creek.
On another note, one IS at Cedar Creek discussed an interest in not only
expanding the education in the turtle program, but expanding the opportunities to the
staff. They made the point that many staff members would interested in learning skills
with the residents and also gaining certificates. Including more joint educational
opportunities between staff and residents could increase job satisfaction and also provide
more beneficial opportunities for the residents and staff to learn together in a
collaborative environment.
Animals and nature for staff. Interacting with nature and animals has been
shown to increase the overall wellbeing. In particular, nature has been shown to have
rejuvenating effects. One LS at Larch and one DS at Cedar Creek mentioned repeatedly
the stress reducing impacts of interacting with nature and animals during breaks. The
turtles in the turtle program are not available for all staff to interact with, as they need to
be handled and viewed as little as possible to keep them wild. However, these mentions
of the importance of animals and nature as rejuvenating in the workplace were
significant. Therefore, I personally would like to recommend encouraging staff and/or
having specific times when staff can interact with animals such as in the dog and cat
program. In addition, adding more natural spaces for staff to take breaks in, such as
healing gardens or nature trails, could improve the work environment of both facilities.
124
More community inclusion. The LS at Larch and Cedar Creek both discussed
the importance of spreading the positive news of the turtle program to raise community
awareness about programs like these inside of prisons. One DS at Larch mentioned the
job satisfaction and pride they gained from sharing the program with their community. In
addition, one IS at Cedar Creek explained that the turtle program was being shared with
family and friends during events and creating awareness of the program. Another IS at
Cedar Creek explained their interest in learning how to share more about their work with
family and friends.
Sharing the turtle program with the outside community seems to benefit all levels
of staff at both Larch and Cedar Creek. An increase in opportunities for community
inclusion in programs like the turtle program could increase community awareness about
the programs available inside the prisons. This could lead to the residents being viewed
as human beings who have value and that staff are trying to help them successfully reenter the community. One of the most significant stress factors in the work environment
of correctional staff is negative media attention (Finn, 2000). Increasing community
awareness may reduce or counteract some of the negative judgments from community
members. It may even inspire some community members to get involved and help to
create new, innovative programs.
Do not over do media attention. In 2015, Anderson defined the term
‘greenwashing’ as:
When an agency or company spends more on marketing and public relations to
promote the perception they are environmentally conscious than they spend on
implementing environmentally conscious practices and policies.
125
Spending more does not just mean more money, but more time and energy. Originally, I
did not think this topic would be covered in this thesis, as greenwashing was not a subject
I expected to come up in interviews with correctional staff members.
However, one staff member, possibly without knowing the term, expressed
concern for greenwashing in prisons through use of the sustainability programs. This
staff member stated:
They [people from Headquarters] make it a big deal and boast. If it’s such a big
deal, how come we only have two or three offenders in the program? If it impacts
the offenders’ lives that much, then how come it is the way it is? If it wasn’t that
way, it would be more successful. That’s what I don’t like about the program.
That’s how we become lost. It loses respect for the program.
This statement expresses frustration with how DOC portrays small sustainability
programs like the turtle program. They are explained how the LS and people from
headquarters talk about the turtle program and make a big deal about it in the media.
They did not disagree that the program has a positive impact, but they made a valid
argument about the very few people involved in the turtle program and other
sustainability programs in comparison to the amount of attention the program is given.
This person felt that the prison was spending more effort showing off the program than
expanding it, which makes it, in a sense, feels disingenuous to this staff member. In turn,
these feelings make them respect towards the program less.
This person is not the only one who feels this way. There has been research done
specifically on issue of greenwashing in prison. Jewkes and Moran, in 2015, took a
critical view of the prison sustainability movement. They explain that there was a push
from the Department of Justice to create more sustainable and environmentally friendly
prison operations. Therefore, there is competition within prisons to reduce their carbon
126
footprint. There are examples where prisons have failing water treatment plants, but this
is covered up through their LEED certification. Criticisms of environmental sustainability
in prisons make the claim that the sustainability movement may be less about protecting
the environment and more about sustaining prisons and supporting mass incarceration.
I am not claiming that this staff member feels or does not feel this way, however,
this is an important viewpoint that needs to be shared in order to understand the argument
against prisons and greenwashing. It is also important to note that the turtle program is
different than other sustainability programs. The goal is not to make the prison operation
more environmentally sustainable. On the contrary, the goal is to fill a need from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as a place to care for the turtles, provide
education and work experience to the residents responsible for the turtles and to keep the
turtles safe and promote healing in order for them to be released back into the wild.
The other side of the argument is that the programs are genuinely doing good
things for the residents, the staff, the program partners and the turtles. The LS admitted to
showing off the programs because they are proud of them. Here are examples of some of
the things the LS stated, which demonstrates their pride in the programs:
1. It is a large source of pride at Cedar Creek and Headquarters-for the
agency. It’s a source of pride and commitment for the people who are
involved.
2. There is a level of pride…they show off the home of SPP. I am a show off
of SPP.
3. [In reference to SPP programs] Helps us become a better prison system.
I’ve traveled to different prisons all over the country. Washington has
one of the best systems in the entire country-the residents have a lot of
respect for us.
127
The LS expressed pride in many aspects of the turtle program. They expressed particular
pride in the novelty of the program, particularly at Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek was where
the first SPP program began and thus the LS have a great deal of pride in this.
In addition, the LS did not deny that they wanted the turtle program and programs
like it in the media. This is not just because of pride in the program, but because of their
desire to improve the public opinion of prisons. One LS expressed how their concern for
the prison’s unfair image in the public’s view:
The public thinks we just house people when there are all these wonderful
collaborations that help the residents, but helps the staff at the same time.
A DS at Larch agreed with this LS by explaining how the programs help the image of the
prison, but adds that it improves the image of the residents as well.
The more programs that the community sees…not just helps us as a PR
thing…Changes the view of the offenders in the community.
This desire to use the SPP programs to improve the image of the prison may bring up
concern in some because of the fact that there are serious issues with the prison system,
such as mass incarceration and the use of solitary confinement or Intensive Management
Units (IMUs) as punishment. As described in a thesis by Webb - a previous co-worker at
SPP - in 2016, there is concern that the prison might use the positive media from SPP as a
way to cover up the negative realities inside Washington prisons that still exist. This is
not greenwashing in the sense of showing off environmentally friendly improvements
while not really investing in becoming more environmentally friendly. Instead, this
concern is more about showing off the positivity of contributing to saving an endangered
species in order to distract from the negative realities of a prison.
128
On the other side of the argument, there is the fact that multitudes of SPP and
SPP-related programs are popping up in prisons throughout Washington and are
spreading throughout the US and the world. Based on the interviews in this thesis, these
programs are breaking down barriers between staff and teaching the staff how to and the
benefits of working collaboratively with the residents. The fact alone that programs like
this exist and are rapidly spreading is a step in the right direction. It is possible that these
programs are a step in the right direction and may play a role in a slow, systemic change
towards prisons being centers of rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Furthermore, there are many people in the general public who view prisons as a
place where bad people go to get punished. It is not just prison staff members who have
the potential to forget that the residents in the prisons are human beings. Media may be
one way to change the public opinion and help people to realize and support the change
from a punitive system to a rehabilitative system.
In this research, I am not making the claim as to which argument is right or
wrong. The goal of this section is to make readers aware of arguments and to help
WADOC leadership become aware of the concern from staff members that the programs
seem much smaller than they are being made out to be in the media. The media is an
important tool to help spread awareness and change the public view of prisons and the
people inside of them, staff and residents. However, if the media attention is overdone, it
may have the opposite effect through people started to not take the program seriously. It
is important to keep in mind that there is such a thing as too much media attention. In
addition, updates and communication to the staff members on plans for program
expansion and follow through could help in counterbalancing this issue.
129
Conclusion
Based on the interviews of the staff members included in this survey, SPP’s turtle
program has the potential to positively impact the work environment of correctional staff
through increased overall wellbeing. The key to this increase in wellbeing is the
program’s collaborative nature. The staff and residents working and learning together to
achieve a common goal improved the atmosphere of the prison work environment,
decreased stress, broke down barriers between staff and residents, improved
communication between staff and residents, and increased job satisfaction. These
positive benefits were reported to lead to improved mood in both residents and staff
involved in the program. This led to the staff treating the residents better and the residents
improving their behavior which, in turn, led to an increase in prison safety.
Staff involved in the program have the opportunity to contribute to a positive,
refreshing work environment through: working closely with animals, playing a role in
helping an endangered species recover and assisting the residents in building empathy
and other skills to use when re-entering into the community. This led to an increase in
prosocial behavior through improved relationships, communication, and increased or
supported empathy and helpful behavior.
Some of these benefits were counterbalanced with workload issues and negativity
from other staff. The workload issues may be solved by creating full time, permanent
sustainability program positions in both facilities. The issues with negativity about the
program from select staff members may be reduced through improved and increased
communication efforts, an increase in opportunities to be involved.
The results of the interviews from this thesis provide helpful constructive
criticism on how to improve the program. The most productive next step in improving
130
this program - and the prison as a whole - would be through program expansion in order
to reach more residents and staff. Another next step could be expanding other
collaboratively structured programs throughout the prison system. The greatest benefit of
this program seemed to be its ability to catalyze a shift in the staff’s mindset from
punitive to collaborative and offender to human. The turtle program has a very limited
scope, and although the results reported by the staff involved are overall positive, the
amount of staff and residents reached by the program is minimal. In order to shift the
prison system as a whole from punitive to collaborative, additional, wider reaching
programs and training in collaboration would be needed to make a bigger step in the right
direction to improve the work environment of correctional staff and thus the living
environment of the residents.
This study was a pilot study, which helped us to begin to understand the
possibilities of using nature and animal programs in prisons to help improve the work
environment in prisons. A control group and follow-up study using the parameters
revealed by the interviews would be needed to help to fully understand the possibilities of
how nature and animals can be used to improve the prison environment.
131
Bibliography
Altman, I., & Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Human behavior and environment : advances in theory
and research. New York: Plenum Press.
Anderson, Rick (2015). Greenwashing Washington State's Prison System in a River of
Sewage. Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Ecology Project. Nation Inside.
Andrade, C. C., & Devlin, A. S. (2015). Stress reduction in the hospital room: Applying
Ulrich’s theory of supportive design. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 125–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.12.001
Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York: Implications for
health promotion and community development. Health & Place, 6(4), 319–327.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829200000137
Bachi, K. (2013). Equine-Facilitated Prison-Based Programs Within the Context of PrisonBased Animal Programs: State of the Science Review. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 52(1), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2012.734371
Banks, M. R., & Banks, W. A. (2002). The effects of animal-assisted therapy on loneliness in
an elderly population in long-term care facilities. The journals of gerontology series A:
biological sciences and medical sciences, 57(7), M428-M432.
Baranauskiene, I., Dirzyte, A., & Valaikiene, A. (2010). Relation of Psychosocial Job Factors
to Job Satisfaction, Quality of Life, Sense of Harmony among Officers of Correctional
Institutions. Psichosocialinių Darbo Veiksnių Ryšys Su Pataisos įstaigų Pareigūnų
Pasitenkinirmu Darbu, Gyvenimo Kokybe, Vidine Darna., 2010(1), 29–39. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=51641304&site=
ehost-live
Barker, S. B., & Dawson, K. S. (1998). The effects of animal-assisted therapy on anxiety
ratings of hospitalized psychiatric patients. Psychiatric services, 49(6), 797-801.
Beetz, A., Uvnäs-Moberg, K., Julius, H., & Kotrschal, K. (2012). Psychosocial and
psychophysiological effects of human-animal interactions: the possible role of
oxytocin. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 234.
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A., Deldin, P. J., … Jonides,
J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with
depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300–305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
Bieling, C., Plieninger, T., Pirker, H., & Vogl, C. R. (2014). Linkages between landscapes and
human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecological
Economics, 105, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013
Boudoukha, A. H., Altintas, E., Rusinek, S., Fantini-Hauwel, C., & Hautekeete, M. (2013).
Inmates-to-staff assaults, PTSD and burnout: Profiles of risk and vulnerability. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 28(11), 2332–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512475314
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review
of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC
Public Health, 10, 456–456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
Britton, D. M., & Button, A. (2006). Prison pups: Assessing the effects of dog training
programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Family Social Work, 9(4), 79–95. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J039v09n04_06
132
Brymer, E., Davids, K., & Mallabon, L. (2014). Understanding the psychological health and
well-being benefits of physical activity in nature: An ecological dynamics
analysis. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 189–197.
Carlstead, K. (2009). A comparative approach to the study of Keeper-Animal Relationships in
the zoo. Zoo Biology, 28(6), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20289
Castle, T. L., & Martin, J. S. (2006). OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD: Predictors of Stress
among Jail Correctional Officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 65–80.
Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=22859959&site=
ehost-live
Cervinka, R., Röderer, K., & Hefler, E. (2012). Are nature lovers happy? On various
indicators of well-being and connectedness with nature. Journal of Health
Psychology, 17(3), 379–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311416873
Chang, C.-Y., & Chen, P.-K. (2005). Human response to window views and indoor plants in
the workplace. HortScience, 40(5), 1354–1359. Retrieved
from http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/40/5/1354.short
Clayton, S., Fraser, J., & Saunders, C. D. (2009). Zoo experiences: Conversations,
connections, and concern for animals. Zoo Biology, 28(5), 377-397.
Comeau, C. V. (2013). Exploring the relationship between connectedness to nature, wellness,
and spiritual well-being. ProQuest Information & Learning, US.
Corbin, J. M. (2008). Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif: Sage Publications.
Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., … Simpatico, T. (2007).
Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective wellbeing. Ecological Economics, 61(2/3), 267–276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.023
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of
correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505–533. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07418828500088711
Curtin, S. (2009). Wildlife tourism: the intangible, psychological benefits of human–wildlife
encounters. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(5-6), 451–474. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13683500903042857
Day, A. M. B., Theurer, J. A., Dykstra, A. D., & Doyle, P. C. (2012). Nature and the natural
environment as health facilitators: the need to reconceptualize the ICF environmental
factors. Disability & Rehabilitation, 34(26), 2281–2290.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.683478
Daszak, P., Cunningham, A. A., & Hyatt, A. D. (2000). Emerging infectious diseases of
wildlife--threats to biodiversity and human health. science, 287(5452), 443.
Deaton, C. (2005). Humanizing Prisons with Animals: A Closer Look at “Cell Dogs” and
Horse Programs in Correctional Institutions. Journal of Correctional Education, 56(1),
46–62. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=16647750&site=
ehost-live
Edward O. Wilson. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Evans, M. (2010) Recidivism Revisited, Washington State Department of Corrections,
pp.1–8.
133
Falk, J. H., Reinhard, E. M., Vernon, C., Bronnenkant, K., Heimlich, J. E., & Deans, N. L.
(2007). Why zoos & aquariums matter: Assessing the impact of a visit to a zoo or
aquarium (p. 24). Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos & Aquariums.
Fernandez, E. J., Tamborski, M. A., Pickens, S. R., & Timberlake, W. (2009). Animal–visitor
interactions in the modern zoo: Conflicts and interventions. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, 120(1/2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2009.06.002
Finn, P., Department of Justice, W., DC. National Inst. of Justice., & Abt Associates, I.,
Washington, DC. (2000). Addressing Correctional Officer Stress: Programs and
Strategies. Issues and Practices.
Finney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C. S. (2013). Organizational
stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: a systematic
review. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-82
Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(3), 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S07493797(00)00317-2
Furst, G. (2006). Prison-Based Animal Programs A National Survey. The Prison
Journal, 86(4), 407–430. Retrieved from http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/86/4/407.short
Furst, G. (2007). Without words to get in the way: Symbolic interaction in prison-based
animal programs. Qualitative Sociology Review, 3(1). Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/openview/2fafd83abcbe6fa7abb8e5972a77f6ca/1?pqorigsite=gscholar
Furst, G. (2015). Prisoners, pups, and PTSD: the grass roots response to veterans with
PTSD. Contemporary Justice Review, 18(4), 449–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2015.1093688
Garland, B., Hogan, N. L., Kelley, T., Kim, B., & Lambert, E. G. (2013). To Be or Not to Be
Committed: The Effects of Continuance and Affective Commitment on Absenteeism and
Turnover Intent among Private Prison Personnel. Journal of Applied Security
Research, 8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2013.738402
Gould, D. D., Watson, S. L., Price, S. R., & Valliant, P. M. (2013). The relationship between
burnout and coping in adult and young offender center correctional officers: An
exploratory investigation. Psychological Services, 10(1), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029655
Gonzalez, M. T., Hartig, T., Patil, G. G., Martinsen, E. W., & Kirkevold, M. (2011). A
prospective study of group cohesiveness in therapeutic horticulture for clinical
depression. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 20(2), 119–129.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0349.2010.00689.x
Graham, A. (2013). Correctional officers’ stress in the workplace. ProQuest Information &
Learning, US.
Harbolt, T., & Ward, T. H. (2001). Teaming incarcerated youth with shelter dogs for a second
chance. Society and Animals, 9(2), 177–182. Retrieved
Hennessy, M. B., Morris, A., & Linden, F. (2006). Evaluation of the effects of a socialization
program in a prison on behavior and pituitary–adrenal hormone levels of shelter
dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 99(1), 157–171. Retrieved
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016815910500331X
134
Herzog, T. R., & Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with nature, sense of humor, and psychological
well-being. Environment and Behavior, 40(6), 747–776.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507308524
Hosey, G. (2008). A preliminary model of human–animal relationships in the zoo. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science, 109(2-4), 105–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.013
Hosey, G., & Melfi, V. (2015). Are we ignoring neutral and negative human-animal
relationships in zoos? Zoo Biology, 34(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.21182
Howell, A. J., Dopko, R. L., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2011). Nature connectedness:
Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037
Howell, A. J., Passmore, H.-A., & Buro, K. (2013). Meaning in Nature: Meaning in Life as a
Mediator of the Relationship Between Nature Connectedness and Well-Being. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 14(6), 1681–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9403-x
Howell, A. J., & Passmore, H.-A. (2013). The nature of happiness: Nature affiliation and
mental well-being. In C. L. M. Keyes & C. L. M. (Ed) Keyes (Eds.), Mental well-being:
International contributions to the study of positive mental health. (pp. 231–257). New
York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business
Media.from http://www.springerlink.com/index/CKPNNDLKPP089FPG.pdf
Ingulli, K., & Lindbloom, G. (2013). Connection to nature and psychological
resilience. Ecopsychology, 5(1), 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2012.0042
Jackson, J. (2012). Animal-assisted therapy: the human-animal bond in relation to human
health and wellness. Capstone paper, Winona State University.
Jewkes, Y., & Moran, D. (2015). The paradox of the ‘green’ prison: Sustaining the
environment or sustaining the penal complex? Theoretical Criminology,19(4), 451-469.
doi:10.1177/1362480615576270
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 441–476.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001
Kaspar, V. (2002). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Diagnosis, Prevalence, and Research
Advances. Sociological Focus, 35(1), 97–108. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12177610&site=
ehost-live
Kim, W., Lim, S.-K., Chung, E.-J., & Woo, J.-M. (2009). The effect of cognitive behavior
therapy-based psychotherapy applied in a forest environment on physiological changes
and remission of major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Investigation, 6(4), 245–254.
https://doi.org/10
Kimman, T., Hoek, M., & de Jong, M. C. M. (2013). Assessing and controlling health risks
from animal husbandry. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 66, 7–14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.003
King, R. j. h. (1991). Caring about nature: Feminist ethics and the environment. Hypatia, 6(1),
75. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9105130450&sit
e=ehost-live
Konda, S., Tiesman, H., Reichard, A., & Hartley, D. (2013). U.S. Correctional Officers Killed
or Injured on the Job. Corrections Today, 75(5), 122. Retrieved
135
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=94190027&site=
ehost-live
Korpela, K., Borodulin, K., Neuvonen, M., Paronen, O., & Tyrväinen, L. (2014). Analyzing
the mediators between nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.003
Kossack, A., & Bogner, F. X. (2012). How Does a One-Day Environmental Education
Programme Support Individual Connectedness with Nature? Journal of Biological
Education, 46(3), 180–187.
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Allen, R. I. (2006). CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER JOB STRESS: The Impact of Organizational Structure. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 30(2), 227–244. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=20320098&site=
ehost-live
Lambert, E. G., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N. L. (2013). Hanging on Too Long: The Relationship
between Different Forms of Organizational Commitment and Emotional Burnout among
Correctional Staff. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(1), 51–66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9159-1
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Altheimer, I. (2010). The Association Between Work-Family
Conflict and Job Burnout Among Correctional Staff: A Preliminary Study. American
Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1/2), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-009-9067-1
Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate
responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00110-X
Lauterbach, O., & Hosser, D. (2007). Assessing empathy in prisoners--A shortened version of
the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Swiss Journal of Psychology / Schweizerische
Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 66(2), 91–101.
https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.66.2.91
Lass-Hennemann, J., Peyk, P., Streb, M., Holz, E., & Michael, T. (2014). Presence of a dog
reduces subjective but not physiological stress responses to an analog trauma. Frontiers
in psychology, 5.
Liefländer, A. K., Fröhlich, G., Bogner, F. X., & Schultz, P. W. (2013). Promoting
connectedness with nature through environmental education. Environmental Education
Research, 19(3), 370–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.697545
Li Liu, Shu Hu, Lie Wang, Guoyuan Sui, & Lei Ma. (2013). Positive resources for combating
depressive symptoms among Chinese male correctional officers: perceived organizational
support and psychological capital. BMC Psychiatry, 13(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-89
Maahs, J., & Pratt, T. (2001). Uncovering the Predictors of Correctional Officers’ Attitudes
and Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 13–18.
Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=24275043&site=
ehost-live
Marselle, M. R., Irvine, K. N., & Warber, S. L. (2014). Examining group walks in nature and
multiple aspects of well-being: A large-scale study. Ecopsychology, 6(3), 134–147.
136
Matsumura, O. (2014). The effect of contact with nature on multidimensional subjective wellbeing including positive recognition of the community. Japanese Journal of Health
Psychology, 27(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.11560/jahp.27.2_113
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of
individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001
McCraty, R., Atkinson, M., Lipsenthal, L., & Arguelles, L. (2009). New Hope for
Correctional Officers: An Innovative Program for Reducing Stress and Health
Risks. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback, 34(4), 251–272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-009-9087-0
Mennoial, N. V., Napoli, P., Battaglia, A., & Candura, S. M. (2014). [Occupational risk
factors and medical prevention in corrections officers]. Giornale Italiano Di Medicina
Del Lavoro Ed Ergonomia, 36(4), 405–409.
Moran, D. (2015). Budgie smuggling or doing bird? Human-animal interactions in carceral
space: prison(er) animals as abject and subject. Social & Cultural Geography, 16(6),
634–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2014.1001429
Morgan Jr., W. J. (2009). Correctional Officer Stress. American Jails, 23(2), 33. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=41232387&site=
ehost-live
Mulcahy, C., & McLaughlin, D. (2013). Is the Tail Wagging the Dog? A Review of the
Evidence for Prison Animal Programs. Australian Psychologist, 48(5), 370–378.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12021
Newman, A.P., Lewis, W. and Beverstock, C. (1993) Prison Literacy. Philadelphia:
National Center of Adult Literacy.
Nightingale, F. (1969). Notes on nursing. New York, NY: Dover Publications (originally
published in 1860).
Nisbet, E., Zelenski, J., & Murphy, S. (2011). Happiness is in our Nature: Exploring Nature
Relatedness as a Contributor to Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 12(2), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7
Odendaal, J. S. J. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy—magic or medicine?. Journal of
psychosomatic research, 49(4), 275-280.
Obidoa, C., Reeves, D., Warren, N., Reisine, S., & Cherniack, M. (2011). Depression and
work family conflict among corrections officers. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 53(11), 1294–1301.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182307888
Oswald, M. (1991). Report on the potentially dangerous dog program: Multnomah County,
Oregon. Anthrozoös, 4(4), 247–254. Retrieved
from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2752/089279391787057099
Pasanen, T. P., Tyrväinen, L., & Korpela, K. M. (2014). The relationship between perceived
health and physical activity indoors, outdoors in built environments, and outdoors in
nature. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 6(3), 324–346.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12031
Powell, D. M., & Bullock, E. V. (2014). Evaluation of factors affecting emotional responses
in zoo visitors and the impact of emotion on conservation mindedness. Anthrozoös, 27(3),
389-405.
137
Price, K. (2010). Utilizing the Police Peace Officer Model To Professionalize Correctional
Officers. American Jails, 24(2), 29. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=51693141&site=
ehost-live
Quynh Huynh, Wendy Craig, Janssen, I., & Pickett, W. (2013). Exposure to public natural
space as a protective factor for emotional well-being among young people in
Canada. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-407
Rachel. Kaplan. (1995). The experience of nature : a psychological perspective. Ann Arbor,
MI: Ulrich’s Bookstore.
Render, C. T. (2015). How does work-related stress experienced by Federal prison
correctional officers impact job satisfaction? ProQuest Information & Learning, US.
Rolston III, H. (2006). Caring for Nature: What Science and Economics Can’t Teach Us but
Religion Can. Environmental Values, 15(3), 307–313. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eih&AN=22251103&site=
ehost-live
Russell, R., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Gould, R. K., Basurto, X., Chan, K. M. A., … Tam,
J. (2013). Humans and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect WellBeing. Annual Review of Environment & Resources, 38(1), 473–502.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838
Santos, S., Lane, J., & Gover, A. (2012). Former Prison and Jail Inmates’ Perceptions of
Informal Methods of Control Utilized by Correctional Officers. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 37(4), 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9152-0
Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional
officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19–48.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009514731657
Schellenger, D. (2013). Situational Awareness: An Officer’s Perspective
Revisited. Corrections Today, 75(3), 18. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=94189931&site=
ehost-live
Schlosser, L. Z., Safran, D. A., & Sbaratta, C. A. (2010). Reasons for choosing a correction
officer career. Psychological Services, 7(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017858
Schwartz, S., & Levitas, L. (2012). A New Vision for Correctional Officers. Tikkun, 27(1), 37.
Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=87048926&site=
ehost-live
Sekhon, R. (2014). Correctional officers’ level of stress and coping strategies in the context of
the work place. ProQuest Information & Learning, US.
Shiloh, S., Sorek, G., & Terkel, J. (2003). Reduction of state-anxiety by petting animals in a
controlled laboratory experiment. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16(4), 387-395.
Sim, J. (1991). We Are Not Animals, We Are Human Beings": Prisons, Protest, and Politics
in England and Wales, 1969-1990. Social Justice, 18(3), 107–129.
Smith, K. J. (2011). Work-Family Conflict and Job Burnout Among Correctional Staff: A
Comment on Lambert and Hogan (2010). Psychological Reports, 108(1), 23–26.
https://doi.org/10.2466/14.PR0.108.1.23-26
138
Spinaris, Caterina G. Ph.D, Denhof, Michael D. Ph.D, Kellaway, & Julie A. Ph.D.
(2012). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in United States Corrections Professionals:
Prevalence and Impact on Health and Functioning. United States of America.
Strimple, E. O. (2003). A history of prison inmate-animal interaction programs. American
Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 70–78. Retrieved
from http://abs.sagepub.com/content/47/1/70.short
Trivett, J., Bush, K., Elliott, C., et al (2015). Sustainability in Prisons Project. Retrieved
November 21, 2015, from http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/
Udechukwu, I. I. (2009). Correctional Officer Turnover: Of Maslow’s Needs Hierarchy and
Herzberg's Motivation Theory. Public Personnel Management, 38(2), 69–82. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=43808273&site=
ehost-live
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological
effects. Environment and Behavior, 13(5), 523–556.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916581135001
Ulrich, R. S. (2002). Health benefits of gardens in hospitals. In Paper for conference, Plants
for People International Exhibition Floriade (Vol. 17, p. 2010). Retrieved
from http://jarrettservices.com/resources/HealthBenefitsofGardensinHospitals.pdf
Ulrich, C., & Nadkarni, N. M. (2009). Sustainability research and practices in enforced
residential institutions: collaborations of ecologists and prisoners. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 11(4), 815–832. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-008-9145-4
Valentine, P., & Birtles, A. (2004). Wildlife watching. Common Ground Publishing.
Valentine, C., Oehme, K., & Martin, A. (2012). Correctional Officers and Domestic Violence:
Experiences and Attitudes. Journal of Family Violence, 27(6), 531–545.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9448-y
Wahler, C., & Gendreau, P. (1990). Perceived characteristics of effective correctional officers
by officers, supervisors, and inmates across three different types of institutions. Canadian
Journal of Criminology, 32(2), 265–277.
Waitkus, K. (2004). The impact of a garden program on the physical environment and
social climate of a prison yard at San Quentin State Prison. Unpublished thesis from
Pepperdine University.
Ward Thompson, C., & Aspinall, P. A. (2011). Natural Environments and their Impact on
Activity, Health, and Quality of Life. Applied Psychology: Health & Well-Being, 3(3),
230–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01053.x
Waxman, O. B. (2014). Prison Inmates Train Dogs to Be Service Animals for Autistic
Children. Time.com, 1–1. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=95777567&site=
ehost-live
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring?
Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1315–1329.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209341649
Williamson, E. A. (2002). A deeper ecology: community gardens in the urban
environment. College of Human Resources, Education, and Public Policy. Master of Arts
in Public Policy, 60. Retrieved from http://www.cityfarmer.org/AP-city_farmer.doc
139
Wolsko, C., & Lindberg, K. (2013). Experiencing connection with nature: The matrix of
psychological well-being, mindfulness, and outdoor recreation. Ecopsychology, 5(2), 80–
91.
Worley, R. M., & Worley, V. B. (2011). Guards Gone Wild: A Self-Report Study of
Correctional Officer Misconduct and the Effect of Institutional Deviance on “care”
within the Texas Prison System. Deviant Behavior, 32(4), 293–319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639621003772738
Yang, S.-B., Brown, G. C., & Moon, B. (2011). Factors leading to corrections officers’ job
satisfaction. Public Personnel Management, 40(4), 359–369. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2012-18779007&site=ehost-live
Zhang, J. W., Howell, R. T., & Iyer, R. (2014). Engagement with natural beauty moderates the
positive relation between connectedness with nature and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 55–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.013
Zhang, J. W., Piff, P. K., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Keltner, D. (2014). An occasion for
unselfing: Beautiful nature leads to prosociality. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 37, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.008
140
