AGENTS OF TRANSFORMATION: EXAMINING PRISON-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AS A PLATFORM FOR EMPOWERMENT IN A CORRECTIONAL SETTING AND BEYOND

Item

Title

Eng AGENTS OF TRANSFORMATION: EXAMINING PRISON-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AS A PLATFORM FOR EMPOWERMENT IN A CORRECTIONAL SETTING AND BEYOND

Date

Eng 2021

Creator

Eng Morita, Shohei

Identifier

Eng Thesis_MES_2021_MoritaS

extracted text

AGENTS OF TRANSFORMATION: EXAMINING PRISON-BASED
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AS A PLATFORM FOR EMPOWERMENT IN A
CORRECTIONAL SETTING AND BEYOND

by
Shohei Morita

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2021

©2021 by Shohei Morita. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Shohei Morita

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

________________________
Kathleen Saul, PhD
Member of the Faculty

________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Agents of Transformation: Examining Prison-Based Environmental Education as a
Platform for Empowerment in a Correctional Setting and Beyond
Shohei Morita
The United States faces a mass incarceration crisis in which one in every 116 adults are
imprisoned. That prison environment severely limits opportunities for people to become
empowered. Prison and empowerment are frequently viewed as antithetical, making it
challenging for these contrasting concepts to intersect. One avenue for increasing selfesteem and positive attitudes in prisons and thus contributing to empowerment, is
education. Environmental education in particular offer a multitude of benefits to its
participants, especially through having direct interactions with nature and living
organisms. Despite these benefits, formal research into the potentials of utilizing prisonbased environmental education program as a platform for promoting empowering
opportunities remains relatively unexplored. Through this research project, I conducted
an investigation into what empowerment looks like in a prison context, and how
participating in prison-based environmental education programs may result in the
incarcerated participants becoming empowered. At the outset, I worked with previously
incarcerated thesis advisors to explore the causes for disempowerment in prison, and how
to counteract these forces to increase empowering opportunities. I then conducted semistructured interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals who had previous experience
in prison-based environmental education programs. By identifying themes from the
interviews and categorizing those into each level of analysis within Zimmerman’s
theoretical framework of empowerment (individual, organizational, and community), I
determined what aspects of the program(s) led to empowerment in a correctional setting
through environmental education programs. Data analysis yielded themes associated with
empowerment on each of the three levels of the empowerment theory, as well as themes
related to disempowerment. Results showed that while signs of empowerment were
observed in all three levels of the empowerment theory (individual, organizational,
community) they were more aligned with the individual level than the organizational and
community levels, suggesting that the empowerment gained through participating in
environmental education programs occurs predominantly on an individual level.
Ultimately, qualitative evidence suggests that prison-based environmental education
programs may serve as an ideal platform for gaining empowerment. However, it is also
necessary to continue to fight against the forces of disempowerment within these
programs to ensure incarcerated participants’ experiences are truly empowering. Findings
of this study may be helpful to corrections staff, incarcerated individuals, as well as
prison educators, in making efforts to increase empowering opportunities through
education.

Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1
Positionality Statement.................................................................................................... 3
COVID-19 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................ 3
Chapter 1. Agents of oppression and revolving doors: Understanding empowerment
in a prison context ............................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Literature review: Defining empowerment in a prison context using the
empowerment theory framework .................................................................................... 6
1.2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 6
1.2.2 Prison industrial complex and the history of imprisonment............................... 6
1.2.3 Prison in the 21st Century .................................................................................. 9
1.2.4 Empowerment theory ........................................................................................ 13
1.2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 15
1.3 Analysis: lessons from thesis advisors .................................................................... 15
1.3.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 15
1.3.2 Lessons from thesis advisors: the oppressive prison culture ........................... 20
1.3.3 Lessons from thesis advisors: empowerment within the prison walls. ............. 24
1.4 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 2. Journey of transformation: Environmental education as a platform for
empowerment .................................................................................................................. 32
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 32
2.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................... 33
2.2.1 Benefits of exposure to and interaction with nature and living organisms ...... 33
2.2.2 Environmental racism and the exclusion of oppressed and marginalized
individuals and communities in environmental movements ...................................... 37
2.2.3 Environmental Education in Prisons ................................................................ 40
2.2.4 Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP)............................................................ 43
2.2.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 45
2.3 Methods ................................................................................................................... 45
2.4 Results ..................................................................................................................... 48
2.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................... 66
iv

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 74
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 77
Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 85
Appendix A. Interview Questions ................................................................................. 85
Appendix B. Code occurrence frequency ..................................................................... 86
Appendix C. Code co-occurrence analysis table ........................................................... 87

v

List of Figures
Figure 1. Flowchart outlining the process of working with thesis advisors. .................... 17
Figure 2. Key terms which contribute to the continued disempowerment of incarcerated
individuals, identified in collaboration with thesis advisors. ............................................ 18
Figure 3. Key terms which enable incarcerated individuals to gain empowerment,
identified in collaboration with thesis advisors. ............................................................... 19
Figure 4. Flowchart outlining the process of working with interviewees......................... 46
Figure 5. Sankey diagram displaying the frequencies of codes associated with
empowerment and disempowerment (right) within different programs (left). ................. 66
Figure 6. Sankey diagram displaying frequencies of empowering codes organized in three
levels (right) within observed programs (left). ................................................................. 67
Figure 7. Diagram of codes organized in three levels of analysis (individual,
organizational, community) displaying networks connecting codes with a co-occurring
frequencies of two or greater. ........................................................................................... 69
Figure 8. A Conceptual map of prison-based environmental education program
(intervention) and its empowering processes and outcomes, impacted by disempowering
forces of the prison system. .............................................................................................. 70

vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Refined codes and their associated code groups ................................................. 47

vii

Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis reader, Dr.
Kathleen Saul, for her guidance and mentorship, not only throughout the thesis process,
but also my two years at MES.
I would also like to thank my thesis advisors, Susan and Matt, for taking on this role and
contributing a significant amount of time and energy into supporting my thesis. Their
expertise and input were instrumental in shaping this research project.
To all the formerly incarcerated interview participants who openly shared their
experiences and helped me learn and grow as a person – thank you.
I wish to express my appreciation to Kelli at the Sustainability in Prisons Project, for
providing me with constant support and resources. This thesis would not have been
possible without your persistent encouragement and inspiration.
I would also like to acknowledge Emily at the Sustainability in Prisons Project for taking
the time to help me brainstorm and practice my thesis presentation (even on weekends!).
Anne – thank you for proofreading my draft, even when faced with unreasonably tight
deadlines.
Jaileen, Chris, and Coquito, for reminding me to breathe every once in a while. Taking
breaks from thesis and spending time with you all certainly made the process less
stressful.
Undertaking a graduate level thesis is not easy, to say the least. This research project
would not have been possible without the unwavering support of my partner, Madison
(and Frisca the cat), and my parents, Masayuki and Teruko Morita. Thank you for always
pushing me to challenge myself and believing in my ability to do this work.

viii

In dedication to the people,
who have lost their lives to COVID-19 while incarcerated in Washington State prisons.

ix

Introduction
...the butterfly would undergo metamorphosis and you’re bringing this program to the
women and then I, myself, could see some of the stages. The butterfly was going through it
and I was as well, throughout the time I was there.
- Former butterfly program technician

More than two million adults are incarcerated in the United States, and each year
more than 700,000 leave federal and state prisons and return to outside communities
(Davis et al., 2014). When they leave a highly structured prison environment for the
unstructured world, many struggle to navigate and adjust to their new environment due to
the stigma and negative public perception of being formerly incarcerated and the lack of
support systems that enable them to pave a path for success – all of which stem from the
systemic oppression designed to disempower currently and formerly incarcerated
individuals.
There have been a multitude of studies conducted on the topic of prison-based
education programs as a goal to reduce recidivism (Cooper, Durose, & Snyder, 2014).
However, when almost three-quarters of individuals released return to prison with the
majority of them within the first year of release, it begs the question as to whether the
current system for providing prison-based education effectively serves its intended
purpose to provide opportunities that help improve the future of incarcerated individuals
(Cooper, Durose, & Snyder, 2014). Environmental education is a new and emerging
approach to in-prison education that has gone widely unexplored in terms of potential
benefits and outcomes. Effective in-prison environmental education can have the
potential to be transformative on both individual and organizational level, enabling

1

individuals to exert control and engaging them in decision making for social change
(Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004). This qualitative thesis research uses a focus group and
semi-structured interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals to determine if and
how environmental education programs can lead to empowerment during and beyond
incarceration.
I have divided this thesis into two chapters. In chapter one, I explain my work
under the guidance of thesis advisors - formerly incarcerated individuals with prisonbased environmental education experience - in a seminar-style focus group setting, to
define empowerment and determine what it means for someone to become empowered in
a prison context. Examining Zimmerman’s (2000) empowerment theory from a prison
context enabled me to narrow my focus and ultimately set the scene for chapter two.
Additionally, a priori themes identified based on the focus group discussions were used
for subsequent data analysis. In chapter two, I explore the findings from semi-structured
interviews conducted with five formerly incarcerated individuals who have previously
participated in prison-based environmental education programs. Using the data collected
from the interviews, I performed a template analysis to determine if and how the themes
fit into Zimmerman’s empowerment theory framework.
What does it mean for individuals in marginalized and oppressed communities to
be empowered, and what tools are required for empowerment? How can environmental
education empower incarcerated individuals in a correctional setting and beyond? These
questions will be addressed throughout this thesis to explore if and how the tools to
empower individuals in marginalized and oppressed communities can be applied to inprison nature-based education programs as a means for incarcerated individuals to

2

reclaim power and confidence and ultimately set them up for success within and beyond
prisons.

Positionality Statement
I, as the researcher, have never been incarcerated. My work with incarcerated
individuals and corrections staff through the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) has
given me an insight into the structure of prisons and a better understanding of various
issues surrounding the justice system. I felt it was imperative that those with lived
experience of incarceration have an active role in setting the agenda and influencing
research design. Whenever possible, I collaborated with and received input from formerly
incarcerated individuals to ensure that I conducted this research in an inclusive manner.
I am currently employed by the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP). This,
combined with the research participants’ previous experience with participating in SPP
programs, may introduce some biases into this type of qualitative research. Whenever
possible, I took into account the various types of possible participant and researcher
biases including acquiescence bias, social desirability bias, sponsor bias, confirmation
bias, and leading questions bias, and made attempts to minimize such biases by
maintaining neutrality so as to reduce the influence on the outcome of the research.

COVID-19 Acknowledgement
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of our lives. Within the walls
of a prison, the threat of the virus has been amplified as lack of vital information and
proper personal protective equipment (PPE) as well as the inability to social distant from

3

one another are reported across facilities nationally. As of this writing, 6,249 individuals
have been diagnosed with COVID-19 in Washington State prisons, resulting in 14 deaths.
In conducting research pertaining to prisons, the exacerbated risk as a result of the
pandemic posed added considerations that must be taken into account. The safety and
wellbeing of incarcerated individuals are top priority, and any research conducted during
the pandemic must proceed with this in mind. Furthermore, research must be designed in
a way that does not ignore or minimize the threat of the pandemic aggravated by systemic
injustice of corrections.

4

Chapter 1. Agents of oppression and revolving doors: Understanding empowerment
in a prison context
The truth of the matter is, we’re not a bunch of pit bulls that have been caged our whole
lives and that they're trying to just house us. But a lot of times that’s the way it's
perceived.
- Former conservation nursery technician
1.1 Introduction
The United States currently incarcerates more people than any other country in
the world at a staggering rate of 860 per 100,000 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).
Further, data from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics show that
about 68% of individuals released from prison were arrested within three years, 79%
within six years, and 83% within nine years (Alpher, Durose, Markman, 2018). Despite
Washington Department of Corrections’ (WADOC) commitment to “transform lives for a
better Washington” (Washington Department of Corrections, n.d.), empowerment and the
prison system as they stand today are on complete opposite sides of the spectrum. How
can we find an intersection of these two seemingly disparate concepts that were
traditionally designed to never intersect? Through two separate sections in this chapter, I
aim to explore the empowerment theory beyond the scope provided by Zimmerman
(2000), and address what it means for someone to become empowered in a prison setting.
In the literature review, I investigate the history of prisons and Zimmerman’s
empowerment theory framework to provide the necessary background information to
better understand empowerment in a prison context. Following the literature review, I
present the work I performed under the guidance of two thesis advisors with lived
experience of incarceration to examine and understand the various factors that lead to

5

incarcerated individuals becoming disempowered within the current prison system, and
what empowerment looks like in this environment.

1.2 Literature review: Defining empowerment in a prison context using the
empowerment theory framework

1.2.1 Introduction
The current prison system in the United States perpetuates poverty and jail time,
trapping people in an endless cycle of incarceration. Prison, therefore, can be identified as
a marginalized and oppressed community that disempowers incarcerated individuals by
rendering them unworthy of citizenship and human rights (Castro, 2018). What does it
mean for individuals in marginalized and oppressed communities to be empowered, and
what tools are required for empowerment? This question will be addressed by examining
the literature to explore how history and the modern justice system contribute to the
continued systemic oppression of currently and formerly incarcerated individuals. I will
also explore the empowerment theory as the primary framework to build a foundation on
which to conduct an investigation to define empowerment in a prison context.

1.2.2 Prison industrial complex and the history of imprisonment
The prison industrial complex, a confluence of various government and industry
interests encouraging incarceration as solutions to social, political, and economic
problems, helps people in authoritative positions gain and maintain power through racial,
economic, and other privileges at the cost of oppressing certain groups of people

6

(Schlosser, 1998). However, the root of the problem is deeply embedded in the culture
and history of colonialism –one in which the European colonizers “claimed” native land
by brute force. Power differentials have historically been institutionalized into social and
economic systems of the United States to ensure certain groups of people always
remained at a disadvantage. This system reinforced the power of certain groups of
individuals while oppressing others.
Connections between slavery and imprisonment can provide a historical
explanation of modern mass incarceration in which people in oppressed communities and
people of color are overrepresented. The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
abolished slavery “except as a punishment for crime” (Gilmore, 2000). This exception
allowed for racial discrimination and the continued forced labor of Black people. Shortly
after the enactment of the 13th Amendment, the number of Black incarcerated individuals
increased sharply. In Mississippi, there was a 300 percent increase in the number of
incarcerated individuals, from 272 to 1,072 between 1874 and 1877 with a majority of
them being persons of color. Georgia saw a similar increase, from 432 to 1,441 after a
series of criminal laws were exacted to increase the number of serious crimes (Adamson,
1983).
The stipulation of the 13th Amendment created a new form of controlled and
forced labor of Black people, supported by the enactment of the Black Codes and the
convict leasing system. The Slave Codes were rewritten as the Black Codes after the
Civil War and the abolition of slavery. These laws restricted formerly enslaved
individuals from obtaining employment and housing among others. Movement
restrictions made seemingly non-criminal acts such as standing in a certain part of town

7

or walking at night a crime for “loitering” or “breaking the curfew” (Adamson, 1983;
Benns, 2015; Browne, 2010). The enactment of these laws served as a legal medium for
re-enslaving Black people.
Soon after, a convict leasing system was developed, further rolling back the gains
made during Reconstruction. Under this system, the government “leased” out
incarcerated individuals to White plantation owners, farmers, and political leaders for an
average of $25,000 a year. The money, paid in exchange for control over their lives and
labor, benefitted the state which received revenue, as well as the White business owners
who had access to unwaged and unprotected workers (Benns, 2015; Browne, 2010).
The violent and torturous nature of convict leasing led to a reform as many states
phased out the system. However, another brutal form of forced labor emerged in the form
of chain gangs. Originally started in Georgia to support the expansion of roads in the
1890s, chain gangs consisted of incarcerated individuals with felony convictions
compelled to work in poor and inhumane conditions. Five individuals were chained
together around their ankles while they worked from dawn to dusk, shoveling dirt at a
rate of 14 shovelfuls every minute. They were forced to remain chained up as they ate
bug-infested and rotten food and slept in cages, all while having limited access to medical
or bathing facilities (Lichtenstein, 1993). The torturous and inhumane conditions
including corporal punishment such as whipping, confinement in a sweatbox under the
sun, and hanging from bars (Lichtenstein, 1993), were disproportionately mapped onto
people of color, as 80 percent of those in chain gangs were African American, despite
them only representing 12 percent of the at the time (Kelly, 1999). It was not until the
1950s, almost 100 years after the end of the Civil War, that chain gangs were abolished in

8

every state (Browne, 2010). Thus, establishment of the prison system not only served as a
functional replacement of slavery, but also a legal and political means to sustain cheap
and free labor and further support white supremacy.
The prison industrial complex and further exploitation of prison labor continued
through post-World War II, the Cold War, and into the late-20th century on a national
scale. For instance, Camp Columbia, a prison labor camp, was established in 1944 near
Yakima River in Washington to provide labor supporting the nearby Hanford Nuclear
Reservation. Incarcerated individuals were transported from McNeil Island Federal
Penitentiary to work in fruit orchards and farm lands acquired by the US Army,
processing and canning fruits for military use (Davis, 2002).
With an unprecedented growth in the number of prisoners, states continued to
leverage profits from prison labor. Contending that prison labor may save taxpayer
money, provide vocational training and thus help boost post-release employment, and
reduce recidivism rates, Washington Correctional Industries (CI) -- founded in 1983 -employs incarcerated individuals to operate factories to produce low-cost goods for state
agencies. Yet, CI has cost taxpayers $20 million since 2007, and their claims of improved
employment prospects and reduced recidivism have yet to be proven, all while reaping
millions of dollars in revenue and perpetuating mass incarceration through cheap prison
labor (Berens & Baker, 2014).

1.2.3 Prison in the 21st Century
The incarceration rate in the United States has only continued to increase, with
over 2.2 million people currently in prisons or jails – more than any other country in the

9

world (Davis et al., 2014). Aggravated in part by the War on Drugs and the “get tough on
crime” efforts started in the late 20th century, prison populations continue to remain
racially skewed to this day as Black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately
targeted for incarceration (Alexander, 2012; Castro, 2018; Lynch & Sabol 1997). As a
result of this systemic racism, people of color are more likely to be tacitly trapped in this
vicious cycle of continued incarceration.
Forced and cheap labor is still prevalent in many prisons across the nation where
incarcerated individuals are required to work if cleared by medical professionals, and are
often punished for refusing to do so (Benns, 2015). Furthermore, incarcerated
individuals, who on average make $0.14 to $1.41 per hour, are not protected by minimum
wage or overtime laws that protect workers who do the exact same jobs on the other side
of the barbed-wire fence (Sawyer, 2017; Browne, 2010).
Incarceration negatively affects an individual’s economic and social prospects
post release. A comprehensive report on the effects of incarceration on economic
mobility by the Pew Charitable Trusts (2010) found that incarceration reduces hourly
wages for men by approximately 11 percent and annual earnings by 40 percent after they
have completed their sentences. Furthermore, a formerly incarcerated individual on
average will have earned a total of $179,000 less through age 48 than if they had never
been incarcerated.
Racial inequalities are also evident as incarceration depresses the total earnings of
White males by two percent, of Latino males by six percent, and of Black males by nine
percent (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010). Felony disenfranchisement laws also
disproportionately affect people of color. Of the 5.3 million adults who cannot vote

10

because of felony-class criminal convictions, a full third are Black, leading to nearly
eight percent of all adult Black individuals in the United States having been stripped of
their right to vote (Castro, 2018). Furthermore, people of color are more likely to be
mistreated solely based on their race, background, or culture. Black and Latinx
individuals are more likely to be ticketed and searched during traffic stops than White
people (Langton & Durose, 2013). Police are also 3.6 times more likely to use force
against Black people than they are against White people when making an arrest (Castro,
2018). Additionally, the adverse impacts of incarceration will extend far beyond the
incarcerated individual to their children and families. Statistics show that one in nine
Black children (11.4 percent), one in 28 Latinx children (3.5 percent) and one in 57
White children (1.8 percent) have an incarcerated parent (The Pew Charitable Trusts,
2010). Children who have currently or previously incarcerated parents are more likely to
suffer from physical, psychological, educational, and financial burdens. Parental
incarceration may also be tied to increased rates of depression and anxiety of their child,
which frequently disrupt their educational performance (Cyphert, 2018). A study by
Davis and Shlafer also found that “youth with currently and formerly incarcerated parents
were more likely to report substance use and abuse compared to youth who have never
experienced the incarceration of a parent” (Davis and Shlafer , 2016, pg. 8) As such, the
effects of parental incarceration extends far beyond the parent as their children, too,
become victims of mass incarceration.
Poverty and racial inequalities are not only predictors of incarceration and the
justice system, but also frequently the outcome, preventing individuals from escaping the
cycle of reincarceration (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). Amidst this mass incarceration crisis

11

in which one every 116 adults is incarcerated in the United States, poverty and race play
a central role in the current criminal justice system (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016).
Even before sentencing, low-income individuals most likely cannot afford the high price
of bail. The median felony bail bond of $10,000 equates to roughly eight months’ income
for an average detained defendant (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). As a result, low-income
detainees spend more time in jails and prisons compared to their high-income
counterparts. This widens disparities in social and racial classes though accumulating
debt, decimating future job opportunities, and increasing risk of physical and mental
health, ultimately affecting their resilience and ability to improve their quality of life.
Consequently, people of color, who already face greater rates of poverty, are subjected to
higher rates of reincarceration and become significantly overrepresented in the United
States prison system (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). This racially further reinforces and
makes it increasingly difficult to break the cycle of poverty and incarceration.
In 2010, White people, incarcerated at a rate of 450 per 100,000, comprised 29%
of the incarcerated population while making up 64% of the United States population.
Both Black and Latinx individuals were overrepresented in correctional settings, making
up 40% and 19% of the prison population despite representing only 13% and 16% of the
United States population respectively (Sakala, 2014). Thus, the justice system in the
United States can be described as a system that locks up low-income individuals, and as a
result, disproportionately imprisons people of color and perpetuating an endless cycle of
poverty and incarceration. While significant efforts have been made over the years to
address various forms of injustice surrounding prisons in the United States, brutal forces
of racism and social inequality continue to sustain and drive forward the justice system.

12

1.2.4 Empowerment theory
By design, the current justice system ensures that the incarcerated people are and
will remain disempowered. The negative impacts of incarceration will also remain with
the individuals post-release, as many of them are stripped of their rights and abilities to
participate in many aspects of social life which could, and often does, lead to
reincarceration. With this in mind, we must create effective support systems and outlets
in which to help empower incarcerated individuals. I now revisit the question: What does
it mean for individuals in marginalized and oppressed communities to be empowered,
and what tools are required for empowerment?
Zimmerman defined empowerment as
A value orientation for working in the community and a theoretical model for
understanding the process and consequences of efforts to exert control and
influence over decisions that affect one’s life, organizational functioning, and the
quality of community life (Zimmerman, 2000, pg. 43).
Thus, empowerment includes both the process and the outcome by which people gain
greater access to available resources and mastery over their lives (Swift & Levin, 1987;
Rappaport, 1984; Cornell Empowerment Group, 1989). Empowering process refers to the
action taken to achieve a goal or an outcome. Empowered outcome measures the
resulting effect or consequence of people’s attempts to gain greater access to resources,
and control over their lives (Zimmerman, 2000). Furthermore, this framework can be
viewed as a multi-level approach where empowerment can occur at the individual,
organizational, and community levels (Rappaport, 1984; Zimmerman 2000). On all three
of these levels of analyses, participation, control, and critical awareness are key aspects
that could ultimately lead to empowerment (Zimmerman, 2000).

13

According to Zimmerman, empowerment on an individual level involves “beliefs
about one’s competence, efforts to exert control, and understanding of the socio-political
environment” (Zimmerman, 2000, pg. 46). In other words, empowerment on this level
requires that individuals gain critical awareness of their social and political situation so
they can identify and cultivate resources they need to achieve a desired outcome or goal
(Kieffer, 1984). On the individual level, the empowering process may include learning
decision-making skills and managing resources, while gaining a sense of control and
critical awareness are considered empowered outcomes (Zimmerman, 2000).
Empowerment on an organizational level occurs within organizations that
undertake the process, and as a result produce an outcome in which members gain control
over their lives. The empowering process on this level may include shared responsibility
and leadership and collective skill development as a result of collaborative work or
action, while empowered outcome may include influencing policy or developing of a
sense of identity (Zimmerman, 2000).
On a community level, empowerment involves individuals as well as
organizations working collaboratively to improve the community by identifying and
responding to community needs and threats to quality of life, and providing opportunities
for citizen participation (Cottrell, 1983; Zimmerman, 2000). Examples of empowering
communities (a process) includes providing access to resources and encouraging diversity
and inclusion, while characteristics of empowered communities (an outcome) may
includes formation of organizational coalitions and outlets for citizen participation
(Zimmerman, 2000).

14

Zimmerman’s theoretical model served as a starting point at which to explore
empowerment in a prison context. In the next section, I describe the work I conducted
with previously incarcerated thesis advisors to determine if and how incarcerated
individuals gain empowerment in a correctional setting.
1.2.5 Conclusion
Because empowerment is context and population specific as stated by
Zimmerman (2000), the empowerment theory will be used as the main theoretical
framework to define empowerment from in a prison context. The resulting and refined
definition of empowerment will then ultimately serve as the foundation on which to
determine how environmental education fits into the empowerment construct and act as a
platform for empowerment during incarceration and beyond.

1.3 Analysis: lessons from thesis advisors
1.3.1 Background
Because empowerment is context and population specific, as stated by
Zimmerman (2000), understanding how prison-based education programs can empower
incarcerated individuals requires that we define and understand what it means to become
empowered in a prison context for incarcerated individuals. Zimmerman (2000) also
stated that the empowerment process requires community participants to have an active
role not only in implementing the programs, but also in setting their agendas.
Furthermore, the underlying definition of empowerment as well as the process to achieve
it “must be self-defined by the people of concern, otherwise we undercut by our
metacommunications the very essence of empowerment” (Rappaport, 1984, pg. 4). In the
15

context of this thesis, the people of concern refers to incarcerated individuals. As such,
those with lived-experience with incarceration must have an active role in influencing the
research through input and feedback to ensure the research is being conducted in a way
that is effectively empowering. This led to two questions: What is required for
incarcerated individuals to gain empowerment in a correctional setting? Similarly, what
are the barriers preventing them from becoming empowered? By working with two
formerly incarcerated thesis advisors, I attempt to answer these questions and develop a
research design for conducting semi-structured interviews that accurately portrays the
problems that exist within corrections and encompasses the need to resolve that issue.
The current system of incarceration reinforces a cycle that ensures that the
incarcerated people remain without power and control. By recognizing the power
imbalance that exists between those who are incarcerated and those who are not; and by
working with thesis advisors who have a lived experience with incarceration, I attempt to
prevent taking a top-down approach in conducting a research project that involves
incarcerated individuals, preventing their true voices from being heard and, as a result,
perpetuating the cycle. By recognizing them as equal partners, I ensure inclusivity and
conduct accurate and useful research that will not only advance this field of scholarship
but also address the issues surrounding our justice system.
In this research, I regard thesis advisors as the expert teachers, providing vital
information to help shed more light on racial and social injustices surrounding the current
system of incarceration, and to promote social change in a way that empowers
incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, the process of working with thesis advisors is
necessary as it helps establish a space where true voices and stories of those with lived

16

experience of incarceration can be heard. Including the thesis advisors as teachers for the
researcher not only serves to flip the researcher-research participant power dynamic into
a student-teacher relationship, but also allows them to be in control of the situation.
Thesis advisors are not considered research subjects, and no data were collected
about them or used to write this thesis. The primary goals of working with thesis advisors
included:
•

defining empowerment in a prison context,

•

collaboratively identifying a priori themes, and

•

providing support and input in framing interview questions to be used for the
semi- structured interviews in Chapter 2.

All meetings were conducted remotely using Zoom to comply with all COVID-19
protocols, and took approximately four hours for each participant. This included an hour
to read key background materials (journal papers and book chapters provided by the
researcher), an hour each for two focus group sessions at an hour each, and another hour
for time spent on corresponding with the researcher (ie: reading and writing emails,
asking questions, setting up meetings). Figure 1 outlines the process for this section of the
study.

Figure 1. Flowchart outlining the process of working with thesis advisors.

17

The first session focused on defining empowerment within a prison context. This
session was designed to be unstructured and thus to create an open space in which the
participants could speak freely. I minimized researcher facilitation so that the thesis
advisors maintained control of the session. In the second session, the group
collaboratively worked on identifying a priori themes based on the definition of
empowerment that had been discussed in the previous session. These themes were used
as a part of data analysis and to inform semi-structured interview questions. A draft form
of semi-structured interview questions were shared with the group. Based on the work
from the earlier session, the group then provided input on framing these questions.
Figures 2 and 3 depict the key terms of empowerment and disempowerment that were
identified during the two sessions with thesis advisors.

Figure 2. Key terms which contribute to the continued disempowerment of incarcerated
individuals, identified in collaboration with thesis advisors.

18

Figure 3. Key terms which enable incarcerated individuals to gain empowerment,
identified in collaboration with thesis advisors.

Conducting accurate and meaningful research involving the systems of
incarceration requires that the voices of those most impacted by the system play a central
role in driving the research forward. Furthermore, as the researcher, I need to ensure that
my narratives accurately portray and reflect the voices of those with lived-experience
with incarceration while simultaneously taking deliberate actions to prevent using their
voices to fit my narrative. As equal partners in this research, the role of thesis advisors
include influencing the research design and helping the primary researcher better
understand the primary issue. In the following section, I outline lessons I learned from
working with thesis advisors, discussing what leads to incarcerated individuals becoming
disempowered, and what it means for them to gain empowerment in this environment. As
such, the next section is a synthesis of the voices of the thesis advisors as well as my

19

understanding of empowerment in a prison context based on research, past experience,
and conversations with thesis advisors.

1.3.2 Lessons from thesis advisors: the oppressive prison culture
Dehumanizing experiences
The thesis advisors frequently mentioned ‘dehumanizing experiences’ during our
conversations. As soon as somebody enters the door into a prison facility, they are
assigned a DOC number. They are stripped bare naked to be searched, told when to eat,
when to leave their cell, and forced to work for pennies. Human beings who enter the
carceral system are reduced to numbers and often become referred to as offenders,
convicts, or inmates. The use of such outdated language takes away power, control, and
anything that makes the incarcerated human beings, labeling them as offenders, convicts,
or inmates, to reinforce the idea that that is their sole identity and role during their time in
prison. When these individuals are reduced to these terms or numbers, it becomes more
difficult to see them beyond these labels. They are no longer individuals with their own
ideas or personalities. In fact, as the thesis advisors helped me understand, people in
prison are often reduced to and seen as a single snapshot of their lives – a snapshot of an
action that resulted in their incarceration. This perpetuates the systemic oppression that
eternally criminalizes and dehumanizes incarcerated individuals. By using labels and
seeing the incarcerated only as perpetrators of crimes, it becomes easier to ignore
elements of their past beyond the reason they are in prison, or their future possibilities –
all of which make them a unique human being. Could they be an artist, a student, a
teacher, a social and environmental activist? This list of possibilities can be much longer

20

but for the forces of systemic oppression and dehumanization that create an image of
them as nothing more than an inmate doing time in prison.

Fear
One of the ways in which prison administrators retain power and control over the
incarcerated individuals is by using fear. Incarcerated individuals, who often lack power
and control, are supervised by those on the other side of the power dynamic spectrum
who are tasked with enforcing policies and protocols. In this environment, incarcerated
individuals become more prone to unfair punishments stemming from the abuse of
power. Excessive and unjust punishments are often used to reinforce this power dynamic,
often resulting in infractions or the incarcerated being sent to administrative segregation
or intensive management units (IMU). As made clear by the thesis advisors, incarcerated
individuals are frequently put in a position where they are unable to speak up or freely
share their thoughts and opinions. This isn’t to argue for or against the use of
punishments like infractions or administrative segregation. Rather, I point out that the
system of incarceration operates on fear, where the incarcerated persons are often stifled,
knowing that there will be (often unfair) retribution, reinforcing a culture and system
where those without power remain suppressed and silenced.

Isolation, stigma, and discrimination
Disconnected from the rest of the world and outside communities, prison
functions as its own community, going as far as relying on the incarcerated individuals to
perform various jobs within the facility to support its operations. As a result, people

21

remain isolated with minimal human contact. They are separated from their families, and
stripped of everything that brings them comfort and connection to the outside world.
Regardless of how much time they have on their sentence, feeling distant from everything
on the other side of the fence is not an uncommon occurrence. As thesis advisors helped
me understand, many incarcerated people have been subjugated by the system; in county
jails, the court system, and on the streets, before they even arrive at prison. Once there,
they are placed in a cell within a concrete building with gates, barbed-wire fences and
walls, and are expected to become rehabilitated upon completion of their sentence.
Ultimately this sense of alienation and isolation significantly contributes to the
disempowerment of incarcerated individuals, preventing them from having a chance at
improving their lives during and beyond incarceration.
Prisons are designed to constrain incarcerated individuals within the walls,
making it easier for the general public to disregard or inadvertently forget their existence.
However, a report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that at least 95% of all
incarcerated individuals in a state prison will reenter society at some point (Hughes &
Wilson, 2004). In many cases, people suffer the negative impacts of incarceration even
after being released. This negative perception often overshadows the various efforts that
promote rehabilitation, personal development, and empowerment of those who are
incarcerated. The stigma of incarceration will often continue to negatively impact their
lives as they likely face obstacles in at least the following areas: employment, housing,
military service, holding public office, parental rights, travel, public social benefits, jury
service, education, and voting (Castro, 2018). This continued negative perception and

22

stigma results in an endless cycle that perpetuates the disempowerment of incarcerated
individuals.

Culture of “us versus them”
Many instances in which incarcerated individuals become disempowered in
prison can be attributed to the culture of us versus them, a binary viewpoint that pits the
administrators and the incarcerated people against each other to reinforce the preexisting
power dynamics. Such thinking can be linked to the dualism stage of William Perry’s
(1968) model of intellectual and ethical development, where everything can be ordered
into one of two categories, with an authority figure who has the answers to the absolutes
(Bizzell, 1984). This fails to take into account the relativistic viewpoint, or gray areas in
between. Problems arise in a correctional setting with this dualistic approach, when
prison administrators ignore or do not prioritize the needs or best interests of incarcerated
individuals. Prison administrators also do not effectively serve the role of authority figure
in Perry’s intellectual model. In fact, it creates a conflict of interest within the dualistic
view of us versus them as they attempt to fill two roles within Perry’s model: one as the
authority figure and another as one of the two absolutes (administrators and incarcerated
individuals).
Based on my conversation with the thesis advisors, it quickly became clear that
there is a distinct and divisive line that separates a group of human beings within a
concrete building based on whether one has a badge or not, upheld and reinforced by both
sides. Disempowerment of incarcerated individuals stemming from the oppressive culture
is further exacerbated by the level of disconnect among the prison staff at various levels

23

of the administration. This results in the lack of connection and accountability, kicking
problems down the road for somebody else to deal with. Ultimately, these staff are the
agents of oppression, acting on behalf of those with more power, collectively
perpetuating a culture that ensures those on the other side of the line, those without
badges, remain oppressed and disempowered. To clarify, not all prison administrators are
agents of oppression. In fact, to broadly label all prison staff as such will only reinforce
the very culture of us versus them. However, I learned from my discussions with the
thesis advisors that those who are members of the dominant group within this system
with vast power differentials need to make conscious decisions to redistribute this power
and agency to the incarcerated individuals in a way that they can create opportunities and
connections for improving their future prospect within and beyond prisons.
1.3.3 Lessons from thesis advisors: empowerment within the prison walls.
Autonomy and Connection
As noted by the thesis advisors, people in a prison environment are continually
disempowered, and have no choice but to become reliant on the system and the agents of
oppression, making them wards of the state. In the process, they are put in their cells,
placed on restricted movement and told to walk along a yellow line, and are stripped of
various aspects of what make them human beings. In this oppressive and dehumanizing
environment where there are limited choices, access, and opportunities, they end up
fighting each other for control somewhere in their lives. Violence is common in these
settings, and it is often one of the only ways to obtain or maintain control of a small shred
of life. Goffman (1961) supports this claim by describing how incarcerated individuals

24

may deploy violence to resist the power and control of the institution, and to impose their
own sense of order. This leads to a culture of violence.
Throughout my discussions, I learned that gaining empowerment requires a
systemic and cultural change that enables currently incarcerated individuals to have more
control over their lives to make positive changes through increased opportunities and
ability to make choices. Thesis advisors pointed out that, mentoring their peers, sharing
special skills or knowledge, or starting new programs, are just some examples that can
help the incarcerated find significance in purpose and thus become empowered.
Unfortunately, such opportunities are extremely few and far between.
Incarcerated individuals could also greatly benefit from having increased
opportunities to find and make connections. Finding connections with their peers, with
staff, and with those in outside communities, opens the door to a world of new
opportunities where people can look beyond differences, find common ground, and
establish relationships. This also bridges the us versus them dynamic, helping to see
beyond their typical role in their environment that is reinforced by the system (ie:
incarcerated individuals, prison staff, non-incarcerated community members) and
humanizing the experience for all parties.
Autonomy in a prison context can be defined as a “perceived possibility to
regulate one’s own behavior” (van der Laan & Eichelsheim, 2013, pg. 430). This
heightened sense of personal control allows incarcerated individuals to have better
outcome control, increased choices, and improved predictability of future events
(Goodstein et al., 1984). Having autonomy and connections gives the incarcerated a
heightened sense of rapport and teamwork for making positive changes. As pointed out

25

by the thesis advisors, when people coexist in a collaborative environment with healthy
relationships, natural outcomes such as learning to be patient, becoming a better
communicator, and being an active listener, can be observed. These changes can have
significant positive impacts in a prison setting where people tend to be racially and
culturally segregated, or as the thesis advisors explained, “cliqued up”. Being able to
connect with those outside of their group is undoubtedly healthy and beneficial. It may
start with smaller actions, like eating or working together, to merging circles to build a
diverse community and thus respect and appreciation for one another. This act of
breaking down walls, as explained by thesis advisors, provides agency for collective
action, and is beneficial on both individual and community levels. These skills apply to
various aspects of life beyond their time in prison, serving to empower these individuals
even after their release. Ultimately, greater autonomy and connection may allow for new
possibilities in which to improve their lives during and beyond incarceration.

Realizing self-worth
Those who enter the prison system have frequently been subjected to systemic
oppression before they even arrive at the facility. As such, their sense of self-worth and
self-efficacy have often already taken a beating, only for them to become further
disempowered in prison, where choices and opportunities are severely limited. This is
further exacerbated by the previously explained circumstance in which incarcerated
people are referred to as inmates or offenders. It often becomes difficult to consider
themselves as anything more than traditional labels of prison culture that get applied to
them, and in the process damaging their own self-esteem and self-efficacy. Therefore, a

26

major part of gaining empowerment in a prison entails having opportunities where
incarcerated individuals can realize and rediscover their self-worth. People benefit greatly
from having the opportunity to can feel a sense of accomplishment and fulfilment.
Furthermore, seeing beyond the traditional labels through these opportunities enables
incarcerated individuals to realize the possibilities of what they can accomplish and a
sense of self-belief that they have the power to make positive changes during and beyond
incarceration.
Thesis advisors also helped me understand that opportunities that give them a
sense of purpose and significance greatly contribute to their ability to realize their selfworth. Some examples provided during the conversations include undertaking a
specialized job which allows them to positively contribute to the greater community, such
as caring for an endangered species. Prisons frequently rely on the incarcerated
individuals to ensure day-to-day operations by employing them for various positions
across the facility, and, for some, providing vocational skills and training that translate to
jobs outside of prison.
Gaining empowerment requires that incarcerated people are provided with
opportunities to carry out meaningful tasks that enable them to find a purpose and
significance. Making meaningful contributions toward a purpose or a goal allows for a
rediscovery of sense of pride and self-belief, which can significantly contribute to a
renewed sense of self-worth. One such example provided by the thesis advisor is working
in a composting program where participants coordinate vermicompost and bokashi
composting (a fermentation process for food waste) and breeding black soldier flies to
help reduce facility food waste and create beneficial soil amendment to be used in the

27

prison gardens. As indicated by the thesis advisors, these experiences in which they are
able to positively contribute to their community may lead to the realization of self-worth.
This will not only benefit the incarcerated on a personal level, but also have broader
effects, potentially contributing to changing people’s attitudes about what can be
accomplished in prison.

Trust and accountability
In a prison environment where incarcerated people are bound by strict policies,
procedures, and protocols, such as restricted movement and strip searches, opportunities
where they can gain trust and practice accountability are limited. However, increasing
such opportunities is vital in efforts to create a space where incarcerated individuals can
become empowered. As a result of being entrusted with certain responsibilities such as
caring for living organisms through the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) programs
including honeybees, butterflies, turtles, and various plants, potential outcomes include
being able to trust themselves, further contributing to their ability to realize their selfworth and what they are capable of achieving. Greater responsibility and trust also
enables incarcerated individuals to practice and promote accountability in their daily
habits and relationships. One potential outcome of such practice is its impact on their
ability to reflect on their past and develop and execute plans for a transformative change
both within and beyond prisons. Transformative change can be defined as “a process by
which previously uncritically assimilated assumptions, beliefs, values, and perspectives
are questioned and thereby become more open, permeable, and better justified” (Cranton,
2006, pg. 6). Some examples, as pointed out by the thesis advisors, may include

28

undertaking a job which allows them to positively contribute to their community or
pursuing post-secondary education. Such undertakings may provide a sense of
empowerment through the exposure to new ideas which help counteract the negative
effects of incarceration.
Furthermore, accountability must be equally practiced by all parties within the
system. It is not only the incarcerated individuals who must practice accountability but
also the prison administrators and other non-incarcerated individuals. As discussed in my
conversations with the thesis advisors, there were many issues of lack of accountability
where prison administrators often failed to follow through on agreements they had with
incarcerated individuals. Ultimately, empowerment through accountability and trust only
works if all players within the system of concern actively work to establish new
opportunities in which those who are marginalized can take part.
Based on my discussions with the thesis advisors, I learned that positive outcomes
of increased trust include a sense of respect and appreciation, and more importantly,
being valued as a human being for who they are. While opportunities inside a prison are
sparse, incarcerated individuals are capable of doing much of the same work that are
commonly done by those with job titles, degrees, or licenses in outside communities if
given the chance. Yet they continue to be disempowered in the current system,
aggravated by the generalized public perception that they are often incapable of doing the
same work as non-incarcerated individuals solely based on their incarceration. Stigma,
therefore, is a major contributing factor to the negative consequences for individuals with
a criminal record (Evans et al., 2018). Legal barriers also present challenges with various
aspects of reentry such as housing and employment. For instance, a criminal record may

29

disqualify a formerly incarcerated individual from employment, especially in licensed or
professional occupations (Western et al., 2001). Despite the various barriers and
constraints that exist within a prison environment, they are capable of doing things to
contribute to and make positive changes within the greater community. Ultimately
meaningful opportunities where incarcerated individuals are valued and trusted may serve
to counter the public narratives and enable incarcerated individuals to gain a sense of
respect and appreciation.

1.4 Conclusion
Through the literature review and working with thesis advisors, I explored the
definition of empowerment beyond Zimmerman’s theoretical framework, specifically
addressing what it means for somebody to gain empowerment in a prison setting. I now
revisit the question: What does it mean for individuals in marginalized and oppressed
communities to be empowered, and what tools are required for empowerment? In
attempting to answer this question, it quickly became clear that the agents of oppression
systemically ensures that the incarcerated individuals always remain at a disadvantage
and thus disempowered, during and beyond their incarceration. As such, prisons and
empowerment are two contrasting concepts made exceedingly difficult to overlap due to
various systemic forces that perpetuate the prison industrial complex. However, as thesis
advisors helped inform, there are a multitude of benefits that emerge from the intersection
of these two concepts, and this overlap is where incarcerated individuals are able to
diverge from the revolving prison doors and forge a new path to success. Empowerment
in prisons requires a systemic paradigm shift where opportunities for a transformative

30

change are made accessible to all incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, empowerment
requires that we humanize the process to change the public narrative of incarceration in a
way that views these individuals beyond a snapshot of a mistake, and as human beings. I
echo a question raised by one of the thesis advisors: What is a human being worth?

31

Chapter 2. Journey of transformation: Environmental education as a platform for
empowerment
… education can come in many different forms … I also think that it taught me that you
can find peace and grow in the worst situation possible.
- Former butterfly program technician
2.1 Introduction

Studies involving the topic of in-prison education programs as a goal to reduce
recidivism abound (for example, Cooper, Durose, & Snyder, 2014). However, recidivism
rates in the United States remain alarmingly high, with a report by the U.S. Department
of Justice (Alper & Durose, 2018) indicating that five out of every six individuals
released from state prisons were rearrested at least once within nine years of their release.
This leads to the question: Do the current in-prison education programs effectively serve
their intended purpose to provide opportunities which help improve the future of
incarcerated individuals (Cooper, Durose, & Snyder, 2014)? Environmental education as
a means to empower incarcerated individuals has gone widely unexplored. Peterson and
Zimmerman (2004) stated that gaining empowerment requires enabling individuals to
exert control and engaging them in decision-making for social change. How can
environmental education empower incarcerated individuals in a correctional setting and
beyond? In this chapter I address this question by first exploring the literature on the
benefits of exposure to and interaction with nature and living organisms, and
environmental racism as barriers preventing oppressed and marginalized individuals and
communities from participating in environmental movements. I then explain the semistructured interviews I conducted with previously incarcerated prison-based
environmental education program participants to investigate how environmental
32

education can fit into the empowerment construct and ultimately serve as a platform for
empowerment in prisons and beyond.

2.2 Literature Review
2.2.1 Benefits of exposure to and interaction with nature and living organisms
Throughout history, humans have had an intimate relationship with nature. While
our overall interaction with nature has been significantly reduced as a result of
modernization and industrialization, it continues to be an integral part of human lives as
we heavily depend on natural environment for our well-being. A wide range of benefits
from interacting with nature has been reported in the literature, spanning physical health
and psychological well-being to cognitive ability and social cohesion (Berto, 2014).
Benefits of interacting with nature will be presented by utilizing the following typology
outlined by Keninger et al. (2013): mental state, physical function and/or physical health,
cognitive ability or function, spiritual well-being, and social effect at an individual and
community scale.

Positive effect on mental state
Interacting with nature can have a wide range of benefits from increased selfesteem and improved mood to reduced anxiety, anger, and frustration (Keninger et al,
2013). Chang and Chen (2005) found in their study on the effects of window views and
indoor plants on human psychophysiological response that the participants showed signs
of reduced nervousness and anxiety when they had a view of nature and/or when indoor
plants were present, while participants suffered the highest degree of tension and anxiety
when placed in an environment without a window view and/or indoor plants. Similarly,
33

Han (2008) found that in a classroom of middle school students, participants showed
significantly stronger feelings of comfort and friendliness with the addition of a plant to
the classroom compared to a control class without any plants. The experimental group
with plants also had fewer hours of sick leave and punishment records due to misbehavior
than the control group. These studies collectively show that even indirect interaction with
and exposure to nature (ie: having an indoor plant) can have a positive impact on the
mental state of individuals in a given environment. In prison settings where incarcerated
people are prone to higher levels of mental fatigue and rates of mental health challenges,
nature contact delivers a wide range of benefits on their mental state such as heightened
feelings of calm and wellbeing (Moran, 2019).

Positive effect on physical function and/or physical health
Studies have also shown that interaction with nature can lead to reduced stress
and cortisol levels, and help with addiction recovery. In Van Den Berg and Custers’
(2011) research on gardening and affective restoration from stress, participants who took
part in 30 minutes of outdoor gardening following a stressful Stroop task, a psychological
test that requires participants to respond to incongruent stimuli, positive mood was fully
restored after gardening. Furthermore, this interaction with nature through gardening
promoted relief from acute stress (Van Den Berg & Custers, 2011). Another study by
Bennett et al. (1998) investigated the effect of a therapeutic camping program on
addiction recovery and determined that directly interacting with and being exposed to
nature lead to significant improvements in autonomic arousal, frequency of negative
thoughts, and alcohol craving. Researchers in this field unanimously indicate a positive

34

relationship between nature and human physical function and/or physical health (Van
Den Berg & Custers, 2011; Bennett et al., 1998). With 73.6% of individuals in the
criminal justice system having substance abuse involved with their criminal behaviors
(Beck, 2000), the positive effects of nature contact on physical function and health may
contribute to supporting incarcerated individuals with substance abuse disorders with
pain management and reduction in stress and anxiety (Berry et al., 2020).

Positive effect on cognitive ability or function
Further empirical evidence suggests that interaction with nature delivers a wide
range of human benefits specifically related to cognitive ability or function. To
investigate the effects of plants on task performance and mood, Shibata and Suzuki
(2002) conducted research into the behaviors of high school students who performed
various tasks in a room with and without plants present. They determined that the
presence of plants had a positive impact on the outcome of the tasks, especially on tasks
associated with creative work. Similarly, Wells (2000) investigated the relationship
between the naturalness and restorativeness of the home environment and the cognitive
functioning of low-income urban children. Wells found that children who had greater
levels of greenness at home tended to have higher levels of cognitive functioning.

Positive effect on spiritual well-being
A number of studies exist to show that exposure to natural scenes enhances
spiritual well-being. In Fredrickson and Anderson’s (1999) research examining
qualitative aspects of the exposure to nature as a source of spiritual inspiration,

35

participants stated that the power of nature through complete immersion contributed to
their experience and acted as possible sources of spiritual inspiration. Curtin (2009)
further supported this claim by stating that interaction with nature leads to spiritual
fulfillment and psychological health benefits. Collectively, these studies support the
premise that there is a wide range of physiological and spiritual human benefits stemming
from both direct and indirect exposure to, and interaction with natural scenes.

Positive social effect at an individual and community scale
Interactions among community members within natural settings can enhance
social capital, establish a meaningful relationship with other community members with
similar goals, values, and interests, and develop a sense of belonging. For example, being
a part of nature-based community such as community gardens provides benefits such as
increased social cohesion, social support, and social connections (Kingsley & Townsend,
2006). Evidence also suggests that contact with nature can mitigate mental fatigue, and
consequently reduce aggression and violence (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Kaplan, 1995). In
their investigation into the effects of environment on mental fatigue, Kuo and Sullivan
(2001) found that residents living in barren buildings had higher levels of mental fatigue,
and as a result reported more aggression and violence than those living in greener
buildings. Similar findings were also observed in prison settings by Nadkarni et al.
(2017): nature-deprived incarcerated individuals who had access to nature videos
reported feeling more empathetic and committed 26% fewer violent infractions compared
to those who did not have access to these videos. Collectively, these findings suggest that
the positive social effects from both direct and vicarious experiences with nature may be

36

especially beneficial in nature-deprived settings such as prisons due to the forced
proximity of people enduring various forms of hardships.

2.2.2 Environmental racism and the exclusion of oppressed and marginalized
individuals and communities in environmental movements
While the literature outlining the benefits of interacting with nature abounds,
access to the natural environment is disproportionately skewed, leaving certain groups
significantly more nature-deprived (Borunda, 2020) and more prone to the impacts of
environmental issues such as pollution and contaminated drinking water than others
(Bell, 2016). The United Nations Environment Programme defines environmental rights
as a substantive and procedural human right to environmental conditions of a specified
quality. Substantive rights refers to “those in which the environment has a direct effect on
the existence or the enjoyment of the right itself” including;
•

civil and political rights such as the rights to life,

•

freedom of association and freedom from discrimination,

•

economic and social rights such as rights to health, food, and an adequate
standard of living,

•

cultural rights such as rights to access religious sites, and

•

collective rights affected by environmental degradation such as the rights of
indigenous peoples (The United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.).

Procedural rights “prescribe formal steps to be taken in enforcing legal rights”, and these
include the three fundamental access rights: access to information, public participation,
and access to justice (United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.). While efforts to

37

improve environmental conditions have appeared across the globe, such movements
frequently exclude marginalized groups, who are often on the front lines and most
affected by the problems the movements aim to rectify (Jones, 2020).
Low-income people of color are disproportionately affected by various
detrimental environmental conditions, often unable to escape from the cycle that
perpetuates and reinforces poverty and oppression due to systemic injustice that is
designed to prevent them from improving their future economic and social prospect.
Low-income communities of color are often consciously targeted for polluting operations
due to lower property costs in those neighborhoods and the lack of political and economic
power of the community members to resist such operations. For instance, Bell and Ebisu
(2012) found racial and ethnic disparities in exposure to toxic pollutants, where Whites
had the lowest exposures while Non-Hispanic Blacks had higher exposures than did
Whites for 13 of the 14 airborne pollutants they tested. In addition, vulnerable
communities with weak political opposition become more at risk to harmful exposure
because government agencies are more likely to approve polluting projects there than in
wealthier communities. Furthermore, when these communities often lack the ability to
attract economic development, they are coerced into bringing polluting developments
into their communities with the promise of associated jobs, economic development, and
tax revenue (Jantz, 2019).
The effects of environmental degradation are not equally distributed across
socioeconomic and racial groups; low-income people of color are more likely than White
people to experience unequal access to nature and live in nature deprived areas where
they cannot safety get outside, access clean water and air, and experience a diversity of

38

wildlife (Rowland-Shea et al., 2020). Unequal access to nature is further supported by the
underrepresentation of people of color at natural resource and environmental agencies, as
well as people of color feeling unwelcome or in danger when visiting public lands and
other public areas designated for the enjoyment of nature due to the risk of being
targeted, stereotyped, or harmed (Newsome, 2020; Lanham, 2020). For instance,
Erickson et al. (2009) found in their research various historical and cultural factors that
resulted in low use of national parks by African Americans. Respondents in their study
cited concerns over physical safety and fears of traveling outside of ones’ comfort zone,
rooted in historical racism. As such, people of color are more likely to not only have
unequal access, but also experience risk to their safety, difficulties gaining access, and
alienation in outdoor spaces for simply trying to enjoy or protect nature (Rowland-Shea
et al., 2020).
Violation of procedural environmental rights prevent low-income people of color
from accessing vital information and means for active participation in matters that
directly impact them. Oftentimes, those who are most threatened or affected by
environmental impacts are not a part of the solution process. In terms of climate change,
Ghosh (2016) points out that since the period of Western industrialization, the emerging
fossil fuel economies required that other nations be prevented from developing coalbased energy systems of their own. It is in fact true that
poor nations of the world are not poor because they were indolent or unwilling;
their poverty is itself an effect of the inequalities created by the carbon economy;
it is the result of systems that were set up by brute force to ensure that poor
nations remained always at a disadvantage in terms of both wealth and power
(Ghosh, 2016, pg. 110).
How can we resolve various environmental challenges if those who are most vulnerable
are absent from the discussion? The environmental movement has been for the most part
39

dominated by White people and perspectives, leading to discrimination and the framing
of priorities through their exclusive view point (Taylor, 2014; Purdy, 2015). Attempting
to address and resolve climate change in an exclusive manner without the participation of
diverse groups is merely self-serving. Ultimately, the outcome will be far less effective in
resolving various issues to protect our environment than that of a more inclusive
approach.

2.2.3 Environmental Education in Prisons
Educational programs and opportunities made available in correctional settings
nation-wide provide skill building and job training. Such programs aim to assist
incarcerated individuals to vocational training and education to assist with reentry and
reduce recidivism rates. Maltz (1984) defines recidivism as:
… a reversion of an individual to criminal behavior after he or she has been
convicted of a prior offence, sentenced, and (presumably) corrected.
An overwhelming majority of currently incarcerated individuals enter prison without a
GED or high school diploma (The Pew Charitable Trust, 2010). Between 1970 and 2010,
nearly all of the 700 percent increase in incarceration was concentrated among those with
no formal college education (National Research Council, 2014). Thus, education is
integral to the rehabilitative goals of both state and federal corrections, and it has become
increasingly common for individuals to be able to earn a GED or high school diploma
while incarcerated.
Studies conducted on education and recidivism rates unanimously indicate that
education leads to lower rates of recidivism (Koo, 2015; Lewis, 2018; Maltz, 1984). In a

40

2013 RAND report funded by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Davis et al. (2013) found that:
Receiving correctional education while incarcerated reduces an individual’s risk
of recidivating after release. After examining the higher-quality research studies,
we found that, on average, inmates who participated in correctional education
programs had 43 percent lower odds of recidivating than inmates who did not
(Davis et al., 2013, pg. xvi).
Despite these claims, of the $81 billion spent on state and federal prisons every year, only
about six percent is used on programs such as vocational training, life-skills training,
educational programs, social activities, and psychological treatments, and recreation
(Cnaan et al., 2008). Any and all educational programs in prisons are arguably beneficial.
However, how effective are these programs in reducing recidivism rates, and making a
positive impact on the incarcerated individuals during and beyond incarceration? With
seemingly high national average recidivism rate, one approach to making a greater
impact is to allocate more funding and efforts to expand existing programs. Given the
current state of mass incarceration wherein incarcerated individuals continue to be
disempowered, taking an alternative approach to providing prison-based education should
be explored; environmental education as a potentially effective platform to achieve
empowerment, reduced recidivism, and success in and beyond prisons.
Environmental education in prisons is relatively new, yet is becoming
increasingly more common (Weber et al., 2015). Education model and topics for
environmental education programs can range from environmental literacy to composting,
becoming a certified beekeeper to growing endangered plants. However, amidst the
increase in the number of environmental education programs across prison facilities
nationwide, greenwashing of prisons becomes a major concern. We must, therefore,
clearly differentiate in-prison environmental education for empowerment from
41

greenwashing prisons with cheap labor as a means for the prisons to save operational
costs.
Prisons may use the “greening of corrections” as a discursive strategy to appear
more ethical and progressive, and as a justification to continue utilizing cheap and forced
labor (Bohlinger, 2016). According to the US Department of Justice (2011, pg. 1), “…
some of the most innovative and greatest cost savings solutions can be found in the
greening of corrections.” This is not to ignore or minimize the benefits of participating in
such programs. However, prioritizing cost savings over other benefits to participating in
sustainability programs is a questionable approach that raises labor exploitation concerns
and fails to consider the needs and gains for the incarcerated individuals, especially when
the average hourly wage for working in a non-industry jobs (ie: non-state-owned
businesses) ranges from $0.14 to $0.63 (Sawyer, 2017).
In 2005, the Washington State Department of Corrections (WADOC) built the
nation’s first correctional building that met the Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) Gold rating at the Monroe Correctional Complex. This energy-efficient
building contains classrooms and computer labs as well as waterless urinals and rainwater
catchment system for flushing toilets. This was followed by a $40 million Silver LEEDcertified Intensive Management Unit in 2006, WADOC’s first building with this level of
LEED certification to house incarcerated individuals (Anderson, 2015). To date, the
Department has completed 32 LEED-certified buildings. At Coyote Ridge Corrections
Center, attaining the LEED gold standard led to 32% reductions in energy and water use
(WADOC, n.d.). These numbers alone are impressive. However, it also begs the

42

question: Do such attempts to create a “greener” facility ultimately sustain the
environment or the prison industrial complex and mass incarceration?

2.2.4 Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP)
Providing environmental education in prisons without “greening corrections”
ensures that making prisons more sustainable occurs only as a byproduct of the education
that supports the transformation of lives of incarcerated participants. The Sustainability in
Prisons Project (SPP) partners The Evergreen State College with the Washington State
department of Corrections. SPP works to foster sustainable change by bringing nature,
science, and environmental education into prisons (Sustainability in Prisons Project, n.d.).
Furthermore, SPP:
brings together incarcerated individuals, scientists, corrections staff, students,
and program partners to promote education, conserve biodiversity, practice
sustainability, and help build healthy communities (Sustainability in Prisons
Project).
SPP offers a wide range of environmental programs within 11 out of 12 state prisons in
Washington, ranging from beekeeping, gardening, butterfly and turtle conservation to
environmental literacy programs and environmental engagement workshop series.
SPP’s various educational programs allow incarcerated individuals to take
ownership of a project. Beekeeping, turtle, and butterfly technicians, for example, ensure
the success of their program through hands-on work. As a result, these programs can be
profoundly rehabilitative for participating incarcerated individuals who take pride in their
work and feel a sense of accomplishment. Furthermore, they learn the importance of
responsibility and self-reliance, as well as gain trust from their peers and correctional
staff. Most importantly, as SPP Project Manager Kelli Bush notes, incarcerated program

43

participants are "treated as partners in our work” and as “active and valued participants in
an ongoing exploration of how to solve a critical environmental problem” (Lyons, 2012).
As such, these programs give incarcerated individuals an equal voice in a correctional
setting plagued by power imbalance.
Effective environmental education programs also incorporates and emphasizes
community building. With a focus on personal growth, education, and advancement in a
skill or vocation, SPP programs strive to create community within the prison while
simultaneously connecting incarcerated individuals to communities outside of the prison
system. For example, incarcerated beekeeping technicians and program participants
contribute to the betterment of their environment within their facility by planting flowers
which may provide a multitude of benefits such as increasing green spaces in a naturedeprived area, and promoting positive social contact among program participants as they
work together to care for the bees and the flowers. Through this program, they also work
and connect with various outside partners, enabling them to network with people who
they would otherwise not have the opportunity to meet while incarcerated. Through their
shared labor alongside outside program partners, incarcerated participants learn
teamwork and forge a sense of community beyond prisons (Lyons, 2012). Ultimately
they take pride in putting this work toward the betterment of their local communities.
Environmental education programs such as those offered by SPP can also serve to
provide a safe environment separate from the emotionally, physically, and
psychologically harsh conditions of prison (Lyons, 2012). For example, the Taylor’s
checkerspot butterfly program technicians are able to leave the prison gate to go work in
the greenhouse located outside of the fence. This external environment helps incarcerated

44

individuals on various levels and creates a space where they can freely express
themselves and regain self-esteem and confidence (Lyons, 2012). Ultimately, meaningful
work that emphasizes equality and community building significantly contributes to the
transformation of incarcerated individuals.

2.2.5 Conclusion
Differentiating environmental education programs serving as a platform for
empowerment from ones that merely greenwash prison helps fight the forces of systemic
injustice. With a clear idea of what a truly meaningful and impactful environmental
education looks like, I turned to semi-structured interviews to determine if and how such
programs can fit into the empowerment theory framework.

2.3 Methods
Sampling and data collection
I used the same two-step process as I had used to recruit thesis advisors to obtain
a convenience sample of five research participants to take part in semi-structured
interviews. Participants consisted of formerly incarcerated individuals who had
previously participated in prison-based environmental education programs. The
participants were no longer under any DOC supervision.
Prior to conducting interviews, participants completed an optional and anonymous
demographic survey using Google Forms. Questions attempted to capture each
participant’s age, race, gender, preferred pronoun, and the educational program in which
they were involved. I used this data to better understand the survey participants but will

45

not share the data to ensure that the identities of all participants in the small sample
remained confidential.
I conducted five one-on-one semi-structured interviews, each lasting no longer
than 60 minutes, using Zoom. The interview protocol contained three main interview
questions in addition to a few follow-up prompts under each of the main questions to help
guide the conversation (Appendix A). I had developed interview questions and prompts
based on techniques outlined by Spradley (1979) and Leech (2002). All interview
questions and prompts were shared with the participants prior to the interview to ensure
that they were able to prepare and would be comfortable with answering the questions.
Interviewees received a compensation of $100 for their time and trouble. Figure 4
outlines the process for this section of the research.

Figure 4. Flowchart outlining the process of working with interviewees
Data analysis
I recorded and transcribed the semi-structured interviews. Based on the
information gathered from the interviews, a priori codes identified during focus group
sessions with thesis advisors (Chapter 1) were refined; I determined whether each code
contributed to the empowerment or disempowerment of incarcerated individuals. The
codes associated with empowerment were then assigned into code sub-groups based on
the empowerment theory framework (individual, organizational, and community). I then

46

conducted a framework analysis using atlas.ti to identify patterns among the responses
and determine how they fit into the empowerment theory framework.

Table 1. Refined codes and their associated code sub-groups
Refined code

Empowerment/
Disempowerment

Framework
code group

Access to resources

Empowerment

Individual

Accommodating for different learning styles

Empowerment

Community

Bridging the “us versus them” dynamic

Empowerment

Community

Contributing to the greater good and giving back

Empowerment

Community

Exposure to new ideas and experiences

Empowerment

Individual

Future prospect (higher education)

Empowerment

Individual

Future prospect (jobs)

Empowerment

Individual

Having choices

Empowerment

Individual

Learning new skills

Empowerment

Individual

Opportunities

Empowerment

Individual

Outside prisons

Empowerment

Individual

Ownership of program

Empowerment

Organizational

Personal growth

Empowerment

Individual

Positive interaction with DOC staff

Empowerment

Community

Positive interaction with peers

Empowerment

Community

Positive interaction with program partners

Empowerment

Community

Purpose and significance

Empowerment

Individual

Realizing self-worth

Empowerment

Individual

Responsibility and accountability

Empowerment

Organizational

Sense of respect

Empowerment

Organizational

Trust

Empowerment

Organizational

47

Dehumanizing experiences

Disempowerment

N/A

DOC staff’s negative perception of program

Disempowerment

N/A

Fear and isolation

Disempowerment

N/A

Negative interaction with DOC staff

Disempowerment

N/A

Stigma and discrimination

Disempowerment

N/A

Systemic issues and challenges associated with
DOC

Disempowerment

N/A

Toxic prison environment

Disempowerment

N/A

2.4 Results
Codes assigned to the empowerment code group were grouped into major themes
within each level of the empowerment theory framework. Within the individual level of
empowerment, themes uncovered included (1) exposure to new ideas and experiences,
(2) improved future prospect post-release, (3) finding purpose and significance, and (4)
program location. On an organization level, observed themes included (5) ownership of
the program, (6) responsibility and accountability, and (7) a sense of respect. Lastly,
themes observed in the community level included (8) accommodating for different
learning styles, and (9) positive communication and interaction. Disempowering
characteristics of a prison environment identified in chapter one with thesis advisors were
also observed across interview participants in all three environmental programs that were
analyzed. Codes with disempowering characteristics were grouped into the following
themes: (10) negative interactions with DOC staff, (11) dehumanizing experiences, (12)
systemic challenges with DOC, and (13) lasting negative impacts. Each of these will be
discussed below.

48

Exposure to new ideas and experiences
Interview participants frequently touched on the exposure to new ideas and
experiences as one of the benefits to participating in an environmental education
program. In many cases, these participants had limited experiences working with living
organisms such as the western pond turtles and Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. These
programs offer participants the opportunity to step out of their comfort zones and explore
new fields. In this process, a former turtle technician learned that despite previously not
being comfortable working with living organisms, being a part of the program and taking
care of the turtles made him realize that he enjoyed working with them.
The reason why it’s good is because it takes you way outside your norms. I’ve
never in my life thought about taking care… I don’t like no animals. But my
second stint with SPP was getting involved with turtles. You know, the
endangered western pond turtles. And I knew nothing about that but I was taught
and I learned it and I liked it. And I was taking care of turtles. Measuring them for
whatever that disease was that was destroying their shells -- we had to rehabilitate
them before putting them back out there.
Especially in Washington state prisons where opportunities for environmental education
are rarely offered, the programs offered by SPP provide valuable access to new
experiences related to science and sustainability. When presented with such
opportunities, participants broaden their outlook on a particular topic or aspect, as noted
by another former turtle technician:
Most of everything I read in [facility that he was previously housed in] was
political ideology, or considered to be humanities, you know what I mean? And
when I got into the turtle program, I got exposed to science. Yeah, it was a really
good fit. And it brought out some empathy, you know what I mean? I’ve always
been an empathetic person because I’ve been raised in a conscious household but
I hadn’t really thought of all the micro-connections between the soil and the
plants, you know what I mean? I had never been in that frame of mind. I was
more stuck in a class conflict kind of head set. So yeah, it definitely brought more
of that out of me. I think it made me more broadly empathetic. Instead of just
empathetic for humans, but more empathetic towards, you know, the whole.
49

Respondents also spoke to various new and unique opportunities that were made
available to them outside of their regular tasks as a program technician. In this process
participants obtained tools and skills that would otherwise not be attainable inside
prisons. The following two quotes from a former butterfly and turtle technicians
demonstrate such example.
… we actually got to go to the biology conference, and we got to present. That
was amazing. It was three of us, [another butterfly technician], myself, and I
believe [another butterfly technician], maybe. And then of course two escorting
officers. But we actually spent all day there, right? Presenting on the butterflies
and meeting biologists that it’s their actual job, you know? So that was crazy.
And:
I got to go to the Fish and Wildlife refuge where they have the turtles. I got to put
on hip waders and walk around in the pond and catch turtles in a trap with [SPP
staff] and the Fish and Wildlife biologist. Anyway, so yeah, it was just cool. I got
to go on field trips.
SPP staff and other outside partner organizations frequently make educational
resources and study materials available to program participants. The following quote by a
former butterfly technician demonstrates the lack of educational and informational
resources available in a correctional setting, and how environmental programs such as the
ones offered through SPP can serve to increase access to such resources.
There was no personal TV so you didn’t get information, educational information
at all, right? Except for whatever you’re gonna see on King 5 for 35 minutes. So
that really, that’s a very narrow view. We didn’t even have newspapers where I
was at, ok? So, very, very narrow view of what’s going on worldwide, you know?
Not even worldwide because you’re watching local news, it’s very rare that
you’re gonna find out about anything in 35 minutes worldwide unless it’s love
and hip hop, I dunno (laughs). So I think that was also very key that we had the
ability to gain information that we weren’t seeing openly given to us, right?
The same former butterfly technician continued to emphasize the lack of
educational resources available in prisons and the need for outside partners such as SPP
50

to bring these materials inside to make them available to incarcerated individuals.
Furthermore, she spoke to the importance of having access to resources beyond education
within the program, such as resources for making exit plans that ensure a smooth reentry
upon release. She noted:

[SPP staff] really went out of his way to get us information on resources and
being able to make exit plans. And stuff like that, you know, it’s huge because
nobody else in prison cares about that, ok? There’s no resource packets you’re
gonna get. People aren’t even gonna listen to you. You don’t even have anybody
to ask that question to, you know? So having that there was huge also.
Improved future prospect post-release
Former technicians frequently expressed a sense of transformation throughout
their time in their program, and this personal growth was often tied to improving their
future prospect post-release. These programs served as an outlet in which participants
gain experiences and skills which not only helped overcome various challenges during
incarceration, but also had lasting impacts to help through and beyond the re-entry
process. For instance, participants work with each other and with other program partners,
gaining new skills in the process such as collaboration, taking and following directions,
and critical thinking, all of which may positively contribute to an improved future
prospect upon release. In one instance, a former butterfly technician spoke to her personal
growth as a result of participating in the program contributing to her ability to plan for the
future.

So for me, personally, I went to prison because of a substance abuse disorder so,
and I had fought with that for like 15 years of my life off and on, off and on, and
so I think when you first get there, I remember for me my experience is that each
year certain, you know, season like, it was like a layer of fog would peel back and
things would become more clear, more clarity would come to me. . . . And so
51

then from that I was able to just really set these goals for myself. We did a lot of
writing, I had a bunch of journals of data but also just journal writing, I think that
always helped me a lot. Just being able to reflect. And then I continued that on
into communities so I would just write, like, “ok what are my next steps?”, “what
am I going to do?” And then you know, I’ve been in school now. I did my
undergrad at Evergreen specifically because of the program and SPP so that’s
why I came. I moved from [a different part of the state] just specifically to come
here. And then after that I did my undergrad and I said “I’m going to do more!”
So, “I’m gonna do my masters now”, right? And then I still have thoughts about
maybe doing more but I don’t know yet (laughs). But um so yeah that’s how I
continuously pushed myself to, “you can do more” right?
Personal growth gained from participating in these programs was often discussed in
conjunction with access to jobs and higher education, suggesting that the programs may
contribute to improved post-release prospects. Furthermore, these programs not only
teach participants the skills needed to achieve various post-release goals, but program
staff and partners also often provide direct support in searching for jobs or applying for
higher education institutions. A former butterfly technician spoke to her experience
during her time in the program and how it led to being offered a job and accepted into
college:
It prepared me and encouraged me into following through for future, right? Like
actually, [SPP staff] was like, “have you thought about applying for college?”
And I was like, “no”, I mean I was doing TCC (Tacoma Community College)
inside the prison but she was the one that was like, “you should apply to
Evergreen”. And that was the first step, right? And then I handwrote out my
essay, right? And I filled out my college application and put it in [SPP staff]’s
notebook for him to take home or take to school with him so it can get started.
And it was like every step that I did from there impacted my life, right? I was
accepted into college before I left prison. […] The butterfly has been in every
part, has impacted every part, right? From just focusing daily care on this little
tiny endangered species that I wanted to absorb every piece of knowledge. And
my curiosity then grew into like studying, right? And then it just like started to
really push for every aspect that I needed so that when I walked out those gates, I
had my focus and I knew what I was doing, right? Because inside there working
in the seminars, working in the lab, built it so when I went to school out here, I
52

had those skills and I had the group work skills. And when I went to apply for my
first job which was actually an intern job that I ended up teaching back in prison, I
had those interview skills, I had that network, I had [SPP staff] and [SPP staff]
that had written me these amazing letters, you know, [external partner] from the
Oregon Zoo – like, they’re so supportive in every step of the way, even outside
they’ve been there, right?
Finding purpose and significance
In prisons where opportunities are limited, providing access to new experiences
beyond the typical jobs that are widely available in a prison setting can have a multitude
of positive impacts and outcomes. As observed in a conversation with a former
conservation nursery technician, being exposed to new experiences and acquiring skills in
these programs enabled participants to find purpose and significance within a prison
environment that could otherwise be repetitive and counter-productive. He noted:
… SPP was my actual first job that actually had a purpose rather than scrubbing a
toilet in the unit. Where I actually had to wake up every morning, go to work, and
come back. And it really took me from where I stopped growing as a person, and
really put in on like a blast, you know? I only had a few years left when I got into
the program so they really helped me just become a more confident person.
Furthermore, a newly gained sense of purpose and confidence can have a lasting impact
and can positively contribute to the re-entry process. The same former conservation
nursery technician continued to speak about what he gained during his time with SPP
helped him acquire a job post-release.
As far as getting a job I was kinda stuck in shock for the first six months so I
didn’t really jump onto that bandwagon but after hanging out for the summer and
what not, you know, there’s something missing. I need to do something different
here. And I said “I need a job”, I needed a purpose when I woke up. That purpose
- every day you go in there [the green house] to see if they’ve [the plants] grown
at all or if they start to pop up and even the fish, you know, how they grow every
day and you feed them - it was such a wake-up call for me - that I didn’t need
approval from people, I didn’t need to hide who I was or what I couldn’t do. It
was a job. And the fish needed me, obviously. I needed to change their water, I

53

needed to make sure they were healthy, I needed to make sure the plants were
healthy. So for me it just gave me a purpose, it gave me self-worth, it gave me
confidence, and honestly those are things that you can’t, sometimes you can’t
teach yourself, you know?
As participants spend time in environmental education programs, they become
experts in the rearing of living organisms such as butterflies, turtles, and plants. Being
considered an expert and the accomplishing tasks with which they are entrusted
ultimately leads them to regain their sense of self-worth and self-confidence. In talking
about their experiences, former conservation nursery and butterfly technicians noted:
…probably my favorite part of my program is where it took me pretty quickly
actually, to where I was talking in front of people and things were coming out of
my mouth, I was like, “holy crap, I think I do know what I’m talking about”, you
know?
And:
And in incremental amounts, right? So of course during breeding season there’s
lots and lots of activity, but even off-breeding season, we have tours and things of
that nature and it happens in such small doses that it kinda just starts to give you
like a little grain, a little piece of sand, or pebble – “yeah I’m human, I can do
this, I can move forward, I deserve something better”, right?
Realizing self-worth and gaining self-assurance have the potential to be particularly
empowering in a prison setting where there is a major imbalance of power between those
who are incarcerated and those who are not. Discussions with a former conservation
nursery technician revealed that regaining self-esteem enabled him to break through this
power dynamic to see himself as an equal member of the community.
Before, [receiving compliments] was terrible, like, I just wanted them to shut the
hell up, you know what I mean? It was bad. And it would make me feel bad about
myself because I felt like I was not that person and I'm living a lie. And it was just
like this big huge mental screw, I would screw myself when it came to that stuff.
But now I see the compliments that they give me now and I see it as something I
earned rather than something that I inherited or whatever. I used to see people as
so much more, and I would see myself as so much less. But now I've kind of
leveled myself out where I don’t need to impress anybody, you know?

54

Program location
The turtle and butterfly program areas are located outside of the prison grounds,
requiring incarcerated technicians leave the prison gates every day to go to work.
Although just a few feet outside of the prison fence, technicians from these two programs
unanimously spoke of the power of to being able to step outside, away from some of the
toxic prison environment, on a daily basis. This action had symbolic, emotional, and
tangible impacts. To one turtle technician, the added perks of having a program area
outside of prison included having access to resources that would otherwise not be
available on the other side of the fence.
I got to leave prison. I got to go outside the gate every day. I had my own little
office, a refrigerator, a library of books and, you know, I can even try a little
mealworm experiments, you know what I mean? It was a cool little place away
from the prison that was like a sanctuary.
Furthermore, being surrounded by nature provided technicians a sense of peace and
tranquility, which may positively impact their mental and emotional well-being. Two
butterfly technicians noted:
The greenhouse was located right outside the fence line so we went out there for 7
to 8 hours [a day] so we were able to be somewhere else, and not inside of the
prison. And you know sometimes in prison, the life in prison can be very, just,
redundant or toxic, right? But outside it just felt like a little escape, and we were
surrounded by, we’re literally in the middle of nowhere, all these woods. There
was just, it was beautiful out there, right? And the greenhouse was all glass so we
could just, I mean, when we go out there in the morning, we take our coffee and
just enjoy the sun, right? And it was just an escape.
And:
Every morning we go to the prison gate, they open the gates and they let us out.
Unescorted, they just open up the prison gate and we walk out of the prison gate
around the prison. […] We were out in the woods. And we just walk up to our
own area outside of the fence with a little shed, class lab. We had our own
gardens that we grow flowers and stuff for, right? But you can literally be there all
day and no one’s screaming at you, no chaos, so much healing and finding

55

yourself come from in there … And you just happen to be outside the gate every
day, where, I can’t put into words what it gives you. That three minute commute
from the gate to the lab. And walking through those little glass doors, the weight
that’s off your shoulders in that moment, you know?
The opportunity and ability to leave the prison grounds, even for a brief moment,
provided program participants a sense of peace and freedom, away from their daily life of
prison and all of the associated negative impacts on their wellbeing. It also gave a sense
of relief from the weight of the prison system which enabled them to redirect their energy
to caring for living organisms.
Ownership of the program
While these programs involved and were supported by various partners, including
SPP and DOC staff and external organizations and experts, the technicians were most
instrumental in ensuring a smooth operation, often spending hours on the ground
undertaking various tasks to maintain the health of the living organisms. This allowed the
incarcerated technicians to take ownership of the program while spending a significant
amount of time interacting with the living organisms and forming a bond with them. A
former conservation nursery technician reflected back on this, noting:
[my] favorite part is that they bring it to you, they let you work at your own pace,
and they let you own it. And they let it become yours. Which in actuality, it
should be, right? You’re doing something, you need to make you feel like it's
yours.
With the butterfly program, the ability to leave the gates to go work outside the
prison in their program area contributes to the technicians having a greater sense of
ownership of the program.
Tranquility, our own area, we’re out there by ourselves. And now they have all
these gardens … Taking plants from the edges of the property and bringing them

56

in or whatever, right? But now we have like big plantago beds and all that kinds
of stuff. It’s the ability to be out there with each other, you know, without
supervision over the top of you. You’re just in your own groove doing your own
thing, learning. And you have that time to actually like, interact with people and
get to know people on their own level, you know?
Responsibility and accountability
Through the participants’ involvement in the program and learning to care for
various living organisms, some technicians expressed a newfound sense of responsibility
over the animals and plants, and for the overall health of the program. One former turtle
technician discussed how he paid extra attention to ensure the turtles in his charge
received proper care.
You get the right person, they can learn a lot. They take care of the turtles. I mean
we took care, we actually bathed them turtles. We bathed them turtles more
delicate than you bathe a child. I mean that’s crazy. Because they [are] so fragile,
I was trained to bath them like that (laughs).
The technicians play a vital role which directly impacts the program and its
success. This sense of responsibility and accountability stems from being entrusted to
care for the living things. In some instances, technicians revealed that this process of
gaining trust and responsibility led to healing inside prison and regaining hope for the
future. A former butterfly technician noted:
So when people go [to prison], some people are really broken, right? And so in
that program, they were really entrusting us with a lot of trust, right? “Here’s an
endangered butterfly, and you’re gonna be in charge of doing all of this work”
right? And like, “I hope that you’ll be able to, you know, make this group and
program thrive”. And it did, in fact. And I think that component right there,
someone trusting you again even in a setting like that. So for me personally, it just
encouraged belief in myself that I could be. But this was just like a moment in
time but that there was more to come still, after.

57

Sense of respect
The power structure in a prison environment ensures those who are incarcerated
remain disempowered. This power imbalance often contributes to a toxic prison
environment and dehumanization of incarcerated individuals. Throughout the interviews,
participants frequently expressed how gaining respect as a result of participating in these
programs helped them combat some of these negative forces. By being exposed to new
experiences and skills and connecting with various program partners, they gained a sense
of respect for themselves. By instilling a greater sense of equality by promoting respect
for and between all program participants, including the incarcerated individuals, DOC
and SPP staff, and external organizations and volunteers, the program helped elevate
incarcerated individuals to the status of equal partners. Such instances were recounted by
former butterfly and conservation nursery technicians.
…and then to have SPP and Oregon Zoo and you know, everybody. We worked
with the Environmental Protection Agency all these things, right? Like, all these
government agencies come in. We had Japanese authors come in, and of course,
PBS a couple of times. You know, all these things, biologists from all over the
world, and they’re so amazed at what you do, and they treat you like a human.
And,
…then SPP comes in and they're like, they humanize you again, you know? They
come in and they bring a tour through and they let you actually lead the tour. And
they want you to lead the tour and interact with these people, when normally
DOC is like, “no don’t interact with these people, don’t talk to these people,
you’re an inmate”, you know? So it humanized me, it gave me self-worth, it gave
me a purpose, it gave me self-esteem that I never had, that’s for sure … and then
you got Evergreen who I don’t think I've met one, not one Evergreen student or
professor or whatever you wanna call it, anybody within Evergreen that ever
walked in a room and ever treated me or anybody around me like we were less
than.

58

Accommodating for different learning styles
Streamlined traditional approaches to learning do not always meet their intended
outcome or purpose for many people. Educational programs must account for people with
disabilities and varied learning styles to take an adaptive approach to offering meaningful
and impactful education, even in a prison setting. A former conservation nursery
technician spoke to his experience with the program, noting that:
… it was so boring at first and almost kind of scary because, again, my vision is
not very well and a lot of things I can’t do so that was kind of a hindrance for me
my whole life. But I loved how they made it so simple. And I'm more of a handson learner. I don’t really obtain a lot of information by hearing it. I can't read or
write very well at all, so that’s not really an option either. It's just repetitive, over
and over. Hands-on experience. And no matter hands-on I needed for it to sink in,
they were just there for me along the whole way, which helped me a lot. So that
was probably my favorite part about it - was how it was scary and not interesting
to me at all and how they really brought it to me and made it interesting, you
know? And made it fun, you know what I mean?
Creating an inclusive environment for people with all abilities requires that those
who develop and support the program make continual, conscious efforts to improve and
adapt. The scenario outlined above also serves as a challenge for all education providers.
Ultimately, being able to adapt the learning to the individuals empowers not only the
incarcerated participants, but also the staff and external program partners as they engage
in a creative process, allowing for greater accessibility to educational opportunities. The
same former conservation nursery technician continued:
…the way that the people are able to learn and see things and stuff like that
doesn’t work for me. And it doesn’t work for a lot of people who actually have
this eye disease. And it’s very, very hard to find something to adapt for you to see
and learn and all this other stuff so I think that it gave them some hurdles to get
over and try to work with, which was good on both ends because it made me ask
for help. And it made them think about how to help me. Which I think from there
it kind of gives them more tools in their box too. And it gets their creative juices
flowing on how to beat that and get over that along with me at the same time. So I
think just in that sense alone, kept them on their toes … But all in the end it all
59

comes down to one thing, right? And that’s patience, compassion, and the ability
to work with somebody to brainstorm something in order to get it where you need
it to get it to go to professionally and appropriately, and come out the end with a
good result. So I think that that helps them and that helps me too.
Positive communication and interaction
Positive interaction among program participants and partners, where mutual
respect produces positive outcomes, were frequently observed across all programs. In
particular, incarcerated technicians’ participation in these programs often resulted in
promoting positive interaction with DOC staff. As described by a former turtle
technician, enhanced constructive communication, where everyone is free to speak,
question, and criticize respectfully and appropriately, may help bridge the “us” versus
“them” dynamic in prisons, often humanizing the process and enabling the DOC staff and
the incarcerated technicians to see each other beyond their assigned roles in prison (ie:
prison staff and the incarcerated).
… I mean a good portion, a good handful of the guards were super cool. They
wouldn’t just do their job but they were actually interested in [the turtles]. They’d
come in and let me give my turtle spiel, you know what I mean? They would just
come in and check stuff out. There were some COs (Correctional Officers) that
would come in and be like, “what are they doing out there”. But there were other
COs that would come in and you can tell they were genuinely just interested in
stuff and saying hi. And you got to kind of drop that uniform for a minute, you
know what I mean, in that era of authority, and got to talk to them as people, you
know, and not inmate to officer. So that was a really cool kind of byproduct of the
program. And yeah I mean generally there were a lot of COs that were surprised
by our humanity, you know what I mean? I don’t know how because working in
that job there’s a lot of other things in prison that will reveal peoples humanity but
yeah I mean it was kind of weird, some officers would be like surprised that we
care about the earth or the turtles or whatever. And they’d be like, “oh they must
be ok people”. And their attitude would change.
Program participants often had the opportunity to interact with their peers in their
work area away from their usual prison environment. Participants spoke about how this
served as an outlet to start positive conversations with their peers within the program.

60

This often progressed into various positive outcomes as described by two former butterfly
technicians:
I think before I went into the butterfly program, I wasn’t about, especially in
prison, interacting with other people Like I wasn’t supportive of other people,
right? Like I was there doing my time, I’ve done prison before, that’s just how
you operate, right? And I definitely left there forming relationships and wanting
to help others, which I think I didn’t go into that program like that.
Then,
I really loved the relationships I was able to build up with the women. I think that
we had a lot of time out there just with us and it was really a great opportunity to
learn more about each other and really encourage each other because we always...
You know, there’s a lot of talk that happens in prison, it's like, “what are you
gonna do moving forward”? But also knowing that you can’t move too far into the
future because you might get stuck in this place of just like wishing you weren’t
there anymore knowing that’s your reality, right? But it was a really good way for
me, like I would talk to some of the women, “this is what I plan to do, what do
you think about my plan?”
In some cases, conversations also occurred outside the program area; participants
could have a positive dialog with other incarcerated individuals at their facility. Such
instances lead to increased education, awareness, and access to opportunities for more
people outside the program given the wide-reaching impacts that extend beyond the
program area into the greater community. For example, a former turtle technician,
reflecting back on his time in the program, discussed how his conversations about the
turtles with other incarcerated individuals resulted in positive changes. He noted:
...yeah no, a lot of inmates did change, like wow, especially when they find out
about... I told them the history of the stuff about how [the turtles] used to be
everywhere and as more and more people came and filled in wetlands and took
water away and polluted shit and ate them (laughs).
In addition to the aforementioned interactions with DOC staff and with other
incarcerated individuals, former program technicians across all programs repeatedly
noted the benefits of connecting with SPP staff and other external program partners and

61

experts. Such interactions served to diversify their connections and interactions in a
prison setting where such opportunities were otherwise limited, ultimately promoting
access to new information, experiences, and resources. As expressed by a former
conservation nursery technician, fostering this type of environment over time also
changed DOC staff’s general stance on the level and type of interactions incarcerated
people are able to have.
They [DOC staff] somehow came to a level of understanding that you need to
have some type of relationship with the person who's teaching you, the SPP
students, and you have to have some type of connection there. So they really
backed off on that a little bit, and allowed that natural human interaction to be a
normal appropriate thing, and not be something dirty and crazy and wrong and
whatever. So thank god for that because yeah, I created some connections there
with [SPP staff] and [SPP staff]. It was nice to see them, you know? I considered
them my friends when I see them, and my mentors, and my coworker - however
you wanna call it - I looked at them as all that because yeah, it was allowed to be
that ... And they are a huge part of your weekly success, right? Because all week
long you're taking down notes, taking down data, you can't wait to see them
because you can't wait to tell them something or ask them something, like “hey
what do you think about this, what’s going on here”, you know what I mean? It's
like it was your connection to the outside world. So that was important.
Negative interactions with DOC staff
Despite the clear signs of empowering outcomes within the various programs as
described above, the technicians also described multiple instances in which they
encountered disempowering situations or circumstances within the program. A former
technician spoke to his heightened stress associated with fear of unfair retribution for
speaking up to an officer about topics or requests related to the program:
You know, the stress of having to assert myself to people in authority. They’re
good at causing me problems, causing me serious problems. It might get worked
out but it might not. I could get booted out of the program, or booted out of camp,
or sent back to medium. But sometimes I had to do it, because it’s not in their
minds, they’re not thinking about the [living organism], you know what I mean?
It’s an important thing, like they can’t let the [living organism] die out there from
neglect, but it’s not the first thing on their mind. The first thing on their mind is
62

telling us inmates where to go, how to move, when to move here, when to move
there, you know what I mean? So they’re not thinking about… And when an
inmate comes up and gives them a hard time about not moving or needing to
move somewhere else, their instinct is to push, like “wait, you can’t tell me, I’m
telling you; get out of your bunk, you can’t go out there, everything’s locked
down”, or whatever. And I’m like “hey the [living organism] man, the lights are
on, the water temperature, they have to be fed”, that kind of stuff.
Dehumanizing experiences
As outlined in chapter one, dehumanizing experiences is a recurring theme within
a prison setting. Unfortunately, interviews revealed that these instances also arose during
the environmental education programs. A former technician recounted her experiences
stating:
My least favorite thing about being out there [program area] was the
dehumanizing part of having to beg and fight to be able to use a restroom. There
was no restroom out there. At one point there was a honey bucket, but they would
lock it and it would be at the officer’s discretion of whenever they felt like they
would come around and unlock it and wait for us to use it or whatever. And
there’s a lot of issues around that with women. So there was a lot of officers who
really used it as a power thing, or treated like garbage around it. Oh, being
stripped out, I guess, that would be the next one, right? Because at one point we
weren’t being stripped out but then somebody else in a different program fucked
up on some shit - a completely different program - and we were getting stripped
out. And so then the cops [DOC staff] leave you outside the gate because they
don’t want to strip you out and they’ll make you sit out there for two, three hours
till shift change so other cops have to strip you out.
Systemic challenges with DOC
Incarcerated individuals continue to be oppressed and disempowered as a result of
systemic issues inherent within the DOC. While these wider issues may not necessarily
result from or occur directly from environmental education programs, it impacts
incarcerated individuals participating in the SPP program. A former technician recalled
his experience during incarceration:
In prison, being a convict already gives you one. That takes you to second rate
citizen. Being a person of color takes you to third rate citizen. They don’t care

63

what crime you did, you did a crime, you’re a bad person - takes you to a fourth
rate citizen. They strip you naked, look up your butt, have you pick up your nuts
and everything - that takes you to fifth rate citizen. So we at a fifth rate citizen
right now. They treat you like nothing. […] You serving time. You are the bottom
of the bottom and they treat you as such. Like I said, they strip you butt naked.
That’s humiliating enough. And then not only that, grab your balls. Then stick
your hands in your mouth, let me see your tongue, bend over, cough, three times.
It’s a whole different aspect.
Incarcerated technicians also frequently encounter DOC staff who may not be
supportive of the shared values goals of the program. Situations where these staff’s
perspective and the program’s mission do not align may hinder efforts to increase and
foster access and opportunities for empowering education, as noted by a former
technician:
…the punitive people in DOC want to get rid of these programs. They don’t want
money for shacks to hold turtles and guards to have to turn key for technicians.
They don’t want that. They want more training on how to step on somebody’s
neck or fire a less-than-lethal block gun, you know what I mean? They want more
toys to blow up. Act like they’re tough (laughs).
Lasting negative impacts
Despite the efforts of empowering education through these programs and various
support systems offered for incarcerated individuals, they frequently continue to suffer
the consequences of incarceration after being released from prison, during and beyond
the re-entry process. A former technician spoke to his experience during his re-entry,
noting:
When I got home I sat in my house and I looked at the walls and I was so freaking
lost dude. I was so lost because the landscape had changed, the buildings had been
torn down, the trees had grown more, all these colors and stuff - I was stuck. And
I was so scared. And you know what I thought? Well what the fuck am I gonna
do, you know? What am I gonna do? What do I normally do? I mean, I'm back in
the same house I was in getting high and doing this crazy stuff in, and I thought to
myself, “well maybe I should get high”, and I was like, “hell no”, you know what
I mean (laughs). But that’s what I'm saying. That’s real life stuff. People come
home to the same surroundings to the same stuff.

64

While there are wider systemic issues at play which negatively impact and
disempower individuals during and beyond incarceration, those who are involved in
educational programs such as those offered through SPP can work together to
collaboratively address these issues and promote change. Recognizing these existing
issues and challenges that create barriers to incarcerated people becoming empowered
may encourage program partners to continually reevaluate or adapt the program in a way
that will have better lasting positive impacts and outcomes for program technicians and
participants during incarceration and post-release.
Interview data revealed that many of the disempowering forces that exist within
corrections were also observed in the programs I explored. Negative interactions with
DOC staff, dehumanizing experiences, systemic challenges, and lasting negative impacts
all contributed to the further disempowerment of incarcerated individuals. Conversely,
empowering characteristics (exposure to new ideas and experiences, improved future
prospect post-release, finding purpose and significance, program location, ownership of
the program, responsibility and accountability, sense of respect, accommodating for
different learning styles, and positive communication and interaction) were identified as
having positive influences on the participants and in combating the forces of injustice and
disempowerment within the prison system. In the following section I further analyze the
interview data and provide recommendations on how to minimize the aforementioned
forces of disempowerment while simultaneously elevating the empowering
characteristics observed within the programs.

65

2.5 Discussion
Based on a code analysis performed using atlas.ti, signs of empowerment and
disempowerment were observed across all three programs. However, codes associated
with empowerment significantly outnumbered those related to disempowerment, as
displayed in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5. Sankey diagram displaying the frequencies of codes associated with
empowerment and disempowerment (right) within different programs (left).
Findings from the code-analysis also suggest that while empowerment may be
observed in all three levels of the empowerment theory—individual, community, and
66

organizational-- they were more aligned with the individual level than the organizational
and community levels. This finding was consistent across all three programs, as seen in
Figure 6, suggesting that the empowerment that results from participating in
environmental education programs, such as those offered through SPP, occurs
predominantly on an individual level.

Figure 6. Sankey diagram displaying frequencies of empowering codes organized in
three levels (right) within observed programs (left).

67

Based on these results, I conducted a code co-occurrence analysis (see
Appendices B and C), and used atlas.ti to establish networks to connect corresponding
codes with co-occurring frequencies greater than two (Figure 7). The findings from this
analysis indicate that relationships exist between various codes across all levels of
empowerment. While there were more signs of empowerment within the individual level,
opportunities for empowerment are not constrained to one level of analysis, as judged by
the large number of arrows connecting codes across all three levels, and suggesting that
processes and outcomes of empowerment within any given level of analysis may be codependent on empowering processes or outcomes that exist within a different level. For
instance, having positive interactions with their peers (community level of
empowerment) and personal growth (individual level of empowerment) had a cooccurring frequency of three, suggesting that these codes may be linked despite being
categorized under different levels of empowerment. While having positive interactions
with their peers may be considered empowering on a community level, empowering
outcomes also result in benefits on an individual level where people gain a sense of
personal growth. For example, when turtle technicians work together to care for the
turtles, they not only gain benefits on a community level such as building rapport with
one another and improved collaboration and communication skills, they also as a result
gain personal growth through learning new scientific facts and techniques, and newfound
confidence in their knowledge and skills to care for the turtles, all of which can be related
to empowerment on the individual level.

68

Figure 7. Diagram of codes organized in three levels of analysis (individual,
organizational, community) displaying networks connecting codes with a co-occurring
frequencies of two or greater.

I then revisited the question: How can environmental education empower
incarcerated individuals in a correctional setting and beyond? A conceptual map of
prison-based environmental education programs, adapted from Han et al.’s (2020)
analysis on prison-based dog training programs, can be found in Figure 8. This figure
presents the environmental program as an intervention, with empowering processes and
outcomes as a result of participating in these programs. Prison-based environmental
education programs should focus on creating and fostering an environment wherein the
participants are able to access and engage in empowering processes. This ultimately leads
to empowering outcomes for incarcerated program participants within a correctional
setting and beyond. While these programs effectively serve as an outlet in which

69

participants are able to become empowered (the green arrows), disempowering
circumstances still impact these individuals (the red arrows with the bar across it), rolling
back the efforts made within the program to make positive changes. In addition to
promoting and expanding environmental programs in an effort to increase opportunities
and access to empowering education, those who are involved in coordinating these
programs should simultaneously work on addressing each of the disempowering impacts
that negatively affect the program technicians.

Figure 8. A Conceptual map of prison-based environmental education program
(intervention) and its empowering processes and outcomes, impacted by disempowering
forces of the prison system.

70

Minimizing program participants’ dehumanizing experiences and negative
interactions with staff requires that staff, especially those who may not see the benefits to
these programs, shift their thinking from taking a punitive approach to one that is more
centered around rehabilitation. Incorporating transformative justice oriented trainings for
corrections staff is certainly a good starting place, with a focus on a cultural shift with
greater emphasis on education, compassion, and redemption, rather than perpetuating the
cycle of mass incarceration through the punitive approach. Within the environmental
programs, educators should be trained to utilize their positions as non-incarcerated
partners to identify and address issues and challenges incarcerated participants encounter,
such as dehumanizing experiences.
In addressing the systemic challenges within corrections, prison administrators
must first acknowledge the history and recognize existing and underlying issues
including social and racial inequalities. Systemic change comes slowly and it requires a
constant battle. Within the environmental programs, education curricula and materials
including text books and other course materials should emphasize and incorporate
diversity, equity, and inclusion. Educators should also focus on diversifying educational
resources and materials so a wide range of viewpoints and perspectives on any given
topic, as well as learning spaces where incarcerated people can freely speak and share
opinions appropriately and respectfully, are made available.
To address negative impacts of incarceration post-release, environmental
education programs should support incarcerated program participants beyond their time
in the program (ie: incorporating benefits that can be useful during reentry). Some
examples include certifications that are recognized by potential employers, as well as

71

college credits for those who may want to pursue postsecondary education. Other
examples that may lessen the impacts of incarceration post release include providing
letters of support/recommendation for future employers and college applications, as well
as identifying and partnering with potential employers who may provide job
opportunities that require specialized skills obtained in the program.
Referring back to the discussion in Chapter one with thesis advisors on what it
means for incarcerated individuals to become empowered in a correctional setting, many
of the concepts associated with empowerment can be observed within the environmental
education programs that I explored. This overlap not only suggests that prison-based
environmental education programs may serve as an ideal platform in which these
empowering processes and outcomes may occur, but also that the processes and
outcomes of empowerment within environmental programs may also be applied to
empowering incarcerated individuals within the general prison population. For instance,
providing access and exposure to new ideas and experiences, gaining a sense of respect,
and gaining responsibility and practicing accountability, to state a few examples, can be
applied beyond the environmental programs to other areas of the prison system such as
housing units, job sites, and other educational, vocational, or therapeutic programs as a
means to empower incarcerated individuals and promote positive change.
As one of the thesis advisors pointed out: The butterflies gave us a purpose and a
sense of accomplishment, fulfillment, and self-worth, and we gave the butterflies a chance
at life. Together, they undergo metamorphosis on their journey of transformation.
Ultimately, incarcerated individuals gaining empowerment requires everyone within the
system including educators, prison administrators and staff, undergo metamorphosis. As

72

we collectively embark on this journey of transformation, I circle back to the key
question posed by one of the thesis advisors: What is a human being worth?

73

Conclusion
Exploring the literature and working with thesis advisors revealed various factors
which prevent incarcerated individuals from becoming empowered in a prison setting.
Forces of disempowerment such as dehumanizing experiences, fear, isolation, stigma,
discrimination, and the culture of us versus them between incarcerated individuals and
the prison staff were identified to contribute to the reinforcement of the prison system
which perpetuates mass incarceration, preventing people from escaping from the
revolving doors of prison. To counter these negative forces, incarcerated individuals
require the opportunity and the ability to gain autonomy, make connections, realize selfworth, gain a sense of trust and practice accountability. Given the restrictive nature of
prisons, such opportunities are severely limited.
Through this research I explored the potential opportunities that exist in utilizing
prison-based environmental education programs as a platform for creating opportunities
for empowering incarcerated individuals. Based on the literature, interacting with nature
and living organisms provides a multitude of benefits including positive effects on mental
state, physical function and health, cognitive function, and spiritual well-being.
Qualitative data obtained from conducting semi-structured interviews with former prisonbased environmental education program participants revealed that engaging in these
programs and interacting with living organisms resulted in various empowering
outcomes.
I then grouped those outcomes into Zimmerman’s (2000) theoretical framework
of empowerment (individual, organizational, community). Empowerment on an
individual level included being exposed to new ideas and experiences, improved future

74

prospect post-release, finding purpose and significance, and having access to a program
area outside of prison grounds. On an organizational level empowering outcomes within
the programs included gaining a sense of ownership of the program, taking responsibility
and practicing accountability, and developing a sense of respect for themselves and for
others. Empowerment on a community level included promoting a learning environment
that accommodates different learning styles and fostering positive communication and
interaction with program partners.
Despite these signs of empowerment, former program participants also identified
disempowering circumstances such as negative interactions with DOC staff,
dehumanizing experiences, systemic challenges with DOC, and lasting negative impacts
of incarceration post-release. Subsequent data analysis revealed that there were
significantly more signs of empowerment than disempowerment. Within Zimmerman’s
(2000) theoretical model, empowerment was more aligned with the individual level than
the organizational and community levels, which suggests that empowerment as a result of
participating in environmental education programs occurs predominantly on an individual
level. However, high code co-occurrence frequencies between empowering codes across
all three levels of analysis (individual, organizational, community) suggests that these
signs of empowerment are not constrained to a discrete level of analysis. Rather, they
exist on a continuum.
Collectively, these findings suggest that prison-based environmental education
programs serve as an ideal vessel for providing transformative education where
empowerment and the benefits of nature intersect. Further, educators should take a

75

comprehensive approach to develop and foster each element of empowerment identified
in this research.
Some limitations of this research include the small sample size and the types of
environmental programs I explored. Due to Human Subjects Review protocols, only
those who were no longer under DOC supervision could be contacted and recruited to
participate in the research, which significantly reduced the number of prospective
research participants. The small sample size also meant having limited types of
environmental programs to investigate. This ultimately led to working with only three
environmental programs, all within the Sustainability in Prisons Project. As
recommendations for future research, increasing the sample size and the types of
environmental program, especially those outside of the Sustainability in Prisons Project,
may offer new and additional findings which may further contribute to this field of
research.
Findings from this research may be helpful in exploring a new approach to the
current criminal justice system and its associated rehabilitative programs. Ultimately,
such approach may better assist incarcerated individuals in reclaiming power and
confidence to forge a path to success within and beyond prison, and most importantly, to
fight against the forces of systemic injustice and break the cycle of mass incarceration.

76

Bibliography
Adamson, C. (1983). Punishment after Slavery: Southern State Penal Systems, 1865-1890.
Social Problems, 30(5), 555-569. doi:10.2307/800272
Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of
colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
Alper, M. & Durose, M.R. (2018). 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-year
Follow-up
Period (2005-2014). 24.
Anderson, R. (2015, July 31). Greenwashing Washington State’s Prison System in a
River of Sewage. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/greenwashing-washingtonstates- prison-system-river-sewage/
Beck, A. J. (2000). State and federal prisoners returning to the community: Findings
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice
Bell, J. (2016, April 25). 5 Things to Know About Communities of Color and
Environmental Justice. Center for American Progress.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/04/25/136361/5-thingsto-know-about-communities-of-color-and-environmental-justice/
Bell, M. L., & Ebisu, K. (2012). Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne
particulate matter components in the United States. Environmental health
perspectives, 120(12), 1699–1704. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1205201
Bennett, L., Cardone S., & Jarczyk, J. (1998). Effects of a Therapeutic Camping Program
on Addiction Recovery: The Algonquin Haymarket Relapse Prevention
Program. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 15(5), 469474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(97)00222-5
Benns, W. (2015, September 21). American Slavery, Reinvented. Retrieved December
13, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/prisonlabor-in-america/406177/
Berens, M., & Baker, M. (2014). Sell Block: The empty promises of prison labor. The
Seattle Times. http://projects.seattletimes.com/2014/prison-labor/1/
Berry, M. S., Repke, M. A., Metcalf, A. L., & Jordan, K. E. (2020). Promoting Healthy
Decision-Making via Natural Environment Exposure: Initial Evidence and Future
Directions. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 1682.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01682

77

Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A
literature review on restorativeness. Behavioral Sciences, 4(4), 394–409. doi:
10.3390/bs4040394
Bohlinger, B. J. (2016). Greening the gulag: Politics of sustainability in prison.
University of Oregon. Retrieved from
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/20537/Bohlinger_
oregon_0171N_11630.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1.
Borunda, A. (2020, July 29). How ‘nature deprived’ neighborhoods impact the health of
people of color. National Geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-nature-deprivedneighborhoods-impact-health-people-of-color
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2016). U.S. correctional population declined for the ninth
consecutive year. Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/cpus16pr.pdf
Bizzell, P. (1984). William Perry and Liberal Education. College English, 46(5), 447-454.
doi:10.2307/377048
Browne, J. (2010). Rooted in Slavery: Prison Labor Exploitation. Race, Poverty & the
Environment, 17(1), 78-80. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41554724
Castro, L. E. (2018). Racism, the language of reduced recidivism, and higher education in
prison: Toward an anti-racist praxis. Critical Education, 9(17). doi:
10.14288/ce.v9i17.186357
Chang, C., & Chen, P. (2005). Human Response to Window Views and Indoor Plants in
the Workplace. HortScience HortSci, 40(5), 1354-1359. Retrieved from
https://journals.ashs.org/hortsci/view/journals/hortsci/40/5/article-p1354.xml
Cnaan, R.A., Draine, J., Frazier, B. and Sinha, J.W. (2008) ‘Ex-prisoners’ re-entry: an
emerging frontier and a social work challenge’, Journal of Policy Practice, Vol. 7,
Nos. 2–3, pp.178–198.
Cooper, A. D., Durose, M. R., and Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners
released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report, NCJ 244205.
Cornell Empowerment Group. (1989). Empowerment and family support. Network
Bulletin, 1(2), 1-23
Cottrell, L. S. (1983). The competent community. In R. Warren & L. Lyon (Eds.), New
perspectives on the American community (pp. 398-432). Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

78

Cranton, P. (2006), Fostering authentic relationships in the transformative classroom.
New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2006: 5
13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.203
Curtin, S., (2009) Wildlife tourism: the intangible, psychological benefits of human–
wildlife encounters. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(6), 451-474. DOI:
10.1080/13683500903042857
Cyphert, A. B. (2018). Prisoners of Fate: The Challenges of Creating Change for
Children of Incarcerated Parents. Maryland Law Review, 77(2).
Davis, Jean Carol. (1993). Columbia Camp, Prison Camp in our Midst, 1944-1947. The
Courier, East Benton County Historical Society, 15(1).
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating
the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that
provide education to incarcerated adults. RAND Corporation.
Davis, L., Steele, J., Bozick, R., Williams, M., Turner, S., Miles, J., … Steinberg, P.
(2014). How effective is correctional education, and where do we go from here?
The results of a comprehensive evaluation. doi: 10.7249/rr564
Davis L, Shlafer RJ. Substance Use among Youth with Currently and Formerly
Incarcerated Parents. Smith Coll Stud Soc Work. 2017;87(1):43-58.
doi:10.1080/00377317.2017.1246797
Gilmore, K. (2000). Slavery and Prison — Understanding the Connections. Social
Justice, 27(3(81)), 195-205. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from
http://www.jstor.org.evergreen.idm.oclc.org/stable/29767242
Erickson, B., Johnson, C. W., & Kivel, B. D. (2009). Rocky Mountain National Park:
History and Culture as Factors in African-American Park Visitation. Journal of
Leisure Research, 41(4), 529–545.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2009.11950189
Evans et al. 2018 Evans, D. N., Pelletier, E., & Szkola, J. (2018). Education in Prison and
the Self-Stigma: Empowerment Continuum. Crime & Delinquency, 64(2), 255–
280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717714973
Fredrickson, L.M., & Anderson, D. H. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the
wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0110.
Ghosh, A. (2016). The great derangement: climate change and the unthinkable. Chicago:
The University of Chicago press.

79

Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates. AldineTransaction.
Goodstein, L., MacKenzie, D.L. and Shotland, R.L. (1984), Personal Control and Inmate
Adjustment to Prison. Criminology, 22: 343-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17459125.1984.tb00304.x
Han, K.-T. (2009). Influence of Limitedly Visible Leafy Indoor Plants on the
Psychology, Behavior, and Health of Students at a Junior High School in Taiwan.
Environment and Behavior, 41(5), 658–692.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508314476
Han, T. M., Gandenberger, J., Flynn, E., Sharma, J., & Morris, K. N. (2020).
Empowerment theory and prison-based dog training programs. Journal of Social
Work. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017320954350
Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2004). Reentry Trends in the United States (p. 31). Bureau
of Justice Statistics.
Jantz, E. (2018). Environmental racism with a faint green glow. Natural Resources
Journal, 58(2), 247-278. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://www-jstororg.evergreen.idm.oclc.org/stable/26509979
Jones, R. (2020, July 29). The environmental movement is very white. These leaders want
to change that. National Geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/environmental-movementvery-white-these-leaders-want-change-that
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kelly, L. (1999). Chain gangs, boogeymen, and other real prisons of the imagination.
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 5(1), 42.
Keniger, L. E., Gaston, K. J., Irvine, K. N., & Fuller, R. A. (2013). What are the benefits
of interacting with nature?. International journal of environmental research and
public health, 10(3), 913–935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913
Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in
Human Services, 3, 9-36.
Kingsley, J., & Townsend, M.,(2006). ‘Dig In’ to Social Capital: Community Gardens as
Mechanisms for Growing Urban Social Connectedness. Urban Policy and
Research, 24(4), 525-537, DOI: 10.1080/08111140601035200

80

Koo, A. (2015). Correctional education can make a greater impact on recidivism by
supporting adult inmates with learning disabilities. The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology (1973-), 105(1), 233-269. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/26402444
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and Violence in the Inner City: Effects
of Environment via Mental Fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543–
571. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973124
Langton, L. & Durose, M., (2013). Police behavior during traffic and street stops, 2011.
United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau Justice
of Statistics. Washington, D.C. Retrieved online:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf
Lanham, J. (2020, May 29). I've spent my life birding while black. Here's why I can't and
won't forgive Amy Cooper: Opinion. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from
https://www.newsweek.com/ive-spent-my-life-birding-while-black-heres-why-icant-wont-forgive-amy-cooper-opinion-1507247
Leech, B. (2002). Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews. PS:
Political Science & Politics, 35(4), 665-668. doi:10.1017/S1049096502001129
Lewis, N. (2018). Mass Incarceration New Jim Crow, Class War, or Both?. People’s
Policy Project. Retrieved from https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/MassIncarcerationPaper.pdf
Lichtenstein, A. (1993). Good Roads and Chain Gangs in the Progressive South: "The Negro
Convict is a Slave". The Journal of Southern History, 59(1), 85-110.
doi:10.2307/2210349
Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (1997). Did Getting Tough on Crime Pay? The Urban
Institute, 13.
Lyons, H., (2012). Food, Farming, and Freedom: Promoting a Sustainable Model of Food
Justice in America's Prisons. Senior Capstone Projects. 73.
http://digitalwindow.vassar.edu/senior_capstone/73
Maltz, M. D. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando: Academic Press.
Mission & Vision | Washington State Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Retrieved June
11, 2021, from https://www.doc.wa.gov/about/agency/mission.htm
Moran, D. (2019). Back to nature? Attention restoration theory and the restorative effects
of nature contact in prison. Health & Place, 57, 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.03.005

81

Nadkarni, N., Hasbach, P., Thys, T., Crockett, E., & Schnacker, L.E. (2017). Impacts of
nature imagery on people in severely nature-deprived environments. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 15, 395-403.
National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States:
Exploring Causes and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Newsome, C. (2020). It's Time to Build a Truly Inclusive Outdoors. Retrieved December
13, 2020, from https://www.audubon.org/magazine/summer-2020/its-time-buildtruly-inclusive-outdoors
Perry, W. (1968). Patterns of Development in Thought and Values of Students in a
Liberal Arts College: A Validation of a Scheme. U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED024315.pdf
Peterson, A., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Beyond the individual: Toward a
nomological network of organizational empowerment. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 34, 129Purdy, J. (2015, August 13). Environmentalism's Racist History. Retrieved December 13,
2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/environmentalismsracist-history
Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies in empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prevention in
Human Services, 3, 1-7
Rowland-Shea, J., Doshi, S., Edberg, S., & Fanger, R. (2020, July 21). The Nature Gap.
Retrieved December 13, 2020, from
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/07/21/487787/thenature- gap/
Sakala, L. (2014). Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census. Retrieved
from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html
Sawyer, W. (2017, April 10). How much do incarcerated people earn in each state?
[Prison Policy Initiative]. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2017/04/10/wages/
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2019). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2019. Retrieved
from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html
Schlosser, E. (1998). The Prison-Industrial Complex. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/12/the-prison-industrialcomplex/304669/

82

Shibata, S., & Suzuki, N. (2002). Effects of the foliage plant on task performance and
mood. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(3), 265-272.
https://doi.org/10.1006/Jevp.2002.0232.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Sustainability in Prisons Project (n.d.). Retrieved from http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/
Sustainability & Environmental Performance. (n.d.). Washington State Department of
Corrections. Retrieved June 13, 2021, from
https://www.doc.wa.gov/corrections/programs/sustainability.htm
Swift, C., & Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emerging mental health technology.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 8, 71-94
Taylor, D. E. (2014, July). The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations.
Retrieved from https://www.diversegreen.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/10/FullReport_Green2.0_FINAL.pdf
The Pew Charitable Trusts (2010). Collateral Costs: Incarceration’s Effect on Economic
Mobility. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.). What are environmental rights?
Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://www.unenvironment.org/exploretopics/environmental- rights-and-governance/what-we-do/advancingenvironmental-rights/what
US Department of Justice. (2011, March). The Greening of Corrections: Creating a
Sustainable System. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/024914.pdf
Van Den Berg, A. E., & Custers, M. H. G. (2011). Gardening Promotes Neuroendocrine
and Affective Restoration from Stress. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(1), 3–
11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105310365577
Van der Laan, A., & Eichelsheim, V. (2013). Juvenile adaptation to imprisonment:
Feelings of safety, autonomy and well-being, and behaviour in prison. European
Journal of Criminology, 10(4), 424–
443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370812473530
Weber, S. R., Hayes, M. P., Webb, T., & Leroy, C. J. (2015). Environmental education in
prison: A comparison of teaching methods and their influence on inmate attitudes
and knowledge of environmental topics. Interdisciplinary Environmental Review,
16(2/3/4). doi:10.1504/ier.2015.071026

83

Wells, N. M. (2000). At Home with Nature: Effects of “Greenness” on Children’s
Cognitive Functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775–795.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972793
Western et al 2001 Western, B., Kling, J. R., & Weiman, D. F. (2001). The Labor Market
Consequences of Incarceration. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 410–
427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128701047003007
Zimmerman M.A. (2000) Empowerment Theory. In: Rappaport J., Seidman E. (eds)
Handbook of Community Psychology. Springer, Boston, MA.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4193-6_2

84

Appendices
Appendix A. Interview Questions
1. Ice breaker: What environmental education program were you involved in, and
why did you decide to participate in it?
2. Grand tour: Could you describe a typical class or meeting within the program that
you were involved in?
o Prompt: ask for a mini-tour on different activities within a program.
o Prompt: probe about their specific role or position within the program.
3. Experience question: Could you tell me about your experience with participating
in (specific program)?
o Prompt: what was your most and least favorite part of their experience?
o Prompt: probe about the differences between their program and other
programs in prison.
o Prompt: probe about impacts of the program on a personal/individual
level
o Prompt: probe about impacts of the program on a community or
organizational level
o Prompt: probe about lasting impacts (on both personal/individual and
community levels) beyond prisons.
o Prompt: did you see any changes in yourself before and after participating
in a (specific program)?
o Prompt: probe about what they gained, as well as what they feel they
contributed to the program.
o Prompt: probe about any connections that were made as a result of their
participation (including with their peers, facilitators, prison staff, the
greater community)
o Prompt: probe about if and how this program can help combat issues
related to systems of incarceration.

85

Appendix B. Code occurrence frequency
Code
Access to resources
Accommodating for different learning styles
Bridging the “us versus them” dynamic
Contributing to the greater good and giving back
Exposure to new ideas and experiences
Future prospect (higher education)
Future prospect (jobs)
Having choices
Learning new skills
Opportunities
Outside prisons
Ownership of program
Personal growth
Positive interaction with DOC staff
Positive interaction with peers
Positive interaction with program partners
Purpose and significance
Realizing self-worth
Responsibility and accountability
Sense of respect
Trust
Dehumanizing experiences
DOC staff’s negative perception of program
Fear and isolation
Negative interaction with DOC staff
Stigma and discrimination
Systemic issues and challenges associated with DOC
Toxic prison environment

86

Occurrences
12
4
5
3
22
9
9
2
12
7
13
3
16
2
10
15
9
8
5
4
7
6
1
2
5
1
14
6

Appendix C. Code co-occurrence analysis table
●Acce
ss to
resour
ces

●Access to
resources
●Accommo
dating for
different
learning
styles
●Bridging
the us vs
them
dynamic
●Contributi
ng to the
greater
good &
giving back
●Dehumani
zing
experiences
●DOC
staff's
negative
perception
of program
●Exposure
to new ideas
&
experiences
●Fear &
isolation
●Future
prospect
(higher
education)
●Future
prospect
(jobs)
●Having
choices

●Accommo
dating for
different
learning
styles

●Bridg
ing the
us vs
them
dynam
ic

●Contrib
uting to
the
greater
good &
giving
back

●Dehuma
nizing
experience
s

●DOC
staff's
negativ
e
percep
tion of
progra
m

●Expos
ure to
new
ideas &
experie
nces

●Fea
r&
isolat
ion

●Futur
e
prospe
ct
(higher
educati
on)

●Fut
ure
prosp
ect
(jobs)

●Hav
ing
choic
es

●Lear
ning
new
skills

●Negat
ive
interac
tion
with
DOC
staff

●Opportu
nities

0

0

1

0

0

0

4

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

2

0

10

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

0

5

0

3

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

5

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

●Learning
new skills

2

0

0

1

0

0

10

0

3

2

0

0

0

0

●Negative
interaction
with DOC
staff

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

●Opportuni
ties

87

●Acce
ss to
resour
ces

●Outside
prisons

●Accommo
dating for
different
learning
styles

●Bridg
ing the
us vs
them
dynam
ic

●Contrib
uting to
the
greater
good &
giving
back

●Dehuman
izing
experience
s

●DOC
staff's
negativ
e
percep
tion of
progra
m

●Expos
ure to
new
ideas &
experie
nces

●Fea
r&
isolat
ion

●Futur
e
prospe
ct
(higher
educati
on)

●Fut
ure
prosp
ect
(jobs)

●Hav
ing
choic
es

●Lear
ning
new
skills

●Negat
ive
interac
tion
with
DOC
staff

●Opportu
nities

1

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

5

3

0

2

0

1

●Positive
interaction
with DOC
staff

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

●Positive
interaction
with peers

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

3

3

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

1

2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

●Ownersh
ip of
program

●Personal
growth

●Positive
interaction
with
program
partners
●Purpose
&
significanc
e
●Realizing
self-worth
●Responsi
bility &
accountabi
lity
●Sense of
respect
●Stigma
&
discrimina
tion
●Systemic
issues with
DOC
●Toxic
prison
environme
nt
●Trust

88

●Access to
resources
●Accommod
ating for
different
learning
styles
●Bridging
the us vs
them
dynamic
●Contributi
ng to the
greater good
& giving
back
●Dehumaniz
ing
experiences
●DOC
staff's
negative
perception
of program
●Exposure
to new ideas
&
experiences
●Fear &
isolation
●Future
prospect
(higher
education)
●Future
prospect
(jobs)
●Having
choices

●Outs
ide
prison
s

●Owner
ship of
program

●Perso
nal
growth

●Positi
ve
interact
ion
with
DOC
staff

●Positi
ve
interact
ion
with
peers

●Positi
ve
interact
ion
with
progra
m
partner
s

●Purpo
se &
significa
nce

●Realiz
ing selfworth

●Responsi
bility &
accountabi
lity

●Sen
se of
resp
ect

●Stigma
&
discrimina
tion

●Syste
mic
issues
with
DOC

●Toxic
prison
environ
ment

●Tr
ust

1

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

3

0

0

4

1

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

5

0

1

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

2

3

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

●Learning
new skills

1

1

2

0

0

3

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

●Negative
interaction
with DOC
staff

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

●Opportunit
ies

89

●Outs
ide
prison
s

●Owners
hip of
program

●Perso
nal
growth

●Positi
ve
interact
ion
with
DOC
staff

●Positi
ve
interact
ion
with
peers

●Positi
ve
interact
ion
with
progra
m
partner
s

●Purpos
e&
significa
nce

●Realiz
ing selfworth

●Responsi
bility &
accountabil
ity

●Sen
se of
resp
ect

●Stigma
&
discrimina
tion

0

1

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

2

1

2

1

0

0

0

1

2

●Positive
interaction
with DOC
staff

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

●Positive
interaction
with peers

2

1

3

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

2

0

4

0

1

2

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

4

2

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

2

0

0

2

4

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

3

0

2

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

●Outside
prisons
●Ownershi
p of
program

●Personal
growth

●Positive
interaction
with
program
partners
●Purpose
&
significanc
e
●Realizing
self-worth
●Responsi
bility &
accountabil
ity
●Sense of
respect
●Stigma &
discriminat
ion
●Systemic
issues with
DOC
●Toxic
prison
environme
nt

●Syste
mic
issues
with
DOC

●Toxic
prison
environ
ment

●Tr
ust

●Trust

90

Media

Thesis_MES_2021_MoritaS.pdf