-
extracted text
-
CONNECTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND PRISONS
A CRITICAL LOOK AT SOCIAL MOVEMENTS,
ENVIRONMENT AND MASS INCARCERATION
by
Tiffany M Webb
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2016
©2016 by Tiffany M Webb. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Tiffany M Webb
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Shangrila Wynn, Ph.D
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Connecting Environmental Justice and Prisons:
A critical look at social movements, environment and mass incarceration
Tiffany M Webb
This thesis research, the final product of my Master’s of Environmental Studies (M.E.S.)
graduate degree at The Evergreen State College, connected environmental justice,
environmental programs in prisons, and prison ecology. As part of this work, I shared
results from statistical analyses of five years of lecture series participant surveys that
highlight the impacts of the SPP Science and Sustainability Lecture Series and the
perspectives of incarcerated students at Washington Corrections Center for Women and
Stafford Creek Corrections Center. Lecture series students who completed surveys showed
increased understanding of and positive attitudes toward the environment, lecture topics,
and discussing the two with other prisoners. This study also explored incarceration rates in
Washington State as they relate to race and distributional justice and found higher rates of
incarceration of the Black population and lower rates of incarceration of the White
population (compared to the national average). Qualitative findings in this study uncover
cases of ecological pollution and potential greenwashing in state prisons across
Washington. My research pulled from and connected environmental justice, mass
incarceration, sustainability, environmental education, anti-racism and anti-capitalism
scholarship and concluded with an argument for the environmental rights of prisoners and
significance of EJ within environmental education programs in prisons.
KEYWORDS
environmental justice, environmental racism, prisons, prisoner rights, greenwashing,
whitewashing, social movements, academia, grassroots, activism, community,
accessibility, institutional racism, government agencies, prison ecology, justice, mass
incarceration, environmental education, green jobs, prison programs, just sustainability,
systems of oppression, critical studies, survey data and analysis, interdisciplinary studies,
feminist geography, Critical Race Theory, criminal justice system, green prison paradox
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1
Reflexive Statement .........................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................6
The Rise of Environmental Justice and Contemporary Movements ................................6
The Environmental Justice Movement: grassroots activism and communities of color
......................................................................................................................................6
Environmental Justice: academia and government ...................................................10
The EJ Movement and Anti-prisons Movements ‘Joining Forces’ ............................13
Conceptualizing Environmental Justice .........................................................................16
Environmental Injustice: racism, capitalism and systems of oppression ...................16
Environment and Environmentalism: the EJ Frame ..................................................20
Justice: distribution, participation, procedure and human rights .............................26
Principles of Environmental Justice and ‘Just Sustainability’...................................27
Connecting Environmental Justice and Mass Incarceration...........................................31
Disproportionate Impacts of Incarceration: contemporary racism ...........................31
Environmental Education Programs and the ‘Paradox of Green Prisons’ ...............35
CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY ................................................................................40
Quantitative Survey Analysis .........................................................................................41
Qualitative Textual Analysis and Critical Methods .......................................................43
CHAPTER 4—RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................46
Case Study—Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) ....................................................47
SPP Origins in Washington ........................................................................................48
SPP Science and Sustainability Lecture Series ..........................................................52
Survey Results: environmental content knowledge ....................................................54
Survey Results: attitudes, interests, and peer-to-peer ................................................58
Connecting Environmental Justice and SPP ..............................................................61
Connecting Environmental Justice and WA Prisons ......................................................62
Washington and the Criminal Justice System ............................................................62
Environmental Rights, Prisons and ‘Greenwashing’ .................................................67
CHAPTER 5—CONCLUSION ......................................................................................77
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................83
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................89
iv
v
List of Figures
FIGURE 1. SPP three spheres of sustainability .................................................................51
FIGURE 2. WCCW survey results: content knowledge ....................................................55
FIGURE 3. SCCC survey results: content knowledge ................................................ 55-56
FIGURE 4. Overall content knowledge 2009-2014 ..........................................................57
FIGURE 5. Overall shift in attitude 2011-2014.................................................................58
FIGURE 6. Pro-environmental attitude shifts ...................................................................59
FIGURE 7. Overall pre- and post-lecture Likert score .....................................................60
FIGUE 8. EJ petition to EPA ............................................................................................70
vi
List of Tables
TABLE 1. Academic expansion of Environmental Justice ...............................................11
TABLE 2. Principles of Environmental Justice ........................................................... 28-29
TABLE 3. Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) overview ...................................... 49-50
TABLE 4. Statistical survey findings: attitude, interests and peer-to-peer .......................60
TABLE 5. Rates of incarceration.......................................................................................63
TABLE 6. Primary topics of interest, Ecology of the Police State panel ................... 72-73
vii
viii
Acknowledgements
Shangrila Wynn, MES Thesis Advisor
Joslyn Rose Trivett, SPP Supervisor
Incarcerated students and SPP liaisons at
WCCW (Gig Harbor, WA) and SCCC (Aberdeen, WA)
The Evergreen State College
2013 Evergreen MES Cohort
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP)
Friends and family who provided immeasurable support
ix
CHAPTER 1—INTRODUCTION
Recent reports have shown ecological damage from Washington prison operations
and construction. Environmental impacts of the state’s prisons overlap with racial
disparities in rates of incarceration, which I argue demands prison programs, particularly
those with an environmental focus, center marginalized people and promote justice if
they are to exist within the larger context of WA prisons. Environmental justice activists
argue that “all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income should enjoy access to a
safe and healthy environment” (Principles of Environmental Justice 1991); yet,
incarcerated people are often disconnected from environmental justice programs,
opportunities, or resources because they are not commonly offered within prisons. Even
facilities that have environmentally-focused programs like those in Washington do not
center environmental justice. Braz and Gilmore (2006, 45) argue that environmental
justice can potentially act as “an integrative and empowering framework for a variety of
movements and concerns,” and this paper explores its intersections with campaigns
against mass incarceration and prisons. Instead of creating rigid conceptual boundaries
within environmental justice, scholars say this field should instead embrace the flexibility
that has always been inherent in grassroots EJ (Schlosberg 2013). Environmental justice
has developed a “vocabulary of political opportunity” and significant ways of drawing
attention to previously neglected inequalities which play into people’s “health, well-being
and quality of life” (Walker 2012, 1). Environmental and social injustices are intertwined,
and it is important to explore and address this interrelationship through justice-centered
work and scholarship. This study also opens the discussion around potential complicity of
1
higher education institutions in perpetuating oppressive structures, particularly when
these structures are ignored or rendered invisible in efforts to bring classrooms to prisons.
I argue the need for an expansion of the environmental justice discussion while
addressing overlapping concerns of injustice unique to incarcerated populations and
prisons. The goal is to broaden the scope of existing conceptual, theoretical and empirical
frameworks of EJ scholarship to include prisoners and the environments they occupy and
are exposed to through incarceration and the criminal justice system. The overarching
research question asks how environmental justice and prisons are connected, and this
paper answers sub-questions to find these connections. The sub-questions explore how
SPP programs, such as the Science and Sustainability Lecture Series, functions within
carceral settings; attitudes, interests and knowledge of prisoners who participate in this
program; and the relationship between SPP programs and the potential for EJ inside of
prisons. Further sub-questions examine incarceration rates in Washington State and cases
of environmental degradation and human rights violations linked to WA prisons. These
questions are considered through a case study and mixed methods critique of Washington
prisons and the broader context of the Prison Industrial Complex and greenwashing.
Specifically, I examine a state program called the Sustainability in Prisons Project
juxtaposed with the broader context of Washington incarceration demographics,
ecological pollution and greenwashing. These dynamics are examined through an EJ lens.
By investigating the overlaps between environment, incarceration, and social justice, this
paper highlights a gap in research, policy and action related to the environmental rights of
prisoners. Including but also moving beyond issues of injustice (environmental bads) and
critiques of greenwashing within a racist criminal justice system, this research examines
2
the issue of access to EJ perspectives (environmental goods) for environmental education
programs inside prisons. Community participation and perspective is important to
environmental justice research, therefore, this study highlights the voices of incarcerated
people as they relate to environment, environmental topics, and peer-to-peer discussion
of the two. By analyzing SPP surveys completed by incarcerated students at WCCW and
SCCC (Washington state prisons) for the first time, findings reveal some impacts these
programs have for involved prisoners interested in environmental opportunities,
education and resources. Survey results also offer insight to the environmental interests,
attitudes, and education of incarcerated people. These findings simultaneously act to
eliminate stereotypes of prisoners as ‘uneducated’, ‘uninterested’ and ‘unsustainable’,
and highlight the perspective of a community that is often neglected in the whitedominated, mainstream discussion of sustainability and environment.
In Chapter 2—Literature Review, I provide a review of the pertinent literature
including the conceptualization of environmental justice and social movement
connections between EJ and prisons. I then connect this to a review of literature on
incarcerated populations, mass incarceration, education programs in prisons and the
‘Green Prison Paradox’. Chapter 3—Methodology discusses the detailed survey design
for the SPP case study and the documents I examined for the qualitative textual analysis.
Chapter 4—Results and Discussion focuses on the quantitative analysis of SPP survey
data along with the critical analysis of Washington prisons. In Chapter 5—Conclusion, I
conclude with the assertion that programs in prisons should center justice in order to
address larger systems of oppression and power dynamics within prisons.
3
REFLEXIVE STATEMENT
This research is interdisciplinary in nature and draws on feminist methods and
methodologies. Feminist geographers often work to expose the “complexities of power,
privilege, oppression and representation” and share “the political and intellectual goal of
socially and politically changing the world they seek to understand” (England 2014, 365).
Although this study does not focus on gender, I do attempt a feminist approach to
research methods and for that reason and the ones outlined in Chapter 3, I want to be as
transparent as possible about my positionality in this research.
I am speaking as a graduate student, previous program coordinator of the
Sustainability in Prisons Project’s (SPP) Science and Sustainability Lecture Series, and
prison abolitionist/social justice activist, using an environmental justice lens. I hold a B.S.
in Earth System Science (Climate Change) with a focus in Human Dimensions and Social
Impacts. I have conducted socio-environmental research with academic institutions,
NGOs, and government agencies including the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Water
Center for the Humid Tropics of Latin America and the Caribbean (CATHALAC), and
NASA DEVELOP. Some of my research includes a UAH sustainability assessment and
suggestions report, climate change vulnerability mapping in Nepal to support aid
organizations providing resources to climate-impacted communities, tracking impacts of
climate change for local sugarcane growers in Panama through GIS and satellite data, and
the
intrinsic
connections
between
capitalism
and
socio-environmental
degradation/exploitation. I have also worked briefly with the Washington State Department
4
of Ecology, and more recently the Washington Department of Corrections through my
position with SPP.
This is my first research experience to engage deeply with Critical Race Theory
and addressing larger systems of oppression outside of capitalism. I must credit much of
this to the past few years of Black Lives Matter activism and the knowledge they have
spread through their own acts of liberation and empowerment. Throughout this research
and my time working in an education program in prisons, I found myself having to
continuously check and process my privilege as a white person in the U.S. and as a white
scholar in this field; however, I could not ignore the clear racialization state agencies are
participating in, the violence people of color are experiencing on multiple fronts, and the
voices inside telling me to speak up as an ally. I thank the many voices across the country
who have helped and continue to teach me.
By engaging with systems of oppression, I’ve found a deeper understanding of my
own intersections of privilege and oppression. I realized that these systems intersect and
weigh differently on everyone. There are some experiences I will never know or
understand, especially when it comes to racism in the United States. But I will try my best
to share what I witness when appropriate, and speak up the best way I know how. I’m
continuously learning how to decolonize my perspective and address the world with antiracism/anti-oppression at the forefront. I don’t always succeed and admit this part of me
created many walls in the process of writing this thesis. There were times where I felt
conflicted, times I needed to step away, times I was openly angry, and times I felt the world
in front of me crumbling.
5
It should also be mentioned that I found much of who I am and a solid voice for
myself throughout this process. I am a non-binary queer scholar, activist, and survivor. I
am a first generation college graduate who chose debt and education in order to get out of
homelessness and poverty. I am a product of the prison system myself. My father was
incarcerated when I was born and he died of a massive stroke and heart attack a few years
after he was released. I grew up in Deep South poverty with my momma, single and
working multiple jobs. It wasn’t until I began speaking to prisoners through my work with
SPP and WA-DOC that I realized I had neglected to see how my own life has been tied to
the criminal justice system. These identities influence my day-to-day and my experiences
cannot be disconnected from my academic work, nor do I think they should be.
______________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 2—LITERATURE REVIEW
THE RISE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND CONTEMPORARY
MOVEMENTS
The Environmental Justice Movement: grassroots activism and communities of color
The concept, movement, and act of environmental justice arose as a response
from communities of color against environmental racism and inequity. Over time,
environmental justice movements and scholarship have expanded to include issues that
not only disproportionately impact people of color, but are also linked to class, gender
and other intersections of oppression, marginalization and identity-based violence. The
6
movement has grown into a multicultural network of community groups that calls on
racial, class, and gender justice necessary to just solutions to environmental crises.
With the globalization of environmental justice came a new wave of climate
justice activism that has continued to explore the intersections of environmental justice to
include the disproportionate impacts climate change and environmental inequity have on
people of color and working poor across the globe. Most recent intersections have begun
to call attention to environmental injustice cases such as incarcerated populations being
employed at low wages by state agencies to fight increasing wildfires due to climate
change (Klein 2015).
While environmental injustice in the United States can be traced back as far as
colonial land grabs from Indigenous people, the emergence of the Environmental Justice
Movement is characterized by the convergence of civil rights and environmental activism
in the 1980s (Walker 2012). It is important to note that prior movements, including the
Red Power Movement (origins of the American Indian Movement) and the Chicano
Movement, constitute environmental justice struggles. However, environmental justice
did not hit mainstream consciousness and conversation until the 1982 case of Warren
County, North Carolina, described below, and subsequent research and activism. Since
then scholars and activists have explored environmental justice movement connections
with several other justice coalitions including anti-toxics, Indigenous rights, labor rights,
occupational health and safety, traditional environmentalists (Cole and Foster 2001),
solidarity, general social and economic justice movements (Faber and McCarthy 2003),
immigrant rights, local food and food justice, just energy movements (Schlosberg 2013),
frontline community movements and—more recently anti-prison movements.
7
The case of Warren County, North Carolina is seen as a galvanizing moment in
the conceptualization of a solution to environmental racism and injustice now known as
environmental justice. In 1982, activists from civil rights organizations partnered with
locals to fight against the dumping of 120 million pounds of PCB-contaminated soil in
the state’s county with the highest proportion of African Americans (Mohai 2009). This
movement brought about national attention to issues that mainstream middle-class white
environmentalists had long been ignoring, and in many cases continue to ignore. At its
root, the case showed that people of color and poor people in the United States deal with
ecological risks far greater than what middle-class white environmentalism had
acknowledged.
Following the Warren County case, two major studies came out in 1983 and 1987.
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study of siting locations of
hazardous materials in southern states, confirming what many communities had already
noted: black communities were host to a disproportionate amount of waste facilities
(Mohai 2009). The United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice (CRJ)
followed the GAO research with a national study showing that this disproportionate
impact was not just a trend in southern states, but was happening nationally. The CRJ’s
study, Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States, showed that race was the most
significant factor influencing the siting of hazardous waste facilities across the United
States (Mohai 2009). These early report findings sparked more awareness and momentum
in the early Environmental Justice Movement.
In 2007, twenty years after the CRJ’s study, contemporary research followed up
with an analysis of toxic waste and race in the U.S. between 1987 and 2007. The study
8
revealed that nationally “racial disparities in the distribution of hazardous wastes are
greater than previously reported” (Bullard, Maohai, Saha and Wright 2007, 45). Racial
disparities were found for people of color as a whole within 9 out of 10 EPA regions,
90% of states with hazardous waste facilities have disproportionately more people of
color in surrounding host neighborhoods, and further racial disparities in environment.
The report outlined “states with the 10 largest differences” in percentages of people of
color in host neighborhoods (communities that are host to nearby hazardous facilities)
versus in non-host neighborhoods. Washington State ranked #6 in the nation (53% vs.
20%) following Michigan, Nevada, Kentucky, Illinois, Alabama and Tennessee (Bullard
et al 2007).
The contemporary Environmental Justice Movement has been broadly
characterized as “efforts by people of color, poor people, and Third World peoples to
address issues of access to and control over the environment, broadly defined” (see
section ‘Environment and Environmentalism: the EJ frame’ for EJ definition of
environment) (Turner & Pei Wu 2002, 1). Schlosberg (2013) says the term has expanded
with time: horizontally to include a wider range of environmental issues, vertically into
“examinations of the global nature of environmental injustice…and conceptually to the
human relationship with the non-human world” (37). Expansion and inclusion has been a
long-running component of the Environmental Justice Movement, and this continues
today. Schlosberg explains that while fighting the disproportionate distribution of toxins
and environmental bads is still at the root of environmental justice, contemporary
environmental justice not only targets issues of environmental bads, but has added
9
demands for providing opportunities and resources (environmental goods) within
communities.
This expansion has set the stage for understanding environment and nature as
intrinsically linked to and determinant of conditions for social justice (Schlosberg 2013).
People and communities who face the impact of environmental injustice commonly face
additional, overlapping inequities. By creating justice-oriented environmental landscapes,
space is also created for addressing the issues of social injustice within that environment.
For example, adding public transportation lines that connect poor neighborhoods to other
areas of the city might contribute to more sustainable transportation options and provide a
public service many wealthy communities already have; simultaneously, it may also open
up economic and social opportunities for those living in poor neighborhoods. Affordable
transportation could expand economic options for people who previously could not
access job opportunities across town because of lack of accessible transport. Seeing the
connection between just environments and just societies is important to the current
environmental solutions discussion.
Environmental Justice: academia & government
In the United States, activists and movements of frontline communities are at the
root of struggles for environmental justice, but academia and government have become
increasingly involved in this realm of EJ work. Since the rise of the EJ Movement,
environmental justice has emerged as a strong field of study within post-secondary
institutions and has even made its way into government policies.
10
Academia has also expanded the EJ term (Table 1) and its use in mainstream; I
suggest the addition of prison environments, operation, construction and prisoners who
“live, work, learn…” in these spaces. In 1990, Robert Bullard published Dumping in
Dixie, the first major study to address historical patterns of segregation that contributed
to environmental racism. Since then, subsequent research and academia has proven what
Warren County brought up in 1982: there is a connection between environmental
contamination, race and socioeconomic status (Brown 1995; Szasz and Meuser 1997;
Evans and Kantrowitz 2002; Mohai, Lanz, Morenoff, House, and Mero 2009; Mohai
Academic Expansion of Environmental Justice
SOCIAL
race, ethnicity, class, income,
deprivation, gender, single parent
families, households in social housing,
older people, children, Indigenous
peoples, disability, deafness, special
needs, future generations, labor
suggested additions:
+ INCARCERATED POPULATIONS
+ MASS INCARCERATION
ENVIRONMENTAL
air pollution, accidental hazardous
releases, waste landfills, waste
incinerators, contaminated land,
brownfield land, urban dereliction,
lead in paint and pipes, flooding, noise,
drinking water quality, river water
quality, transport, forest fires, whaling,
wildlife reserves, agriculture,
greenspace, outdoor recreation,
mineral extraction, hog industry,
emissions trading, oil drilling and
extraction, access to healthy food, fuel
poverty, wind farms, nuclear power
stations, climate change, trade
agreements, alcohol retail outlets,
biodiversity and genetic resources,
genomics, land reform
suggested additions:
+ ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SPECIFIC
TO PRISON ENVIRONMENTS,
PRISONERS, AND LOCAL HABITATS
TABLE 1. Academic expansion of environmental justice
Walker 2012, emphasis added (potentially significant to prisons and prisoners)
11
2009). During the same year Bullard’s book was published, the University of Michigan
hosted the Conference on Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards. Researchers
from across the U.S. who studied “racial and socioeconomic disparities in the distribution
of environmental contaminants” conducted a scientific analysis that corroborated the
previous GAO and UCC studies from the 1980s (Mohai 2009, 409). Conference findings
were forwarded to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
encouraging the agency to follow up with its own examination of these environmental
problems and implement policies to address them.
In 1992, the EPA published their report titled Environmental Equity: Reducing
Risks for All Communities and environmental justice policies followed publication
(Mohai 2009). This study was the first time federal government had acknowledged
environmental inequalities in the United States as well as the importance of addressing
them. The EPA created the Office of Environmental Equity which was later renamed the
Office of Environmental Justice. In 1994, the office issued Executive Order 12898
demanding all federal agencies, including but not limited to the EPA, take into account
environmental justice concerns in their decision-making (Mohai 2009).
Follow-up studies have explored the EPA’s connection to environmental injustice
and the findings are discouraging. Cole and Foster document unequal enforcement of
environmental laws that are supposed to protect people from toxic waste facilities. They
found that white populations are more vigorously protected by environmental law
enforcement than communities of color (Cole and Foster 2001, 57). This includes seeing
faster action to address contamination/exposure, better results and penalties against
polluters, and shorter wait times to be listed as clean up priorities under SUPERFUND
12
regulations (Cole et al. 2001). So, not only are people of color disproportionately exposed
to toxic sites, but also experience unequal protection when it comes to environmental
laws being enforced by government agencies.
The EJ Movement and Anti-prisons Movements “Joining Forces”
Activists from environmental justice movements and anti-prisons movements
have recently begun “joining forces” to address overlapping social and environmental
concerns. In the early 2000s at the Central California Environmental Justice Network
annual conference, activists and community members organized around the three most
pressing environmental community hazards. This was the first statewide gathering
specifically focused on exploring the place for prisons within the EJ Movement. The
threats were outlined by a group of youth from San Joaquin Valley during a conference
workshop and their decision surprised many at the conference. They said the “three P’s”
are the biggest hazards in their communities: police, pollution and prisons (Braz and
Gilmore, 2006). The discussion and work around these overlapping threats contributed to
the growing awareness of the similarities between anti-prisons activism and
environmental justice activism. Braz et. al. (2006) say “the environmental justice
movement primarily fights against racial and class discrimination in environmental policy
making, the selective enforcement of environmental laws and the targeting of
communities of color and poor communities for environmentally disastrous land uses,
such as toxic waste disposal sites” (ibid, 96).
13
Related disparities in the criminal justice system are similar to those already
discussed: class and race inequalities, differential enforcement of laws, and targeting of
communities of color and poor communities. The dialogue around environmental threats
produced a clear area of collaboration between the two movements. This continued with
the Joining Forces: Environmental Justice and the Fight against Prison Expansion
Conference bringing together farmers, farmworkers, activists from civil rights,
environmental, and anti-prisons movements, among others connected to prisons and EJ.
In conference workshops and discussions, the recognition arose that “poor people of
California’s prison towns are not so different from the poor Californians who fill our
prisons” (Braz et al 2006).
These connections demand the definition of environment be expanded to include
prisons because they are “part of the landscape of everyday life” for many people (ibid,
106). Prisons are part of environment and have their own environmental concerns; they
are not “out there” and removed as they are often suggested to be. Throughout the history
of environmentalism and movements in the United States, environmental activists have
insisted that toxic emissions, development and destroyed habitat do not occur in a
“vacuum” (ibid, 107). Planning, building and operating prisons should be reviewed not as
single projects, but within the context of cumulative impacts both current and projected.
Braz and Gilmore (2006, 107) argue that “during the remarkable prison buildup of
the past quarter of a century, policy debates on crime and safety have become
increasingly one dimensional, focusing on the individual ‘criminal’.” They go on to say
that the public safety debate has become singularly focused on crime and has paid less
attention to environmental factors such as healthcare, adequate wages, affordable housing
14
and accessible and quality education. Braz and Gilmore demand an articulation of crime
and punishment within broader social, political and economic frameworks in order to
properly address this issue. For example, they mention that crime prevention, when
looked at within broader frameworks, could be linked to better wages, housing, and job
programs. Braz et. al. (2006) consider “environmental factors” as all the conditions
within which one finds oneself, and claim all are significant to the wider discussion of
criminal justice. Reallocating public funding and resources away from prisons and
towards community education, healthcare, housing and social services is seen as a
criminal justice solution that takes on frameworks beyond the singular ‘criminal’.
As Kurtz (2009, 8 emphasis added) states, “the processes that have proceeded
environmental injustice have simultaneously produced uneven development,
marginalized landscapes, increased criminalization of poor people and people of color,
and the social movements that work to transform them.” Their publication,
Acknowledging the Racial State: An Agenda for Environmental Justice Research,
emphasizes the need to consider the state’s role in shaping ideas of race and racism
through Critical Race Theory. For example, Omi et. al. (1994, 78) demonstrate that the
EJ movement itself emerged from recognition of state institutions’ role in structuring and
enforcing “a racially unjust social order.” Additionally, scholars say it is important to
situate analysis and discussion around the intersections of racism and capitalism because
the two are inextricably linked to social relations (Morello-Frosch 2002; Pulido 1996,
2000). In fact, “a host of EJ scholarship in this vein identifies intersecting manifestations
of racism and capitalism, such as racialized labor markets (Morello-Frosch 2002; Pulido,
Sidawi and Vos 1996); job blackmail (Bullard 1990); and racialized land markets” (Lord
15
and Shutkin 1994; Pulido 2000; Pulido et al 1996). Since research often implies but fails
to problematize the state’s role in processes that create disparate conditions for people
along categories of race and through capitalist dynamics, I work to bring this perspective
to my own research as it relates to state prisons and environment.
CONCEPTUALIZING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental Injustice: racism, capitalism, and systems of oppression
In order to understand the concept of environmental justice, we must first
understand the causes and manifestations of environmental injustice since EJ is a
response to this national and global trend. Early activism of the Environmental Justice
Movement focused on the disproportionate siting of waste and toxic facilities in
communities of color; however, in the two decades that followed Warren County,
activists and scholars have expanded the geography and scope of environmental justice.
The expansion includes a global recognition of environmental justice now called climate
justice. This paper will restrict the discussion to environmental justice in the U.S., but
future research could expand this vertically into the realm of climate.
The main focus of early environmental justice in the U.S. was the unequal
distribution of environmental “bads”, but since the 1980s, more environmental justice
organizations have taken to addressing issues of unequal distribution of and other areas of
injustice related to environmental “goods” too. That’s not to say that the EJ Movement
didn’t encompass other issues in its early days, just that maldistribution of environmental
16
toxins took center stage. More recently, recognizing environmental bads as “simply
another example of social injustice” (Schlosberg 2013, 38), activists and community
organizations began to focus on a range of environmental bads and goods in their
communities.
Environmental bads are harmful inputs into the community, such as toxic
pollution from industry and waste facilities, which are strongly associated with health
risks. The EJ Movement targeted projects that threatened greater ecological and health
risks in poor neighborhoods and communities of color and attempted to block new
projects since that avenue was usually more successful than shutting down existing
facilities. Over time environmental justice movements have expanded to include actions
against farmworker pesticide exposure and a range of contamination and negative
environmental inputs in communities of color and poor communities. Environmental
goods are beneficial inputs into the community such as parks, clean air standards,
environmental education programs, and green jobs. Moving from community defense
against environmental bads, the EJ Movement began and continues to focus attention on
policies and practices that bring about more environmental goods for communities often
neglected or harmed by sustainability policies.
Environmental injustice manifests in ecological and social disadvantages for some
people and privileges for others. Environmental justice recognizes the inextricable link
between ecological and social systems and functioning. Drawing on EJ scholarship that
applies Critical Race Theory (CRT) and examines racialized components of inequity,
environmental burdens such as toxic pollution and waste facilities are disproportionately
found in communities of color. At the same time, white communities bear a lower risk of
17
exposure and ill effects from these hazards. Environmental goods such as community
gardens and parks are also unfairly divided along lines of race. Fewer of these
environmental and social amenities are present in black and brown communities, yet
more common in white communities. Studies have shown that even in cities known for
their sustainability efforts, Seattle, Washington for example, green goods are found in
neighborhoods with higher concentrations of white folks than in neighborhoods with
higher concentrations of people of color (Abel and White 2011). In a 2011 study, Abel et.
al. found that gentrification connected to environmental injustice and “how Seattle deindustrialized, but also saw the burdens of its remaining industrial facilities fall
disproportionately on some of the city’s most socially vulnerable populations” (Abel et al
2011, 5252).
This trend is linked to historical discrimination in policies and city planning as
well as current practices of environmental racism. As racism has evolved in the United
States, blatant acknowledged racism has become taboo in mainstream culture and people
are less willing to admit or openly state racist actions or intentions. CRT helps to identify
areas of racism that are institutional, systemic, separate from intention, and part of
everyday experience for people of color. This perspective helps in analyzing
unintentional racist outcomes of environmental actions and sustainability policies. CRT
has expanded our understanding of the causes and effects of racism linked to
environmental goods and bads; Kurtz (2009) argues it is necessary within environmental
justice research.
Racism, also within the context of environment, expands beyond intentional acts
and includes institutionalized, state-sanctioned and structural discrimination and inequity.
18
Cole and Foster (2001) argue that the “prevailing understanding of ‘racism’ molded by
judicial constructions, is myopic in its failure to accommodate for the fact that the nature
of racism has become appreciably more subtle and structural” (Cole et al 2001, 63).
Judicially constructed ideas of racism involve an individual actor and purposeful actions,
however, this only touches the surface of racism in the United States as racism exists with
or without intention. In the past, racism could be somewhat easily traced to racist
motivations, but as racial discrimination on the part of decision makers and government
became punishable and forbidden by law, racism has become more structural and people
are less likely to claim overtly racist views and stances (ibid, 65). They go on to say that
historical spatial segregation has had “profound consequences in the distribution of social
goods” (ibid, 66)
Additionally, a political economy approach to understanding environmental
disadvantages and privileges has reinforced this ecological and social divide along
economic boundaries. Similar to how CRT has exposed the complexities of
disproportionate environmental bads and goods along racialized categories (Kurtz 2009),
political economy has exposed similar trends based on class and economic power. Using
the same basic examples from above, environmental bads are disproportionately found in
poor communities while environmental goods are more abundant in wealthy
communities. Political economists have exhaustively explored important links between
capitalist systems and ecological, social, and racial inequity, highlighting causes and
manifestations of environmental injustice linked to class (Faber and McCarthy 2003).
Applying an intersectional approach, it is clear that poor people of color are most at risk
of being exposed to environmental bads in their communities and a lack of environmental
19
goods. At the other end of the spectrum, wealthy white people disproportionately hold the
privilege of fewer environmental burdens and more environmental benefits. The EJ
Movement’s focus on addressing environmental racism reflects many of the
aforementioned power dynamics and structures of discrimination.
Environment and Environmentalism: the EJ frame
As described earlier, the Environmental Justice Movement has played an
important role in expanding and reframing what is considered ‘environment’ and thus
what constitutes an environmental issue. Mainstream environmentalism has long
reinforced white privilege and contributed to environmental racism, but EJ has branched
out to address this issue and redefine environment along more inclusive and less
oppressive lines (Turner and Pei Wu 2002). For the EJ Movement, environment is not
something separate from humans, narrowed to ecological components worthy of
protection or conservation. In fact, early environmentalism and the concept of
environment in the U.S. was strongly rooted in the experience wealthy, white males had
with nature. The common narrative was that of an ‘environmental other’, untouched and
pristine natural spaces, being conquered (colonialism), experienced and appreciated by
those with the resources or ability to find themselves in view of these spaces. Similarly,
the privilege these individuals held and the positions they took around environment
reinforced environmental racism, benefiting wealthy, white males while people of color,
poor people, women, children and other marginalized populations received
environmental harms. Green spaces, wilderness and wildlife were protected but in areas
20
often separate from where most people commonly came into contact with environment
(Taylor 2000). Environmental justice has been able to deconstruct these ideas and
reinvigorate environmental movement perspectives and experiences.
Early EJ Movement advocates defined environment as “where we live, work,
learn and play,” dismantling the notion that environment and nature is somehow pure and
separate from humans and everyday experience. This definition of environment continues
today and has influenced the way EJ activists frame environmental problems. By reframing environment, the EJ Movement began to dismantle the privilege held in older
definitions and work towards justice-oriented solutions based on their own experiences
and perspectives. It is interesting to compare the environmental justice frame to older
environmental frames, specifically if you ask the following questions: “what and whom
do these frames include and leave out?”; “where do these frames originate?”; “how are
these frames used in differing contexts and locations?”; and “who becomes more or less
powerful and relevant within these frames?” (Walker 2012, 5).
To say that environmental justice is a “new” paradigm slights the important
history of the concept. In 2000, Dorceta E. Taylor of Michigan University published a
paper titled The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice Framing and the
Social Construction of Environmental Discourses. Fifteen years later, ideas she outlined
can be seen in the push for global climate and environmental justice. The Environmental
Justice Paradigm has been central to past movements in the U.S. and globally and is
linked to Indigenous values and lifestyles; however, many academics point to the 1990s
as an emergent time of environmental justice thought “as a major part of the
environmental discourse” (Taylor 2000). The 1990s brought about a strong EJ presence
21
through the establishment of an academic field, exploration and sharing of best research
practices, national conferences that helped strengthen the movement as a whole, an
Executive Order that attempted to institutionalize EJ in government agencies, and a
powerful environmental movement centered on justice. This time period represents an
amplification of environmental justice rhetoric that had previously been characterized as
fringe compared to the mainstream environmental movement.
As Taylor points out, mainstream environmental activists and environmental
justice activists often find themselves in very different social locations. These differential
social settings impact and influence experiences and perceptions of environmental issues,
how the groups address those issues, the type and availability of movement resources,
and the overarching strategy and kind of movement being constructed. For example,
“mainstream environmentalists who might count lawmakers among their personal,
political or professional networks are more likely to use lobbying as an activist strategy,
whereas environmental justice activists, with much less access to Congress and other
powerful political bodies in the country, are more likely to use direct-action strategies
such as protests and rallies as part of their campaigns” (Taylor 2000, 509-510).
The role of identity, not just location, is also an important component of
understanding the emergence of the EJ Movement and how it differs from mainstream
environmental movements. In general, social movements seek to connect “individual
activist goals and identities” with those of mainstream society and cultural systems. They
accomplish this by expanding the social movement identity into a realm that overlaps
with society’s dominant cultural identity, making it comfortable for more people to
identify with and therefore join the movement. Unlike the mainstream environmental
22
movement which was and is largely composed of relatively affluent white males, the
Environmental Justice Movement recruited people of color and poor people and focused
on finding the connections between their personal identities and their environmental
justice identities (ibid, 512-513).
Mainstream environmentalists and activists often use images related to wilderness
and wildlife protection to motivate supporters. The images and perspectives can be traced
back to 19th century Transcendentalist environmental ideology linked to frontier
experiences (i.e. colonial conquests) and has proven popular with upper and middle-class
white environmentalists. However, the 19th century presented vastly different
environmental experiences/connections to land for people of color, including “forced
relocations, living on reservations, appropriation of land, slavery, and sharecropping.”
For this reason, environmental justice activists instead evoke images rooted in social
justice struggles of the civil rights movement and other struggles particular to people of
color in the 1960s and 1970s, including those of “racism, appropriation of land, and the
destruction of communities and cultures” (ibid, 513).
Taylor (2000) outlines paradigms as social constructions, or “ideological
packages expressing bodies of thought that change over time and according to the actors
developing the paradigms.” Often the actors are social movement activists trying to push
discourse on the topic; sometimes they can be mainstream news sources that find a way
to produce a cultural norm around the ideas they present; plus anything in between. Their
research focuses on how social movements influence paradigms. They assert that the
United States has experienced four major waves of environmental mobilization: the premovement era (1820-1913), the post-Hetch Hetchy era (1914-1959), the post-Carson era
23
(1960-1979), and the post-Love Canal/Three Mile Island era (1980-present). These eras
of mobilization encouraged different shifts in mainstream environmental perspective,
thus creating new paradigms. The pre-movement era was characterized by preservationist
and conservationist ideologies. The post-Hetch Hetchy by wildlife conservation and a
focus on dams (wilderness destruction and control at the hands of machinery). The post(Rachel) Carson era by environmental issues affecting humans, and then the era that we
currently find ourselves in. This last era, the post-Love Canal/Three Mile Island era, is
characterized by toxic contamination in local communities and is strongly connected to
issues of climate change.
Out of the waves of mobilization and coalescing of ideologies over time, Taylor
(2000) finds three major social-environmental paradigms to have emerged in the United
States since the mid-1800s. These paradigms are the Exploitative Capitalist Paradigm
(ECP), the Romantic Environmental Paradigm (REP) and the New Environmental
Paradigm (NEP). As Kuhn (1970) has written much on paradigms and his definition
further emphasizes the power and relevance of paradigms: a “body of ideas, major
assumptions, concepts, propositions, values and goals of a substantive area that
influences the way people view the world, conduct scientific inquiry and accept
theoretical formulations.” He states that paradigms are “the basis of ‘normal’ or day-today science. However, normal science produces anomalies that cannot be resolved within
the existing paradigm. When this occurs, there is a disjuncture that creates an opening for
a new paradigm to ember to replace the old paradigm.” Taylor (2000) outlines this
disjuncture within socio-environmental movements and pointed to the emergence of a
new paradigm as something that occurred in relation to the Exploitative Capitalist
24
Paradigm, Romantic Environmental Paradigm and New Environmental Paradigm, thus
creating a new, expanded paradigm—the Environmental Justice Paradigm (EJP).
The Environmental Justice Movement has helped promote the Environmental
Justice Paradigm on a broad scale. Taylor (2000) explains the connection and importance
of the EJP to framing environmentalism in the following excerpt:
“The Environmental Justice Paradigm (EJP), which is built on some of the core
values of the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP), uses an injustice frame to
effectively reframe and transform the environmental discourse… The EJP has
accomplished this by linking environment, labor and social justice into a master
frame. The Environmental Justice Movement (EJM) used the EJP to amplify or
clarify the connection between environment and social justice and to emphasize
the idea that these concepts are inseparable. The EJP extends the environmental
frame by targeting people not normally recruited by reform environmental
organizations—people of color and progressive whites from working- and
middle-class backgrounds.”
They go on to say that the environmental justice frame as a master frame “uses discourse
about injustice as an effective mobilizing tool” (also linked to social movement building,
a principle of EJ [Table 2. Principles of Environmental Justice]). This has lent a hand in
strengthening the movement and pushing the ideology into mainstream spaces. By saying
the EJ Movement has created an injustice master frame, Taylor is simply recognizing that
the EJP is explicitly centered on justice and attempts to bridge injustice, environmental
concerns, and systems of oppression (particularly linked to racism and capitalism).
Taylor (2000) lists the following environmental justice components that differ
greatly from the focus of the early mobilizations and paradigms mentioned earlier:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
ecological principles
justice and environmental rights
autonomy/self-determination
corporate-community relations
policy/politics/economic processes
social movement building
25
These components promote rhetorical focus on human-human and human-nature
relations through the lens of race, class, gender, and other identities. By bridging these
frames and centering justice as a master frame, the EJP highlights the intersectionality of
environmental and social inequalities and new areas of just solutions.
Justice: distribution, participation, procedure and human rights
While justice can be broadly defined in many contexts and holds its own
paradigms, this paper will focus briefly on justice-oriented frameworks commonly found
within environmental justice activism, academia and government. These frameworks are
distributive justice, participatory/procedural justice, and entitlements/rights-based justice
(Cutter 1995, Heiman 1996, Low and Gleeson 1998). Distributional justice within
environmental justice is strongly connected to past, present and continued cases of
disproportionate contaminant facility siting in black and brown communities. It directly
relates to how harms and benefits are distributed over a population and focuses on equity
as a solution. Procedural justice targets the process of environmental decision-making,
centering on two issues: “procedural fairness and the effective ability of groups to
participate in ostensibly fair processes,” especially concerning decisions that directly
impact them (frontline communities) (Turner et al 2002). An entitlement/rights-based
approach to justice is based on individual and community access to environmental goods
and services necessary for their well-being and health (Leach, Mearns, and Scoones
1999; Sen 1981). Montauge (1998) says entitlement/rights-based justice is compatible
with the precautionary principle of decision making that limits exposure instead of
26
relying on post-contamination fixes, which is strongly referenced in the seventeen
Principles of Environmental Justice developed at the People of Color Environmental
Leadership Summit in 1991 (Table 2). Synthesizing components of the defined terms of
justice above, Schlosberg (2013) and Romm (2002) present a fairly broad definition of
justice within EJ: “the justice of environmental justice encompasses not only equity,
recognition, and participation, but more broadly, the needs and functioning of individuals
and communities.” These areas of environmental justice have not been applied to
incarcerated people within the United States prison system. Before considering justice
within prison environments and the criminal justice system, we must define
environmental justice and concepts of just sustainability as they have developed around
terms of justice and environment within the EJ Movement.
Principles of Environmental Justice and ‘Just Sustainability’
Environmental justice is similar to sustainability in its difficulty to be precisely defined
because of its many uses, complexities, and ever-evolving nature. The Principles of
Environmental Justice (Table 2) is the early document that outlined environmental justice
and has been used broadly as an organizing tool for environmental justice movements to
apply across the U.S. and internationally. These principles are the root of environmental
justice struggles and solutions. Table 2 includes the Principles of Environmental Justice
27
PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
PREAMBLE: We the people of color, gathered at this multinational People of Color
Environmental Leadership Summit, to begin to build a national and international
movement of all peoples of color to fight the destruction and taking of our lands and
communities, do hereby re-establish our spiritual interdependence to the sacredness of
our Mother Earth; to respect and celebrate each of our cultures, languages and beliefs
about the natural world and our roles in healing ourselves; to insure environmental
justice; to promote economic alternatives which would contribute to the development of
environmentally safe livelihoods; and, to secure our political, economic and cultural
liberation that has been denied for over 500 years of colonization and oppression,
resulting in the poisoning of our communities and land and the genocide of our peoples,
do affirm and adopt these Principles of Environmental Justice:
1. Environmental justice affirms the sacredness of Mother Earth, ecological unity
and the interdependence of all species, and the right to be free from ecological
destruction.
2. Environmental justice demands that public policy be based on mutual
respect and justice for all peoples, free from any form of discrimination or
bias.
3. Environmental justice mandates the right to ethical, balanced and responsible
uses of land and renewable resources in the interest of a sustainable planet for
humans and other living things.
4. Environmental justice calls for universal protection from nuclear testing,
extraction, production and disposal of toxic/hazardous wastes and poisons and
nuclear testing that threatens fundamental right to clean air, land, water, and food.
5. Environmental justice affirms the fundamental right to political, economic,
cultural and environmental self-determination of all peoples.
6. Environmental justice demands the cessation of the production of all toxins,
hazardous wastes, and radioactive materials, and that all past and current
producers be held strictly accountable to the people for detoxification and the
containment at the point of production.
7. Environmental justice demands the right to participate as equal partners
at every level of decision-making including needs assessment, planning,
implementation, enforcement and evaluation.
8. Environmental justice affirms the right of all workers to a safe and healthy
work environment, without being forced to choose between an unsafe
livelihood and unemployment. It also affirms the right of those who work at
home to be free from environmental hazards.
28
9. Environmental justice protects the right of victims of environmental
injustice to receive full compensation and reparations for damages as well as
quality health care.
10. Environmental justice considers governmental acts of environmental
injustice a violation of international law, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Genocide.
11. Environmental justice must recognize a special legal and natural relationship
of Native Peoples to the U.S. government through treaties, agreements, compacts,
and covenants affirming sovereignty and self-determination.
12. Environmental justice affirms the need for urban and rural ecological policies
to clean up and rebuild our cities and rural areas in balance with nature, honoring
the cultural integrity of all our communities, and providing fair access for all to the
full range of resources.
13. Environmental justice calls for the strict enforcement of principles of informed
consent, and a halt to the testing of experimental reproductive and medical
procedures and vaccinations on people of color.
14. Environmental justice opposes the destructive operations of multi-national
corporations.
15. Environmental justice opposes military occupation, repression and
exploitation of lands, peoples and cultures, and other life-forms.
16. Environmental justice calls for the education of present and future
generations which emphasizes social and environmental issues, based on
our experience and appreciation of our diverse cultural perspective.
17. Environmental justice requires that we, as individuals, make personal and
consumer choices to consume as little of Mother Earth’s resources and to produce
as little waste as possible; and make the conscious decision to challenge and reprioritize our lifestyles to insure the health of the natural world for present and
future generations.
Adopted today, October 27, 1991, in Washington, D.C.
TABLE 2. Principles of Environmental Justice
with emphasis added to areas that have particular significance to carceral spaces and
people who are incarcerated. For example, the second principle demands “mutual respect
and justice for all people” and policy that is “free of discrimination or bias.” The seventh
29
principle speaks to participatory and rights-based justice linked to decision-making at all
levels. Principle 10 strongly states that government acts of environmental injustice are
violations of international human rights laws. See Table 2 for all seventeen EJ principles.
Over time, environmental justice research has deeply explored ways to define and
understand the concept, and government agencies have adopted their own definitions. For
example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the following definition of
environmental justice, which is limited to distributional and procedural justice:
“Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the
development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no groups of people,
including a racial ethnic, or socioeconomic group, should bear disproportionate
share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial,
municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local and
tribal programs and policies” (US-EPA 2002).
Cutter (1995) writes that the principles of EJ guarantee (1) protection from
environmental degradation, (2) prevention of adverse health impacts from deteriorating
environmental conditions before the harm occurs not after (precautionary principle), (3)
mechanisms for assigning culpability and shifting the burden of proof of contamination to
polluters, not residents, and (4) redressing the impacts with targeted remedial action and
resources (Turner and Pei Wu 2002). These principles include a social justice focus and
bridge a broad spectrum of environmental concerns (Schlosberg 2013; Agyeman 2003,
2004).
In order to create a just environment, Romm (2002) argues the requirement of “social
and ecological relations in which all groups of people have equal opportunity for benefit
and influence.” This is based on notions of “just sustainability” which has been
highlighted as a convergence of sustainability and environmental justice ideas emerging
30
out of NGOs and government agencies in the UK (Agyeman 2004, 155). Agyeman
divides environmental justice into two dimensions: local/activist level and government
level. At the local and activist level of EJ application, they point to a common framework
and vocabulary for “political opportunity, mobilization and action,” whereas government
dimensions of environmental justice act as policy principles so that “no public action will
disproportionately disadvantage any particular social groups” (Agyeman 2004, 154-56).
They argue the necessity of placing the discourse of environmental justice within the
framework of sustainability for the sake of political, policy and academic analysis and
application.
Sustainability is part of a historical evolution of early mainstream
environmentalism, accompanied by all of the previous inequities and privileges outlined
earlier. The concept of sustainability developed along a similar timeline as environmental
justice, and reflected similar paradigm shifts. Often sustainability is synonymous to
‘sustainable development’, but over time it has also incorporated some components of
social and environmental justice. Agyeman (2003) stresses the importance of these
components of sustainability when stating, “A truly sustainable society is one where
wider questions of social needs and welfare, and economic opportunity are integrally
related to environmental limits imposed by supporting ecosystems” (ibid, 157).
CONNECTING ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND MASS INCARCERATION
Disproportionate Impacts of Incarceration: contemporary racism
31
“… to [put] the matter starkly: The current system of control permanently locks a
huge percentage of the African American community out of the mainstream
society and economy. The system operates through our criminal justice
institutions, it functions more like a caste system than a system of crime control.
Viewed from this perspective, the so-called underclass is understood as an
undercaste—a lower caste of individuals who are permanently barred by law and
custom from mainstream society. Although this new system of racialized social
control purports to be colorblind, it creates and maintains racial hierarchy much as
earlier systems of control did. Like Jim Crow (and slavery), mass incarceration
operates as a tightly networked system of laws, policies, customs, and institutions
that operate collectively to ensure the subordinate status of a group defined
largely by race.” (Alexander 2010, 10)
Michelle Alexander’s book The New Jim Crow has identified the U.S. Prison
Industrial Complex as an evolving mechanism of racism, particularly reflecting
racialization in the criminal justice system, rooted in a history of slavery and Jim Crow
policies. This system is based on a “prison label” that does not necessarily end when
“prison time” is served (Alexander 2010, 11-14). Alexander describes this as one
manifestation of backlash from Civil Rights Movement successes, or racism
reinforcing/reinventing itself. Mass incarceration is the criminal justice system and
beyond, including laws, rules, policies, customs of control, regulations, and criminal
characterization/classification in and outside of prison. Once people are released from
prison, they carry the impacts for a lifetime. This includes legally denying previously
incarcerated people the right to vote and participate in juries, as well as regulations and
laws that reinforce stigmas and obstruct the ability to obtain employment, housing and
public services. Alexander (2010) compares this to the similarities African Americans
faced when forced into a segregated, second-class citizenship in the Jim Crow era:
“The popular narrative that emphasizes the death of slavery and Jim Crow and
celebrates the nation’s ‘triumph over race’ with the election of Barack Obama, is
dangerously misguided. The colorblind public consensus that prevails in America
today—i.e. the widespread belief that race no longer matters—has blinded us to
32
the realities of race in our society and facilitated the emergence of a new caste
system” (Alexander 2010, 11-12).
Mass incarceration has become a major social justice issue in the United States.
The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate and imprisons more racial and ethnic
minorities than any other country in the world (6-10x greater than that of other
industrialized countries). Most of the increase in incarceration from the 1980s to present
is attributed to the War on Drugs (i.e. drug convictions) which led to the prison
population expanding from 300,000 to more than 2 million in the span of a few decades.
Some interpret the increasing incarceration rates of people of color as a
“consequence of poverty, racial segregation, unequal educational opportunities, and the
presumed realities of the drug market, including the mistaken belief that most drug
dealers are black or brown”, however, this fails to recognize the role of government in
racialized practices and policies (Alexander 2010, 4-5). The fact that the United States
rolled out the War on Drugs (including dramatized and racist publicity to encourage
national support for the campaign) during a time when illegal drug use was in decline
cannot be explained by any of the above interpretations (Alexander 2010). Additionally,
sociology research has observed frequent government use of punishment as a “tool of
social control,” meaning that punishment is often disconnected from crime (ibid, 7).
Intentional or unintentional, this is an aspect of systemic and institutionalized racism
against black and brown people similar to environmental injustices discussed earlier.
The following findings uncover a few ways incarceration disproportionately
impacts people of color and as Alexander states, is not a symptom of poverty or poor
choices, but rather, evidence of a new racial caste system at work:
33
• More than half of the young black men in any large American city are currently
under the control of the criminal justice system (or hold criminal records)
(Alexander 2010, 16).
• Since the 1970’s, the prison and jail population in the U.S. has increased by ~
500%. Black and brown people are disproportionately impacted by incarceration,
with African Americans constituting 900,000 of the total of 2.2. Million people
incarcerated (Mauer and King 2007).
• The Bureau of Justice Statistics documents 1 in 6 black men were incarcerated
in 2001 with predictions of a rate of 1 in 3 if trends continue. Black women are
also more likely to be incarcerated than white women (Mauer et al 2007).
• In 2005, Hispanic people comprised 20% of the state and federal prison
population— more than double the rates of white counterparts (Mauer and King
2007).
• African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times (5.6x) the rate of whites
(Mauer et al 2007). While criminal justice data often excludes rates of
incarceration for Indigenous people, research has shown the rates to be similar to
those of black people in the United States.
• Breaking down rates of incarceration, we find that the national rate for whites is
412 per 100,000, compared to 2290 for African Americans and 742 for Hispanics
(/Latinx) (Mauer et al 2007).
• “Moreover, the uneven geographic distribution of incarceration in communities
of color means that the effects of this situation radiate beyond the individual to the
broader community” (Mauer et al 2007, 4-5).
The racial disparities of incarceration are oddly reflective of the disparities in
healthy, green resources and community toxins. People of color are not only facing the
health risks associated with environmental bads, the lost opportunities and second-class
citizenship related to environmental goods and services, and the overarching impacts of
systems of oppression that reinforce environmental racism in their communities, they are
simultaneously fighting these issues as they relate to the criminal justice system. In order
to expand the interdisciplinary discussion around mass incarceration and environmental
injustice, I examine a few environmental impacts and components of prisons (Chapter
4—Results and Discussion). This begins to clarify some overlap between EJ and
marginalized people outside of and within prison institutions.
34
Environmental Education Programs and the ‘Paradox of Green Prisons’
Education programs are now offered in many state prisons as a rehabilitative
service and studies have found that, on average, incarcerated people are less
(institutionally) educated than the general population. A high percentage of prisoners in
state facilities have not completed high school and for that reason, GED courses are the
most common form of education offered. Education programs in prisons are sometimes
the strongest connection people have to secondary and post-secondary education. In
general, research has shown that people involved in education programs while
incarcerated are less at risk of returning to prison after released (43% lower odds of
recidivating). According to a Rand Corporation study, participating in education
programs correlated with higher odds of obtaining employment after release (Davis,
Bozick, Steele, Saunders and Miles 2013), even in the face of challenges and stigmas
presented by a criminal record.
Past research by Sustainability in Prisons Project's program coordinators (all in
recent years have also been Evergreen graduate students) has explored the impact and
significance of environmental education programs within prisons. Specifically, Gallagher
(2013) surveyed incarcerated people who participated in environmental programs in order
to evaluate SPP-style programming. Their findings and prior studies showed that
participation in education-intensive SPP jobs programs was linked to strong proenvironmental attitudes. From a review of the literature, they found that proenvironmental attitudes and behaviors were correlated with pro-social attitudes (Bamberg
and Möser 2007; Hines, Hungerford and Tomera 1987; Milfont and Gouveia 2006; Van
35
Vugt & Samuelson, 1999). This can also be linked to successful re-entry for previously
incarcerated people (Bucklen and Zajac 2009). Gallagher claims that providing programs
that support pro-social behavior could potentially reduce recidivism rates. As it relates to
SPP, their research states
“Given the correlation between pro-environmental and pro-social attitudes
and behaviors noted by previous researchers (Milfont et al 2006), the
positive relationships found in this study… suggests that providing more
offenders with the opportunity to engage in jobs [and programs] with
higher levels of education/training, work with living things, and
community contribution opportunities may translate into more proenvironmental and pro-social behaviors. As many people in prison are
there precisely for demonstrating anti-social behavior, the potential for
encouraging the development of pro-social attitudes through
environmental and social- sustainability-related programming shows great
promise. [The findings of this research] suggests that expanding SPP
program offerings in prisons may give more offenders the opportunity to
develop pro-environmental (and pro-social) attitudes through meaningful
work [and education] experiences” (Gallagher 2013).
While Gallagher’s (2013) synthesis makes an important argument about the
potential of programming for reducing recidivism, some of the study’s cited sources
neglect to address overarching issues within the criminal justice system that place people
in prisons (not just anti-social behavior). Past studies of recidivism have focused on the
connection between pro-social behavior and reduced rates of returning to prison.
Intentionally or not, some of these studies create false generalizations and stereotypes
(through inference) that incarcerated people are anti-social. Studies commonly make the
argument that anti-social behavior contributes to incarceration while also ignoring
broader issues of injustice within the U.S. prison system. Having said that, Gallagher puts
forward an important argument for reducing recidivism through environmental education
programs and green jobs.
36
Recently, Weber et. al. (2015) published a connected SPP study comparing the
effectiveness of different teaching methods inside prisons. Their findings showed that
people at Washington Corrections Center for Women preferred workshop style lectures
while Stafford Creek Corrections Center preferred lecture style sessions. There was little
difference in the levels of engagement from people at men’s prisons and women’s
prisons. Their research argues that while environmental education opportunities do not
exist in many prisons to date, the programs SPP offers provide evidence that “a desire
and a need exist for such opportunities” for prisoners and correctional facilities as a
whole (Weber, Hayes, Webb, and Leroy 2015, 282). Weber argues that SPP’s
environmental education programs are able to reach people who are often
underrepresented and marginalized in science education and exposure to nature. My
thesis is a follow-up to these previous studies.
Jewkes et. al. (2015) make the case that mass incarceration is being marketed
through greenwashing practices and language. Within their study, they examined the
Sustainability in Prisons Project and argued that Washington State is taking an
uncommonly “holistic approach to sustainability” by supplementing green building
projects with efforts “to provide green-collar training and nature-based therapy to
prisoners” and may have real benefits to prisoners. However, at the same time, they argue
that greening prisons fuels mass incarceration and contributes to prison expansion
through capitalist marketing/rebranding and corporate interests (e.g. construction, design,
and management of prisons). They claim that since mass incarceration is a recognized
social problem, language from environmental movements around efficiency and
‘greening’ is attractive to “politicians, prison designers, constructors, charitable
37
reformists and the public, who are united in moral certitude that sustainability is the way
forward in corrections.” This point is particularly significant to Washington as the state
has prided itself on sustainability measures.
There has been much silence around changing the size and scale of prisons, but
opening this discussion is key to addressing mass incarceration situated within the Prison
Industrial Complex. Jewkes et. al. (2015) state that green prisons are marketed perfectly
between political hegemonies of environmentalism and mass incarceration, and play into
U.S. politics:
“To those on the political right, sustainability is a way of making the carceral
estate more efficient, more competitive, more productive and, when green-collar
training is offered, more reparative to the society wronged by the offender’s
actions. To those on the political left, who may hold views that lean towards
decarceration, the green prison promises a ‘healthier’, more ‘nurturing’ and
rehabilitative experience for offenders, while also, in some cases, being
showcases for environmental policies in action.”
Within this context it is important that we question what is being sustained when
sustainability is introduced to prisons and actively work against this ‘silence’. They claim
that “the most effective way to reduce the environmental impact of the correctional
system might be to reduce the numbers of people being incarcerated… [and] if the claims
of saving costs to individual facilities through implementation of environmental policies
have any validity, they make the entire correctional system [itself] more sustainable”
making those goals harder to achieve.
Their study highlighted how even politically progressive and liberal policies
contribute to expanding the Prison Industrial Complex. Within the context of SPP, they
claim that research around green programs in prisons has focused on evaluation and not
problematization within larger contexts. For example, they claim that government,
38
popular media, academics, and groups that deliver these types of programs tend to lend
favor to the rehabilitative components of programming, and fail to address counteracting
evidence of the psychological harms perpetuated by prisons (Jewkes et al 2015). Some
might argue that therapeutic nature programs offer space to counteract those harms within
prisons, but at what scale? The authors point out political contradictions that create
situations for individuals and communities who would “claim antipathy towards
prison[s]… [to] actually come to embrace mass incarceration if they believe it to be
environmentally positive.” Ultimately, they argue that the greenest prison is still, after all,
a prison. The conversation around improving prisons distracts from solutions to mass
incarceration, makes it more difficult to challenge fundamental issues of injustice within
the PIC, and marginalizes abolitionist arguments in a way that sustains prison operations
(ibid).
It is important to situate studies that evaluate SPP programming within the larger
discussion of the Prison Industrial Complex and doing so helps identify connections to
institutional racism and inequity. In The Paradox of the ‘Green’ Prison: Sustaining the
Environment or Sustaining the Penal Complex?, Jewkes and Moran (2015) break down
sustainability discourses within the context of prisons and mass incarceration. Their study
critically interrogated the practices of “building new prisons to ‘green’ industry
standards; making existing prison buildings less environmentally harmful; incorporating
processes such as renewable energy initiatives, offering ‘green-collar’ work and training
to prisoners; and providing ‘green care’ [therapeutic/rehabilitative focus] in an effort to
reduce recidivism…. [as] evidence of ‘green’ strategies that shape the experience of
prisoners, prison staff and the communities in which prisons are located.” They also
39
argue that green discourses are becoming symbolic, material structures, and with or
without intention, are working to support and sustain mass incarceration and the larger
Prison Industrial Complex. Because sustainability language has been incorporated (some
would say co-opted) within carceral settings, they argue for more critical research that
moves beyond evaluating program successes (Graham and White 2015) to
problematizing ‘green’ or ‘sustainability’ within the broader context of prisons. They
point to green criminology as a useful field for this discussion, but claim research is
limited at this time. This is a research gap my thesis directly addresses. My
interdisciplinary research builds bridges connecting insights in disparate fields of
academic study. I hope this work encourages future researchers to expand this critical
research focus.
________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 3—METHODOLOGY
This study explored overlap between environmental justice and prisons through a
mixed methods analysis of Washington State. First, I completed a brief case study of the
Sustainability in Prisons Project through an environmental justice lens. Within this case
study, I also highlighted the quantitative findings of several years of participant surveys
from an environmental education program in prisons (the SPP Science and Sustainability
Lecture Series). Qualitative textual analysis supplemented the statistical survey findings
and placed this case study within the broader dialogue of prisons, ecology, greenwashing
40
and environmental justice. The overarching research question (how is environmental
justice connected to prisons?) was addressed by exploring the following sub-questions:
• How do SPP programs such as the Science and Sustainability Lecture Series
•
•
•
•
function in carceral settings?
What do SPP participant surveys reveal about the attitudes, interests, and
knowledge of prisoners?
What can we learn from surveys completed by incarcerated students about SPP’s
programs and the EJ potential inside of prisons?
Do incarceration rates in Washington reflect the national trend of mass
incarceration in the United States?
Are there cases of environmental degradation and environmental injustice linked
to Washington prisons?
QUANTITATIVE SURVEY ANALYSIS
Through the use of primary survey data, the statistical component of this study
uncovered a deeper understanding of the impacts and effectiveness of SPP’s Science and
Sustainability Lecture Series, as well as prisoner attitudes, interests, and knowledge
related to environment, environmental lecture topics, and peer-to-peer discussion of the
two. Prisoners who voluntarily attend the lecture series program have the option of
completing brief pre- and post-lecture surveys. This study shared a quantitative analysis
of lecture series participant surveys at WCCW and SCCC completed within the program
between 2009 and 2014. I explored how these surveys act as a way for prisoners to voice
their wants and needs in environmental education programs and how this contributes to
the broader discussion of environmental rights of prisoners.
It should be mentioned that SPP surveys for the lecture series were created prior
to this environmental justice research and I conducted the quantitative analysis while still
employed as the SPP Lecture Series Coordinator; therefore survey methodologies are
41
limited in their EJ scope. This is supplemented by textual analysis of primary SPP
documents (see Qualitative Textual Analysis and Critical Methods). Statistical analysis
was based on past SPP evaluation and research methodologies. The surveys were exempt
from Human Subjects Review (HSR) since they were created to evaluate SPP’s
programming. This thesis research was the first study to analyze the lecture surveys and
connect the findings to the environmental justice discussion.
Every survey began with three true and false questions provided by the guest
lecturer. For any lecture, the same questions appeared on both pre and post surveys (see
Appendix). SPP created this survey style in order to gauge changes in participants’
content knowledge, attitudes and interests related to attending the lecture series program.
Due to this formatting, past SPP evaluation methodologies and software, the statistical
analysis of content knowledge within this study rested on the following hypotheses:
Ho= Lecture attendance has no influence on participant knowledge
related to environmental content of the lecture.
Ha= Lecture attendance influences environmental content knowledge of
participants.
In order to test the significance of lecture attendance on content knowledge, I
compared the number of correct answers prior to lecture attendance and after lecture
attendance by calculating Chi-Squared statistics. This both helped identify the
effectiveness of SPP’s education program on content knowledge as well as prisoner
knowledge of environmental topics.
Environmental interests and attitudes were analyzed through survey responses to
four questions. Every survey included questions about environmental interests and a
Likert scale answer form (Appendix). The questions asked participating prisoners to
42
select a score that best represented their likelihood to (Question1) seek information about
the environment and (Q2) about lecture topics, and to (Q3) talk to other prisoners about
the environment and (Q4) about lecture topics. Participating prisoners selected a score on
a Likert scale of 1 to 5, 1 being ‘very unlikely’ and 5 being ‘very likely’. For any lecture,
the same questions were present on both pre- and post-lecture surveys. These questions
were the same for every lecture, regardless of the topic.
Ho= Lecture attendance has no influence on participants’ environmental
attitudes and interest.
Ha= Lecture attendance influences environmental attitudes and interests
of participants.
In order to test the significance of lecture attendance on environmental attitudes
and interests, I first ran a nonparametric T-Test to check for normality. The data was nonnormal, therefore I conducted a Wilcoxon Signed Rank test using JMP statistical
software. Hypothesis testing for the Likert portion of analysis is outlined above.
QUALITATIVE TEXTUAL ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL METHODS
This study, particularly the textual analysis, was based in feminist geography and
critical methodologies and methods. In Producing Feminist Geographies: Theory,
Methodologies and Research Strategies, England (2014, 287) argues that feminist
methodologies are committed to “progressive research practices” and challenge
“conventional wisdom that ‘good research’ requires impartiality and ‘scientific
objectivity’.” Within this context, I included my own perspective and experience as the
‘SPP Education and Evaluation Coordinator’, a position that later changed to the ‘SPP
43
Lecture Series Coordinator’ (2013-2015). See Reflexive Statement in Chapter 1—
Introduction for transparency around my personal connections to some of the topics
discussed within this research.
Many feminist geographers state that no research can ever be completely
objective, whether positivist or feminist or otherwise, because no research is ever
completely disconnected from ideologies, politics and values (even ‘hard science’
research). Feminist methods seek “to decipher experiences within broader webs of
meaning and within sets of social structures and processes,” including normalized,
dominant ideologies, politics and values that perpetuate oppression (England 2014, 291).
This study drew particularly on post-structural feminist theorizing which demands
sensitivity to and reflection on power relations within critical studies. Related to prisoner
surveys and the case study, I continuously found webs of power and privilege between
myself as a researcher/scholar and people who are imprisoned as well as between myself
and the institutions within which this research is based. I tried to deconstruct those
noticeable and subtle dynamics within this study. Because feminist theory demands
analytical focus on structures of power and oppression, this research critiqued
Washington prisons and a sustainability organization as they function within the larger
Prison Industrial Complex.
Utilizing an environmental justice, anti-racism, feminist lens, qualitative analysis
within this thesis involved systematic examination of relevant texts throughout both the
SPP-specific case study and within the larger study of Washington prisons and mass
incarceration. This approach draws on frameworks outlined by Kurtz (2009) and Braz et.
al. (2006) within Chapter 2—Literature Review. The anti-racism praxis of this study is
44
particularly influenced by Critical Race Theory. Critical Race Theory (CRT) offers much
to the study of environmental justice because the root of this transdisciplinary, iterative
methodology is race-equity and social justice (Ford and Airihenbuwa 2008). Ford et. al.
(2008) suggests it is particularly relevant in understanding and combatting systems of
oppression, power dynamics and institutional racism through experiential knowledge and
critical consciousness. CRT seeks to uncover “contemporary racial phenomena, expand
the vocabulary with which to discuss complex racial concepts and challenge racial
hierarchies” within intersections of inequity (Ford et al 2008). An important feature of
Critical Race Theory is the act of centering the margins, i.e. shifting discourse from
mainstream perspectives to that of uniquely marginalized groups (Ford et al 2008). This
was an important component of study within the SPP case study as it centered prisoners
instead of being limited to broader program evaluation. CRT also posits that community
engagement and critical self-reflection enhances research, and for this reason along with
the ones outlined above, I have included a reflexive statement (Chapter 1).
Texts from SPP’s main websites, foundational documents, and recent reports were
used to supplement the statistical survey analysis. These documents were chosen as
relevant to the overall structure of SPP, literature review discussion of environmental
education programs in prisons, and the broader EJ field. In order to connect the
discussion of environmental justice to Washington prisons, I focused on a range of
secondary data. First, I reviewed incarceration rates and reports on racism in the WA
criminal justice system. Data included a 2007 publication by the Sentencing Project titled
Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity; a 2015 Sentencing
Project report titled Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequalities in the Criminal
45
Justice System; and the 2011 Preliminary Report on Race and Washington’s Criminal
Justice System from the Task Force on Race and Criminal Justice c/o Fred T. Korematsu
Center for Law and Equality (Seattle University of Law). I also connected insight from
Angela Davis, activist and scholar, and Critical Resistance, a Prison Industrial Complex
abolition movement, in order to problematize connections to capitalism and the
overarching Prison Industrial Complex.
Diving into deeper discussion of environment and Washington prisons, I analyzed
documents from the Prison Ecology Project, Prison Legal News, and Prison Book
Collective. Documents included Greenwashing Washington State’s Prison System in a
River of Sewage, Environmental Justice for Prisoners; Panel Explores Prisons, Ecology,
and Police; and a recent petition to EPA demanding prisoners be included within their EJ
policies and practice. This Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) petition is particularly
relevant to Washington as many environmental and social justice groups in the state
endorsed it (Got Green?, TWAC [Trans and Women Action Camp] Cascadia, Bill of
Rights Defense Committee, Columbia Legal Services) as well as others including the
National Lawyers Guild, Rising Tide North America, and the Southern Poverty Law
Center. The third document listed above led to a detailed packet from the aforementioned
2015 panel at the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference hosted by University of
Oregon. The panel was titled ‘Ecology of the Police State’ and included folks with
perspectives from the Prison Ecology Project. The panel packet that was shared from the
conference included an additional 2007 article for analysis: Prison Drinking Water and
Wastewater Pollution Threaten Environmental Safety Nationwide. For this critical study,
I included articles that connected ideas outlined by the Prison Ecology Project and
46
relevant issues like greenwashing, prison ecology, and environmental and human rights
of prisoners.
________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 4—RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter analyzes disparities in incarceration based on race and environmental
injustice specific to Washington State prisons. I discuss ecological pollution,
greenwashing, and the EJ potential of environmental education programs inside prisons
such as the ones offered by the Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP).
First, I explore the rise of the Sustainability in Prisons Project in Washington and
the organization’s relationship to WA Department of Corrections, The Evergreen State
College, and sustainability. This paper focuses particularly on environmental education
programs, specifically SPP’s Science and Sustainability Lecture Series. These education
programs are for incarcerated people across Washington, and I explore how they offer
space for addressing environmental justice within prisons while simultaneously providing
social goods to a uniquely disadvantaged population. It is important to center the
livelihoods and humanity of people currently living in prisons. For that reason, this case
study explores the environmental knowledge, attitudes, and interests of incarcerated
people who attend the SPP lecture series.
CASE STUDY—SUSTAINABILITY IN PRISONS PROJECT
47
SPP Origins in Washington
The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) is a partnership founded by the
Evergreen State College (TESC) and the Washington State Department of Corrections
(WA-DOC), but since its conception in 2003 it has expanded across the state, nation and
internationally. SPP began with a few environmental pilot projects in a state prison
located near the Evergreen campus, Cedar Creek Corrections Center (CCCC). These
activities drew the attention of multiple corrections staff, incarcerated people and
Evergreen faculty, students and staff and became a means of collaboration between the
two state agencies. Faculty and students were able to make visits to the pilot location to
offer education, training, support, and resources for successful environmental programs
which also benefit the prisoners and staff involved. Early programs began in 2003 at
Cedar Creek Corrections Center (CCCC) and included a water catchment system and
composting.
From there, SPP began to emerge in more concrete ways. They did so by crafting
Essential Components, a Vision and Mission Statement, and implementing these
components into programs across and within prisons (Table 3). The Essential
Components are 1) partnership and collaborations with multiple benefits; 2) bringing
nature “inside”; 3) engagement and education; 4) safe and sustainable operations; and 5)
evaluation, tracking, and dissemination. These components have been a driving factor in
all SPP programs, and were published in the 2013 SPP Handbook: Protocols for the SPP
Network to share beyond WA State prisons (Sustainability in Prisons Project 2016). For
the sake of this research, the scope of SPP explored is limited to education programming.
48
SUSTAINABILITY IN PRISONS PROJECT OVERVIEW
SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS: environmental, social, and economic
VISION
“This union of ideas and activities – and people inside and outside
prison walls – creates a collaborative, intellectually stimulating
environment in which incarcerated men and women play key roles
in conservation and advancing scientific knowledge. We encourage
teamwork, mutual respect and a stewardship ethic among
individuals who typically have little or no access to nature or
opportunities in science and sustainability. Our vision is not only to
save tax dollars and natural resources, but also to help offenders
rebuild their lives for the benefit of all.”
(sustainabilityinprisons.org)
ESSENTIAL
COMPONENTS
Partnerships
and
collaborations
with multiple
benefits
PROGRAM
AREAS
EDUCATION conservation
AND
and scientific
TRAINING
research
Bringing
nature
“inside”
Engagement Safe and
Evaluation,
and
sustainable tracking and
education
operations dissemination
sustainable
operations
community
contribution
evaluation
Education and Training
“In today’s economy, green-collar workers—people with expertise
in ecology, energy efficiency and Earth-friendly development—are
in increasingly high demand for their skills. This includes vocational
and trade-level workers: carpenters who construct green buildings,
weatherization specialists, installers of solar panels and wind
turbines, ecological research assistants, organic farmers,
beekeepers, and others.
The Sustainability in Prisons Project inspires and trains inmates
and correctional staff through guest lectures, an environmental
literacy program, and hands-on workshops. Activities are geared
toward improving prison sustainability while connecting
participants to the larger world of scientific research and
conservation. Topics have included plant and wildlife ecology,
sustainable agriculture, urban horticulture, alternative energy, and
building with recycled materials. We introduce inmates to
educational and employment opportunities that they may pursue
after release, a critical factor for reducing recidivism…”
(sustainabilityinprisons.org)
49
Education Programs
Education is integral to SPP’s programs; our aim is to make the most of formal and
informal opportunities for education, and to offer new knowledge and new practice
to inmates, staff, and all partners. SPP programs dedicated to education as a central
focus include our Science and Sustainability Lecture Series, an environmental
literacy course called Roots of Success, and those community college programs
related to nature and/or sustainability. (Fiscal Year 2015 SPP Report)
TABLE 3. Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP) overview
Fiscal year 2015 report and sustainabilityinprisons.org
In 2009, the partnership between Evergreen and WA-DOC became official with
an inter-agency agreement. Today, SPP offers a range of environmental programs in all
twelve Washington prisons (see Appendix). In 2014, after over a decade of collaboration
between the two agencies, the WA Department of Corrections also established the state’s
first sustainability policy specific to corrections and prisons (you can view the policy
here: http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Sustainability-Policy12-22-14-290055.pdf).
SPP programming and activities focus on many areas of sustainability: the
organization aims to meet environmental, economic, and social sustainability needs and
resulting programming encompasses many of these components (Sustainability in Prisons
Project 2016). They are a collaboration between a college and state agency with one of
the main goals of the project being to bring science and environmental education,
training, and opportunities to incarcerated populations. As such, it is important to
consider the organization’s relationship with DOC and sustainability. As WA-DOC acts
in a co-director role within the SPP organization, SPP programs also seek to implement
programs that benefit all involved, including prison administration, officers and staff.
50
This also stems from SPP’s use of a collaborative economic, ecology and social approach
to sustainability (Table 3).
FIGURE 1. SPP three spheres of sustainability
The organization bases their programming on “Three Spheres of Sustainability”
adopted from the 2002 University of Michigan Sustainability Assessment. These spheres
include environmental: natural resource use, ecological restoration, and pollution
prevention; economic: cost savings, economic viability, and research/development; and
social: education, community and equal opportunity. These components of sustainability
51
are considered within all SPP programs, although the strength of environmental,
economic and social focus varies. Some programs are led by DOC staff and SPP staff
have more of a hands-off approach. Programs that utilize all components of this
sustainability definition are often led and coordinated by SPP staff and graduate research
assistants.
SPP Science and Sustainability Lecture Series
This thesis analyzes one of SPP’s programs most focused on education: the
Science and Sustainability Lecture Series. The Sustainability in Prisons Project (SPP)
offers education in prisons through guest lectures, hands-on workshops, and a popular
education course on environmental literacy called Roots of Success (Roots of Success
2009-2016). SPP aims to reduce the ecological impact of prisons and connect participants
to the larger world of scientific research, conservation, and green jobs. The SPP Science
and Sustainability Lecture Series is one program that works towards these goals.
Education programs in prison introduce educational and employment opportunities to
pursue after prisoners are released from state facilities. SPP encourages a mindset of
engagement and ownership and supports prisoners applying their knowledge and
classroom experience to submit sustainability proposals at their facility.
SPP-sponsored science and sustainability lecture series are underway at Stafford
Creek Corrections Center (SCCC in Aberdeen, WA), the Washington Corrections Center
for Women (WCCW in Gig Harbor, WA), and in pilot phase at Washington Corrections
Center (WCC in Shelton, WA) and Monroe Correctional Complex (MCC in Monroe,
52
WA). This study will focus on surveys completed by participants at SCCC and WCCW.
Twice a month at each prison, scientists and community members of various
sustainability expertise share their passion and knowledge on wide-ranging topics. Past
topics include wildlife biology, hydrology, innovations in composting, urban horticulture,
alternative energy, native plant identification, environmental justice, and EJ activism.
Incarcerated students attend the lecture series on a voluntary basis and complete
pre- and post-lecture surveys if they so choose. As part of these surveys, students have
space for open-ended comments on how to improve lectures and future topics they’d like
presentations to cover. Guest lecturers are encouraged to bring handouts and resources
for students who attend and would like more information and opportunities as they relate
to the lecture topic. On the other side of the experience, guest lecturers enter prison
classrooms and work with a diverse population, often for the first time. In this way, the
lecture series program coordinates communication between people on the inside and
outside of prisons. Lecturers have included business owners/entrepreneurs, government
employees, non-profit staff, grassroots activists, previously incarcerated people now
holding green jobs, academics, and more. The lecture series is SPP’s most widelyavailable program, reaching more than 2000 prisoners and 100 guest lecturers from 20092014. The program brings opportunities to people currently incarcerated, and also
provides an outlet for the public, academics, institutions, and community groups to
engage with and advocate for prisoners—something not many programs inside prisons
offer at this scale.
It is also important to further describe SPP’s Roots of Success program as many
students who attend the lecture series also participate in this popular/experiential
53
education course. In fact, lecture series attendance has increased every year since Roots
of Success first began at SCCC in 2013. The Science and Sustainability Lecture Series is
hosted every month and presentations/workshops usually last 90 minutes with time for
questions; for students interested in deeper environmental education opportunities, Roots
of Success offers a full course with modules including environmental justice and green
jobs. On the Roots of Success website, they describe their program as “an empowering
educational program that prepares youth and adults who come from communities heavily
impacted by poverty, unemployment, and environmental injustice for environmental
careers and to improve conditions in their communities” (Roots of Success 2009-2016).
The course is taught by incarcerated people trained and certified to lead the course and
typically no DOC staff are present in the classroom. Some students sign up for training
and certification as Roots instructors in order to offer more classes since the program is in
demand. This program, in collaboration with the lecture series, is expanding educational
and environmental space inside prisons and accommodating more decision-making and
ownership at the prisoner level (see Appendix).
Survey Results: environmental content knowledge
This portion of the study looked at the relationship between lecture attendance
and environmental content knowledge using a chi-square test of independence. The
relation between these variables was significant at both prisons—lecture participants
were more likely to answer lecture topic questions correctly after attending a lecture, with
WCCW displaying a 23% increase in correct answers and SCCC an 18% increase post-
54
lecture (Figures 2 and 3). This supports the hypothesis that incarcerated people who
attend lectures leave with more environmental knowledge than they had prior to
attending.
χ2 (1, N = 1961) = 251.46,
p < 0.001*
Following lecture attendance, 23% increase in correct answers at WCCW.
FIGURE 2. WCCW survey results: content knowledge
55
χ2 (1, N=2045)
= 200.89,
p < 0.001*
Following lecture attendance, 18% increase in correct answers at SCCC.
FIGURE 3. SCCC survey results: content knowledge
Additionally worth noting is that a large percentage of incarcerated students came
into the lecture (before) with a high level of environmental content knowledge (WCCW:
61%, SCCC: 69% of questions answered correctly pre-lecture). This trend is seen
consistently in the data (Figure 4), and could be the result of participation in the lecture
series and other SPP programs prior to and since 2009. Anecdotally supporting the data,
many of the guest lecturers mention the incredibly insightful and thought-provoking
questions and ideas people in the lecture series shared.
56
I then compared the percentage of correct answers before and after lectures for
each of the six years the lecture series has been offered (Figure 4) and found the same
trend mentioned above. Every year incarcerated students showed an increase in
environmental content knowledge after attending the lectures; often over 80% of lecture
survey participants answered survey questions correctly post-lecture. This shows that
nearly all lecture participants grasped the intended subject—a consistent trend and an
important success for SPP’s lecture series style of environmental education. It also
stresses the knowledge that incarcerated students have when it comes to green jobs and
educations.
FIGURE 4. Overall content knowledge 2009-2014
57
Survey Results: environmental attitudes, interests and peer-to-peer
The majority of incarcerated students showed no change in attitude in response to
attending an individual lecture (Figure 5); however, the average Likert score before the
lecture was 4 (on a scale of 1-5), which still represents a pro-environmental attitude. This
means that even when not displaying any shift in attitude, many prisoners are coming into
and leaving lectures with pro-environmental attitudes.
FIGURE 5. Overall shift in attitude 2011-2014
The second largest trend is people coming into the classroom with interest in
environmental topics, and their interest increasing further once they have engaged in the
58
sustainability classroom. For those that display a shift in attitude, it is consistently more
likely to be a shift towards 5 on the Likert scale or “pro-environmental” (average, 32% of
participants) instead of a negative shift (9% of participants) (Figures 5 & 6). Less than
one in ten participants reflected a negative shift.
FIGURE 6. Pro-environmental attitude shifts
This trend was evident for all Likert questions (Figure 6 & Table 4). Figure 6
displays the positive shift towards “very likely” (pro-environmental shift) and the
negative shift towards “very unlikely”. For all four survey questions over the years 20112014, incarcerated students were more likely to shift towards a pro-environmental
attitude—positive interests/attitudes around seeking information on the environment,
lecture topics and discussing the two with their peers. The questions that showed the
59
largest positive shift in attitude were consistently questions 2 and 4 (30-45% of lecture
survey participants). These two questions represent interest in seeking more information
on and talking to other prisoners about specific lecture topics (Table 4).
Facility
QUESTION 1
Q2
Q3
Q4
WCCW, Signed-Rank
=
5244,
p < 0.0001**
9457,
p < 0.0001**
7741,
10060.5,
p < 0.0001** p < 0.0001**
SCCC, Signed-Rank =
1231.5,
p < 0.0001**
6565.5,
p < 0.0001**
2960.5,
6381.5,
p < 0.0001** p < 0.0001**
TABLE 4. Statistical survey findings: attitudes and interests
FIGURE 7. Overall pre- and post-lecture Likert scores
60
I then compared the average scores (Figure 7) for each question pre- and postlecture for years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 and found a clear trend towards more proenvironmental attitudes over the years. Figure 7 shows the average Likert scores for each
question pre- and post-lecture, and the progressive shades of green represent the
consecutive years. For all four survey questions, you can see a trend in the average prelecture (before) scores: they increase from 2011-2014. This displays increasing interest in
environmental topics over the timespan of SPP’s lecture series and the implementation of
other sustainability programs.
Connecting EJ and SPP
SPP’s working definition of sustainability differs from that of Agyeman’s just
sustainability outlined earlier (Chapter 2). Instead of centering justice within
sustainability, justice is a tangential component of programming. SPP focuses on
bringing environmental programming to a uniquely marginalized population, but they are
not centered on addressing injustice within that population’s social context. In particular,
SPP does not actively address racial or economic injustice or discriminatory power
dynamics within the criminal justice system; however, some programs do provide
unintentional and intentional justice components. These components include but may not
be limited to intellectual space inside prisons, input and feedback for programming, and
interaction with outside advocates.
SPP is rooted within an academic institution and promotes an educational
component for all of their programs. They also offer specific classroom experience,
61
certification and higher education programming for incarcerated students. SPP claims
that offering education as a part of programming distinguishes it from other green prison
programs. It is important to note here that institutional racism is not just limited to the
criminal justice system but is also linked to liberal higher education structures. For this
reason, colleges must carefully consider power dynamics created through state
partnerships and operations. For example, Evergreen is known to be partnered with
Aramark, a food service company that has been linked to prison labor for profit and
health violations around in-prison food services. If the college is looking to bring real
justice and opportunity to prisoners, being invested in prisons and companies that make
profit off prison labor (i.e. Aramark) certainly doesn’t work towards that goal.
CONNECTING EJ AND WASHINGTON PRISONS
For this portion of the study, I examine Washington justice statistics in order to
gauge the presence of racial disparities in rates of incarceration. I then critically assess
the relationship between Washington Department of Corrections, ecology and
greenwashing.
Washington and the Criminal Justice System
The Sentencing Project’s 2007 report can be referenced in Table 5. The
Sentencing Project found that more than 1% of African Americans are incarcerated in 49
states; while not a single state in the country has a rate that high for the white population
62
(Mauer and King 2007, 7). Justice statistics revealed that at a national level, white people
are more likely to be incarcerated in local jails than prisons. Since time in jail is usually
much shorter than prison sentences, the Sentencing Project argues that the ‘collateral
consequences’ of jail incarceration is generally less severe than consequences associated
with time in state prisons (Mauer et al 2007, 15).
Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2005
National
Incarceration
Rate
(rate of
incarceration per
100,000
population)
Washington
Incarceration
Rate
(rate of
incarceration per
100,000
population)
Percentage of
Incarcerated
Population
(for total
population)
Washington black
incarceration
rate is higher
than the national
average
White
Black
Hispanic
412
2290
742
393
2522
527
*lower
than national rate
*higher
than national rate
*lower
than national rate
0.3%
2.5%
0.5%
24th highest rate in nation
63
Washington
white
incarceration
rate is lower than
the national
average
Washington
Black-to-white
ratio of
incarceration
wider disparity between white and black incarceration than
nationally
6.4 = for every 1 white person incarcerated, there are 6.4
black people
(23rd highest ratio nationally)
TABLE 5. Rates of incarceration
Data: Bureau of Justice Statistics, The Sentencing Project Mauer & King 2007
(data unavailable for other populations, population descriptors from 2007 report)
They argue that this is not just a reflection of crime rates, but is linked to a variety
of policies and practices inside and outside of the criminal justice system. Racial
disparities in incarceration rates can be linked to these policies and practices; for
example, drug offenses are often prosecuted more harshly in communities of color than
the same or similar offenses in areas largely populated by white folks (ibid 2007, 17). A
briefing report from The Sentencing Project, Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial
Inequalities in the Criminal Justice System, identifies a few key features of criminal
justice that ‘“contribute to disparate racial impact[s]…:
• Many ostensibly race-neutral policies and laws have a disparate racial impact.
• Criminal justice practitioners’ use of discretion is—often unintentionally—
influenced by racial bias.
• Key segments of the criminal justice system are underfunded, putting blacks and
Latinos—who are disproportionately low-income—at a disadvantage.
• Criminal justice policies exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities by imposing
collateral consequences on those with criminal records and by diverting public
spending” Ghandnoosh (2015).
While the United States’ prison population has slightly declined (2.4%) since
2009, the decline is minor compared to the huge boom in population initiated in the
64
1980s and many people have simply been shifted to parole (still monitored by DOC).
Racial disparities also continue to exist. In Washington, for example, between the state’s
peak years of incarceration (2010 and 2013), rates of incarceration decreased by 1.5%.
But deconstructing incarceration rates has shown a huge gap between rates of
imprisonment based on race in Washington (Table 5). For every 1 white person
incarcerated, there are 6.4 black people in prison (23rd highest ratio nationally). The
state’s black incarceration rate is higher than the national average, while the white
incarceration rate is lower (24th highest incarceration rate of black people in the country).
This data emphasizes a wider gap in the Black-to-White ratio than national averages and
that in Washington, black people are incarcerated at over six times the rate of white
people. Washington did show a lower incarceration rate of Hispanic people than the
national average, but 0.5% of the Hispanic population is still incarcerated compared to
0.3% of the white population in the state. Black people are still disproportionately
impacted, with 2.5% of the population incarcerated. The presence of disproportionate
incarceration rates based on race makes a compelling argument for the need to address
anti-racism within Washington prisons and the larger criminal justice system that
contributes to these disparities. This factor also links to earlier discussion of
environmental justice struggles against racism, specifically within the context of mass
incarceration (Chapter 2).
A 2011 Preliminary Report on Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System
from the Task Force on Race and the Criminal Justice System at Seattle University’s
School of Law supplements the national and state study outlined above. This report found
that
65
“[I]n 1980, of all states, Washington had the highest rate of disproportionate
minority representation in its prisons. Today, minority racial and ethnic groups
remain disproportionately represented in Washington State‘s court, prison, and jail
populations, relative to their share of the state‘s general population. The fact of
racial and ethnic disproportionality in our criminal justice system is
indisputable.… [and that] much of the disproportionality is explained by facially
neutral policies that have racially disparate effects” (Beckett, Chang, Debro, FitzGerald, Flevaris, Gillmer, Harris, McCurley, Perez, Reasons, Whisner, and Wilson
2011, 1).
Beyond ‘neutral’ policies that produce unintentional inequalities, the disproportionally in
Washington’s rates of incarceration can also be explained by the “prevalence of racial
bias—whether explicit or implicit” (Beckett 2011, 2). Because race, particularly racial
stereotypes, play into the judgements and decisions made by human actors within the
criminal justice system, it is important to recognize the ways racial bias (often subtle) has
impacts that translate to observable social problems with time. This bias plays into the
many decision-making roles people fill within the context of the Prison Industrial
Complex (PIC).
Critical Resistance, a prison abolition movement, outlines the ‘Prison Industrial
Complex’ as a more accurate term for the criminal justice system, especially as ‘criminal’
and ‘justice’ are loaded terms within the U.S. context and State’s role in producing
injustice. This term also highlights the foundational relationship between punishment and
commerce (i.e. exploitation and capitalism). Funding towards prisons divert social and
economic issues to areas of punishment instead of dismantling root causes of these
problems. To this point, Herzing (2005) states that
“[S]evere cuts have been made to social safety nets, job markets are shrinking,
and many of this country's neediest people are facing increasingly limited access
to resources. This environment, combined with increasing surveillance and social
control of political dissidents and non-citizens and immigrants, a media feedingfrenzy on crime and punishment, and continued prison construction, for example,
66
create the perfect conditions for more of the targeted populations to get swept up
in the net of the prison industrial complex.”
Core components (alluded to within the above quote) of the PIC are criminalization,
media, surveillance, policing, courts, and most notably, prisons. Criminalization
contributes to who and what is categorized as ‘criminals’ and ‘crime’, reinforced through
use of media and government policy, and often reflects the problem of punishment as a
response to structural inequalities and a component of economic systems. Often those
painted as ‘criminal’ are poor people, people of color, people with mental illnesses, queer
people, political dissidents, and people without citizenship. For example, during the
prison boom that occurred since the 1980s, the number of women in U.S. prisons tripled.
Herzing (2005) says that prisons are the “ultimate expression of the Prison Industrial
Complex.”
Connecting racially disparate impacts of incarceration to functions of capitalism,
Angela Davis (1998) says that private capital has increasingly been tied to the ‘industry
of punishment’ and over time has become an important component of the U.S. economy.
This issue reflects much of what Michelle Alexander outlines as ‘the New Jim Crow’ and
how racist institutions are also tied to capitalist exploitation of workers and cheap labor.
While Davis emphasizes the significance of the for-profit prison industry and its visibility
in the mainstream, she also holds government contracts, the construction industry,
architectural designers, and military technology as significant components of the Prison
Industrial Complex. Some companies that use prison labor include IBM, Motorola,
Compaq, Texas Instruments, Honeywell, Microsoft, and Boeing, but she also argues that
many consumer products are tied to prison labor—specifically because global
67
corporations have realized cheap prison labor can be “as profitable as third world labor
exploited by U.S.-based companies” (Davis 1998).
Environmental Rights, Prisons and ‘Greenwashing’
A striking overlap between environmental justice and prisons can be seen in
examples including the State Correctional Institute-Fayette in Pennsylvania, state and
federal prisons in Colorado, New York’s Rikers Island Jail, and the Northwest Detention
Center in Washington State (Kirchner 2015). The first facility was built near an
abandoned coal mine ash dump—similar to environmental justice issues in
neighborhoods and the health risks associated with particulate matter in the air (toxic
exposure). Thirteen state and federal prisons in Colorado were built near wells with
radioactive waste contamination from uranium mining—posing health risks associated
with contaminated water. New York’s Rikers Island Jail is built on top of toxic soil,
contaminated by a waste landfill—echoing early environmental justice struggles in lowincome communities of color. And lastly, the Northwest Detention Center in Washington
which is located in a volcano hazard zone—a reflection of ‘sacrifice zones’ specific to
incarceration. Aside from the exposure prisoners and prison staff face from contaminated
locations, there are also ecological impacts of prison construction and operation. It is
useful to think about the relationship between prisons and prisoners as similar to rural and
urban communities. All communities have some level of ecological impact and exchange,
and this is no different for prisons and the people who live within their walls (Wright
2015).
68
In 2015, the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), publisher of Prison Legal
News, launched the Prison Ecology Project. The Prison Ecology Project seeks to report
and explore environmental issues linked to the construction and use of prison facilities.
This includes ecological and social impacts of constructing new facilities and operating
existing prisons, as well as environmental rights of incarcerated people. In a Prison Legal
News publication, Paul Wright touches on the clear connection between environmental
injustice in outside communities and in carceral spaces:
“If we recognize the problem with forcing people to live in close proximity to
toxic and hazardous environmental conditions, then why are we ignoring
prisoners who are forced to live in detention facilities impacted by such
conditions?” (Wright 2015).
While the inclusion of EJ within federal government can be seen as a success in
itself—a ‘trickle-up’ effect from the grassroots—the EPA and other groups have recently
been criticized for their ineffective use and implementation of EJ policies (Chapter 2).
They are also being called to expand their coverage to include protections for prisoners.
To date, prisoners hold essentially no environmental rights. No environmental rights
means there is no monitoring or regulation of potentially deadly contamination through
prison environments, jobs, and other areas of exposure. A prison sentence may also
encompass a sentence for poor health depending on the prison. EJ and social justice
groups, individuals, and emerging coalitions are petitioning the EPA’s Interagency
Working Group on Environmental Justice to include incarcerated people in their
Environmental Impact Statements (Figure 8). This EJ petition, endorsed by over 90 social
justice groups across the U.S., is the beginning of a national discussion around criminal
justice, ecology, and human rights.
69
Oddly, prison populations are included and excluded by various government
agencies. For example, the Prison Policy Initiative’s “Prison Gerrymandering Project”
has uncovered how the Census bureau includes prisoners in local town population
numbers. In these cases, even though prisoners hold no rights to vote (in almost all
states), the town received more representation based on population totals as well as
district benefits, while offering no real benefit to prisoners for this inclusion. Outside of
legislative and school district inclusion, agencies like the EPA do not include prison
populations in their work, therefore incarcerated people have been excluded from EPA
protection. The Prison Ecology Project has begun asking why these differences exist
between agencies and which populations are really benefitting or being excluded
(Kirchner 2015, Wright 2015).
FIGURE 8. Excerpt: EJ petition to EPA
70
HDRC and the Prison Ecology Project are among those currently pushing the
Environmental Protection Agency to include prisoners in environmental impact
statements of new prisons. Prisoners are not included in the EPA’s assessment of
potential environmental impacts, even though they are the most likely to be exposed to
impacts within the prison. And while prison construction projects have been appealing to
small town and rural communities in the past, the promises of local economic benefits
associated with new prisons have been realized as myths (Braz et al 2006). Many
neighborhoods never see the so-called economic opportunities that are often presented by
those pushing for new prisons. More and more groups are addressing these overlapping
issues of economic, environmental, social justice and the criminal justice system
(Kirchner 2015).
The Prison Ecology Project is citing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which
“forbids a government agency to use federal funds for anything that would result in racial
or ethnic discrimination” and assumes “pervasive discrimination and segregation in
American society, [and] measure[s] success by the eradication of the consequences of
racism regardless of individual motive” (Colopy 1994, 188). Justice statistics suggest that
WA-DOC is breaking Title VI laws with their above national average disparities in
incarceration rates of the black population in Washington (see WA Criminal Justice
Statistics). Panagioti Tsolkas, Director of the Prison Ecology Project, has argued the EPA
consider the environmental rights of prisoners and goes further to say that, according to
law, “you can’t construct something specifically using federal dollars if constructing that
would be an act of discrimination against a certain population…. which I think would
apply to every prison in the country” (Kirchner 2015). At the federal level, statistics show
71
that black and brown people are disproportionately impacted by every aspect of the
criminal justice system. These trends occur at the state level too and reinforce Tsolkas’s
argument.
At a recent panel, Ecology of the Police State, ideas around above mentioned
topics and the Prison Ecology Project were discussed in detail. The panel focused on how
prisons are linked to oppression, but also “to direct and indirect environmental
degradation and environmental racism, and are now being rebranded as part of a ‘green
economy’.” Within this panel, Paul Wright, editor and executive director of Prison Legal
News and Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) and formerly incarcerated person,
spoke directly to this issue as it relates to Stafford Creek Corrections Center in
Washington. He stated that prisons are often built in areas that have a history of
environmental exploitation such as mining and logging (Aberdeen, where SCCC is
located), and that once the trees and jobs are gone, prisons are proposed as a next option
for development and economic revitalization. He also backs early claims (Chapter 2) that
prison systems have begun co-opting rhetoric from the environmental movement and
considers this a component of greenwashing prisons. He used the earlier example of the
Department of Corrections showcasing LEED buildings and composting programs, but
presented this in simple terms: “exploiting 10 prisoners paid 10 cents an hour to
compost.”
The Ecology of a Police State panel focused their attention on the intersections
between “mass incarceration and the environmental degradation which occurs, directly
and indirectly, as a result of it, including
• the immediate impacts of pollution from these often-overpopulated human
warehouses,
72
• the environmental racism of where prisons are built and how they operate,
• the re-branding of prisons as part of a ‘green’ economy, and
• the use of prison as a tool for repressing ecological movements aimed at changing
the current political/economic system” (‘Ecology of the Police State 2015).
Primary Topics of Interest, Ecology of the Police State panel
Environmental justice (health and safety) for those incarcerated and those in
surrounding communities, prisons built on toxic waste sites, with contaminated
water supplies, etc.
General impact of prisons on water quality and quantity
Contamination due to sewage discharges from prisons
Impacts of prison construction, expansion and operation on plant and animal
species listed for protection
Prisoners’ participation in the environmental movement
Greenwashing of prisons via LEED certifications
TABLE 6. Primary topics of interest, panel on ‘Ecology of the Police State’
Recent reports have shown ecological damage from Washington State prison
operations and construction. A publication in Prison Legal News, titled Greenwashing
WA State’s Prison System in a River of Sewage (Anderson 2015), outlines several cases
of environmental pollution associated with state prisons. The publication focuses
particularly on waste spills at Monroe Correctional Complex in Monroe, Washington
dating back to the late 1990s. State records obtained by the Human Rights Defense
Center (HRDC) show that this one prison has dumped approximately half a million
gallons of sewage water and other contaminates into waterways and fields (Anderson
2015). Although the extent is unknown because even reports obtained by HRDC do not
disclose all instances of contamination, the prison has polluted surrounding rivers and
wetlands including the Skykomish River. This river is habitat for endangered salmon, an
73
important cultural connection for local Indigenous communities. It should also be noted
that DOC had no permits to release wastewater into the Skykomish, but were only
permitted to discharge to a local city’s sanitary sewer (ibid). The following excerpt
discusses overlapping social and ecological concerns related to this particular case, but
this brings up questions about similar issues as they relate to other Washington prisons,
the prisoners who reside in these facilities, and the conditions of human and non-human
residents in surrounding habitats:
“… In 2002, the EPA advised [the Washington Department of] Ecology it should
do something about a toilet facility on MCC’s Big Yard that was dumping human
waste directly into the Skykomish River. ‘Maintenance supervisors at Monroe
Correctional Center have been aware of this situation for some time and have not
chosen to comply with [the law],’ the EPA said in an advisory… Also, in 2006, the
EPA passed along this tip: ‘For the past 20 plus years the Monroe Correctional
Complex has had a firing range above the river and farm land. The military and
other law enforcement agencies use this also. Water runs down from this site into
the river and farmland below. The hillside that is shot into is full of lead [toxic], not
to mention new housing going in nearby this site.’ An Ecology inspector,
responding to his manager’s request to look into the lead threat, said it was
something they were unlikely to inspect until the range ceases operations, ‘or at
such time as ‘off-site’ impacts are identified…’ Little if any of this has been
reported by the local media. The general public may not care, or it simply might not
know…
Correctional institutions, the EPA said in an overview of prison ecology issues,
‘have many environmental matters to consider in order to protect the health of the
inmates, employees and the community where the prison is located. Some prisons
resemble small towns or cities with their attendant industries, population and
infrastructure. Supporting these populations, including their buildings and grounds,
requires heating and cooling, wastewater treatment, hazardous waste and trash
disposal, asbestos management, drinking water supply, pesticide use, vehicle
maintenance and power production, to name a few potential environmental
hazards.’ The EPA ‘has been inspecting correctional facilities to see how they are
faring. From the inspections, it is clear many prisons have room for improvement.”
Although EPA calls attention to these concerns above, they admitted “in 2015, when
HRDC requested inspection documents from the EPA… ‘We haven’t done a prison
inspection in several years now’” (Anderson 2015).
74
The Washington State Department of Ecology (referred to as WA-ECY or
Ecology) has investigated several spills and issued warnings or notices of violation, but
because they do not hold much enforcement power, have not charged the Department of
Corrections for all cases of ecological damage (Anderson 2015). Anderson (2015) and
Dannenburg (2007) does take note of a few cases where the WA-DOC was fined for
misconduct related to pollution, but argues that financial penalties does not necessarily
mean that the problem was then solved. For example, in 2004, DOC was fined by
Ecology for falsifying 20 of 36 water pollution reports (1999-2002) at the now closed
McNeil Island Corrections Center. The prison facility released illegal amounts of
contaminated wastewater into Puget Sound and falsified documents to cover up the extent
of pollution (ibid). Additionally, the Department of Ecology has issued air and water
pollution violations at Walla Walla State Penitentiary. Inspectors found that prison waste
discharges had affected 17 groundwater wells serving 10,000 citizens in surrounding
communities. The Prison Legal News article about these cases of ecological damage and
contamination of surrounding water supplies also bring up a concerning issue of
enforcement between the Department of Ecology and WA State Department of
Corrections and issues of transparency. A 2012 email from an ECY official states, “I was
told it wouldn’t look good for a state agency to enforce on another state agency. I think it
makes us look pretty bad when we overlook the environmental issues for them and
enforce on others…”
While this thesis specifically focuses on prisons in Washington State, issues of
overlapping ecological and human impacts of prisons are found across the country. In a
2007 article, Prison Legal News said “crumbling, overcrowded prisons and jails
75
nationwide were leaking environmentally dangerous effluents not just inside the
facilities, but into local rivers, water tables and community water supplies.” Examples
include prisons across California, in Georgia, New York, and Massachusetts. Some
contamination has led to cases of disease among prisoners subjected to these conditions
either in their living units or work areas (Anderson 2015). What are the impacts for
people inside prisons (an often non-transparent space of environmental injustice where
people are uniquely marginalized)?
Another environmental issue recently brought to attention surrounding
Washington prisons is greenwashing. Greenwashing is “when an agency or company
spends more [money, time, energy, etc…] on marketing and public relations to promote
the perception they are environmentally conscious than they spend on implementing
environmentally conscious practices and policies” (Anderson 2015, emphasis added).
The ‘Green Prison Paradox’ expands the argument against greenwashing to co-optation
of green movement language and marginalization of abolitionist arguments. Bringing
attention to greenwashing, Anderson (2015) cites cases of WA-DOC promoting
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Gold certified construction and
practices while also polluting local ecosystems with little to no accountability (a few
examples earlier). They also mention several overlapping issues of human rights. One
particularly significant case being the continued use of solitary confinement, despite it
being considered cruel and unusual punishment, within prisons that go ignored while the
DOC promotes ‘green’ practices in those very same prisons. An April 2008 Prison Legal
News article reported, “rain-fed toilets or not, IMU [Intensive Management Unit or
solitary confinement] prisoners were still being ‘locked in their 8-by-12 foot cells 24
76
hours a day, with a nominal one hour of ‘recreation’ outside the cell five days a week.
They are allowed 15-minute showers three times a week. Prisoners are observed 24 hours
a day from an elevated, hi-tech control room and the 172 security cameras, placed
throughout the 77,000 square foot building. Prisoners are limited to six months in the
segregation unit, but can stay in IMU indefinitely” (ibid). According to a Prison Legal
News article, Washington developed a $500 million prison expansion program all while
greening buildings across the state over a span of four years.
________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER 5—CONCLUSION
Throughout this thesis study, I outlined basic connections between environmental
justice and prisons through a review of scholarly literature and a mixed methods, critical
analysis. Survey analysis from a case study of SPP found that some components of their
environmental education programs offer space for environmental justice as it relates to
incarcerated people. Prisoners who completed surveys showed high capacities of
learning, knowledge retention, and pro-environmental interests related to the
environment, environmental topics, and discussing the two with their peers. Justice
statistics revealed disproportionate incarceration rates in Washington—black people are
incarcerated at a higher rate than white people—and actually showed an even wider gap
between rates of imprisonment than national averages. Recent reports have also
addressed environmental agencies’ lack of protection for prisoners, ecological damage
from prison operation and construction, and attempts to greenwash prisons. Groups
77
including the Prison Ecology Project, EJ and anti-prisons coalitions, are petitioning EPA
to include prisoner protections and prison environmental regulations while
simultaneously exposing contamination and human rights violations. Future studies could
dive deeper into studying the environmental impacts of prisons operated by the
Washington Department of Corrections within the larger context of the Prison Industrial
Complex. It is also important for critical scholars to address and problematize injustices
within mass incarceration. Kurtz argues that the State’s use of racial categories truncates
the everyday, lived experiences of people of color—an important point for consideration
related to criminal justice and mass incarceration statistics and ‘hard data’.
Textual analysis of Prison Legal News and the Prison Ecology Project suggest
greenwashing to be an important phenomenon for consideration. It would be worthwhile
for future researchers to ask whether this phenomenon is applicable to the Sustainability
in Prisons Project. In some ways, SPP’s environmental education programs address
distributional justice (environmental programs/goods for marginalized populations),
procedural and participatory justice (feedback and decision-making within programs),
and rights-based justice (access to education and resources); however, within the context
of mass incarceration, SPP is limited by not being a justice-centered organization and not
all of their programs offer the EJ components mentioned above. I argue that SPP is
building potential for environmental justice inside prisons, but also has room for critique
and improvement within the larger context of mass incarceration and the Prison Industrial
Complex. If studies are to look further into greenwashing, it is important to do so through
an EJ lens by also considering how co-opting grassroots ideas may be a way of “EJ-
78
washing” (a mixture of greenwashing and whitewashing, co-opting both environmental
and anti-racist language without substantive follow-through) within oppressive systems.
In order to gauge potential for environmental justice in prisons, I discussed an
environmental education program offered through SPP at multiple WA prisons. Survey
results found that prisoners arrived at lectures with a relatively high level of
environmental knowledge, and left the classroom having gained additional knowledge on
the specific lecture topics. Lecture topics are different each month, and thus incarcerated
students are acquiring broad and diverse environmental content knowledge. These
findings apply to all years of the Lecture Series from 2009-2014. Most people in prison
who attend a lecture report a fairly high level of environmental interest before the lecture
even starts, and most of them do not shift in that attitude after one day of attendance. For
incarcerated students who do report a shift after the lecture, it is far more likely to be a
pro-environmental shift. Pro-environmental shifts are strongest in relation to the lecture
topic itself, rather than environmental issues in general. More broadly, from 2011 to 2014
attitudes steadily shifted towards the pro-environmental end of the scale; this potentially
points to the cumulative impact of the lecture series, Roots of Success, and other
sustainability programs WCCW and SCCC began offering throughout their facilities over
the years. This study is the first to support SPP’s subjective sense that prisons with SPP
programs are developing an environmentally-positive culture. This multi-year trend
towards greater environmental interest and engagement suggests a shift in prison culture
that coincides with the push for sustainability programming at WCCW and SCCC. As a
collaborative, reform-oriented state agency, this trend support’s SPP’s theory of change
79
and broad focus on long-term goals of making prisons less harmful to people and the
environment.
By including guest lecturers within SPP’s educational style, the lecture series
works towards the goal of offering more opportunities for prisoners in the process of
breaking down harmful stereotypes of prisoners as unaware, uneducated and/or
unsustainable. Data support the idea that prisoners, particularly those who attend the SPP
lecture series, are generally aware of and literate in environmental basics within a wide
range of topics. Since lectures are different each month and lecturers come from diverse
professions and experiences, material includes a spectrum of introductory to advanced
education, including graduate level lectures. Surveys suggest that lecture topics
encourage prisoners to learn more and discuss ideas with their peers. This addresses
harmful stereotypes of prisoners as anti-social reflected in other discourse. There is much
more complexity to people who are incarcerated than what is commonly portrayed in
public discussions and decision-making. Programs in prisons should reflect this by
offering diverse program opportunities for environmental engagement, participation,
decision-making and future interests.
SPP functions similarly to a non-profit, but is a sustainability-focused state
agency—a partnership between two state agencies (Washington Department of
Corrections and the Evergreen State College). For this reason and others explored within
this research, it is important to consider ways of bringing more grassroots environmental
justice focus to their programming. It is also important for them to address racial,
economic and social injustice within the prison system, lack of accountability between
state agencies, and how programming for and by prisoners can counteract those impacts
80
while progressive criminal justice reform and/or abolition goals move forward. As
Richard Ford states, “race-neutral policy could be expected to entrench segregation and
socio-economic stratification in a society with a history of racism” (Cole and Foster
2001, 67). Cole and Foster add to this, “Unfortunately we do not live in a colorblind
world, nor one in which legal rules and social actions have eliminated either the vestiges
of historical racism or even all of the current manifestations of racism.” They say this is
“just the beginning of understanding environmental injustice or racism” and I hope this
thesis helps to expand that discussion (Cole et al, 79).
Just sustainability offers an existing alternative to current government agencies
and policies that work with limited definitions of sustainability and environmental justice.
As outlined earlier (Chapter 2), a justice-oriented framework is called for in order to
address overlapping ecological and social issues; therefore government agencies that are
already encouraged to consider environmental justice in their decision-making and
functioning under Executive Order 12898, could take this approach when providing
public services and goods. Even though, as Agyeman and others point out, there have
been historical and geographical differences in the origins and use of the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP) and the Environmental Justice Paradigm (NJP), there is
overlapping compatibility between the two along areas of theory, conceptualization and
practice (Agyeman et al 2004).
Agyeman et. al. (2004) calls the overlap between these two paradigms ‘just
sustainability’. They claim just sustainability is an evolving cooperation between
environmental justice and sustainability and has far-reaching use within current
sustainability work, particularly in NGOs and government agencies. This calls for equal
81
focus on equity, justice, fair policy and environment broadly defined (ibid 2004, 160163). In the European Union (EU), just sustainability is seen as a top-down approach that
is compatible with the local, bottom-up nature of environmental justice. Agyeman et. al.
(2004) says that this complementary relationship is helping to create a ‘policy
architecture’ that supports ecological sustainability and broader areas of “justice, equity
and governance” simultaneously. This may be a helpful concept for the WA State
Sustainability in Prisons Project, a government organization; but just sustainability’s topdown focus should be emphasized as it is not compatible with environmental justice
unless bottom-up practices and grassroots people are included and justice is central.
Future research could explore EJ related to other SPP programs, the
organization’s structure and procedures, and various other aspects of the organization. As
one of few programs that offers environmental programs inside prisons, they play an
important role in creating change within the criminal justice system. Researchers could
also explore more EJ-focused questions, but for the sake of this study, I was limited to
those questions already provided on the SPP surveys. It is also worth mentioning that
prisoner surveys must go through Human Subjects Review since incarcerated people are
a uniquely marginalized and vulnerable community. Justice-centered analysis should also
consider how prisoners benefit from surveys and should not just be used to extract
knowledge about people or evaluate programs in prison. This analysis was also limited to
SPP evaluation strategies and future research could compare surveys in different ways
(outside of pre-/post-lecture, quantitative analysis). Survey bias may also play into the
survey results, as some prisoners may respond to questions based on what they speculate
SPP to consider as the ‘correct’ answer. This is important to the discussion of power
82
dynamics, as SPP researchers and staff hold privilege and power in their relationships
with incarcerated people, within carceral spaces.
Seeing how environmental justice applies beyond this study would help further
develop the connection between prisons and justice-centered environmentalism. While
this thesis focuses on the unique opportunity just sustainability offers to government
agencies, future research should explore limitations through an abolitionist lens. For
example, within Agyeman’s description of just sustainability, one must also question the
placement of environmental justice within a sustainability framework. Why not the other
way around? Is government use of grassroots language/movements simply co-optation of
marginalized struggles? How can government agencies that participate in marginalization
and violence against people of color and poor people substantially address injustice? On
multiple levels, it is crucial to address the question of what exactly is being sustained.
83
Bibliography
Abel, Troy, and Jonah White (2011). "Skewed Riskscapes and Gentrified Inequities:
Environmental Exposure Disparities in Seattle, Washington." American Journal
of Public Health 101.S1: S246-254. Research and Practice.
Agyeman, Julian, and Bob Evans (2004). "'Just Sustainability': The Emerging Discourse
of Environmental Justice in Britain?" The Geographical Journal Geographical J
170.2: 155-64.
Agyeman, Julian, and Tom Evans (2003). "Toward Just Sustainability in Urban
Communities: Building Equity Rights with Sustainable Solutions." The Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science Ann Am Acad Polit Ss
590.1: 35-53.
Alexander, Michelle (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of
Colorblindness. Jackson, TN: New York print.
Anderson, Rick (2015). "Greenwashing Washington State's Prison System in a River of
Sewage." Human Rights Defense Center, Prison Ecology Project. Nation Inside.
Bamberg, S. and G. Möser. (2007). “Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera:
A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental
behaviour.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 27: 14-25.
Beckett, Katherine, Robert Chang, Julius Debro, Kerry Fitz-Gerald,, Taki Flevaris, Jason
Gillmer, Alexes Harris, Carl McCurley, David Perez, Charles Reasons, Mary
Whisner, and Stephanie Wilson (2011). “Preliminary Report on Race and
Washington’s Criminal Justice System.” Seattle, WA. Task Force on Race and the
Criminal Justice System C/o Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality
Seattle University School of Law.
Braz, Rose and Craig Gilmore. (2006) "Joining Forces: Prisons and Environmental
Justice in Recent California Organizing." Radical History Review 96: 95-111.
Brown P. (1995). “Race, class and environmental health: a review and systemization of
the literature.” Environ. Res. 69:15–30
Bryant B, Mohai P, eds. (1992). “Race and the Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A
Time for Discourse.” Boulder, CO: Westview
Bucklen, K.B. and G. Zajac (2009). “But some of them don’t come back (to prison)!
Resource deprivation and thinking errors as determinants of parole success and
failure.” The Prison Journal 89(3): 239-264.
84
Bullard RD, Mohai P, Saha R, Wright B. (2007). “Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty
1987–2007: Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the
United States.” Cleveland, OH: United Church Christ Justice Witness Ministry.
Bullard, Robert D. (1990) Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality.
Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Bullard, Robert, Paul Mohai, Robin Saha, and Beverly Wright (2007). "Toxic Wastes and
Race at Twenty 1987-2007: A Report Prepared for the United Church of Christ
Justice & Witness Ministries." United Church of Christ.
Cole, Luke W. and Sheila R. Foster (2001). From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism
and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York: New York
University Press.
Colopy J (1994) The road less traveled: Pursuing environmental justice through Title VI.
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 13:125–171.
Cutter, S. L (1995). “Race, class and environmental justice.” Progress in Human
Geography 19 (1):111- 122.
Dannenberg, John (2007). "Prison Drinking Water and Wastewater Pollution Threaten
Environmental Safety Nationwide." Prison Legal News.
Davis, Angela Y (1998). "Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial
Complex." Corporate Watch: Feature Human Rights Case Studies Prisons.
ColorLines.
Davis, Lois M., Robert Bozick, Jennifer Steele, Jessica Saunders, and Jeremy N.V Miles
(2013). "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education A Meta-Analysis
of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults." Rand Corporation:
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
"Ecology of a Police State" (2015). Conference Panel. Public Interest Environmental Law
Conference.
England, Kim. (2014) "Producing Feminist Geographies: Theory, Methodologies and
Research Strategies." Approaches to Human Geography (2014): 361-72.
Evans, G. W., and E. Kantrowitz (2002). “Socioeconomic Status and Health: The
Potential Role of Environmental Risk Exposure.” Annual Review of Public
Health 23:303-31.
Faber, D. and McCarthy, D. (2003). “Neo-liberalism, globalization, and the struggle for
ecological democracy: linking sustainability and environmental justice.” In: J.
85
Agyeman, R.D. Bullard, and B. Evans, eds. Just sustainabilities: development in
an unequal world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 38–63.
Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Report (2015). Olympia, WA. Sustainability in Prisons Project
(SPP).
Ford, Chandra L., and Collins O. Airhihenbuwa (2010). “Critical Race Theory, Race
Equity, and Public Health: Toward Antiracism Praxis.” American Journal of
Public Health 100.Suppl 1: S30–S35. PMC.
Gallagher, Brittany E (2013). "Science and Sustainability Programs in Prisons: Assessing
the Effects of Participation on Inmates." Thesis. The Evergreen State College.
Ghandnoosh, Nazgol (2015). "Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequality in the
Criminal Justice System." The Sentencing Project.
Graham H and White R (2015) “Greening justice.” In: Graham H and White R Innovative
Justice. London: Routledge, 54–72.
Heiman, M. K (1996). “Race, Waste, and Class: New Perspectives on Environmental
Justice.” Antipode 28 (2):111-121.
Herzing, Rachel (2005). "What Is the Prison Industrial Complex?" Defending Justice: An
Activist Toolkit, Political Research Associates (PRA). Critical Resistance.
Hines, J.M., H.R. Hungerford, and A. Tomera (1987). “Analysis and synthesis of
research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis.” The Journal of
Environmental Education 18(2): 1-8.
Jewkes, Yvonne, and Dominique Moran (2015). "The Paradox of the 'green' Prison:
Sustaining the Environment or Sustaining the Penal Complex?" Theoretical
Criminology 19.4: 451-69. Web.
Kirchner, Lauren (2015). "Environmental Justice for Prisoners." Pacific Standard.
Klein, Naomi (2015). Climate Justice March, Seattle. October. Speech.
Kurtz, Hilda E (2009). "Acknowledging the Racial State: An Agenda for Environmental
Justice Research." Antipode 41.4: 684-704.
Leach, Melissa, Robin Mearns, and Ian Scoones (1999). “Environmental entitlements:
Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management.”
World Development 27 (2).
Low, N., and B. Gleeson (1998). “Situating justice in the environment: The case of BHP
at the Ok Tedi Copper Mine.” Antipode 30 (3):201+.
86
Lord C and Shutkin W (1994) Environmental justice and the use of history. Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review 22:1–26.
Mauer, Marc, and Ryan King (2007). "Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by
Race and Ethnicity." The Sentencing Project.
Milfont, T.L. and V.V. Gouveia (2006). “Time perspective and values: An exploratory of
their relations to environmental attitudes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
26(1): 72-82.
Mohai P, Lanz P, Morenoff J, House J, Mero RP. (2009). “Racial and socioeconomic
disparities in residential proximity to polluting industrial facilities: evidence from
the Americans’ Changing Lives Study.” Am. J. Public Health. 99: In press
Mohai, P., Pellow, D., and Timmons Roberts, J. (2009). “Environmental justice.” Annual
Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 405–430.
Montague, Peter (1998). “The Precautionary Principle.” Rachel’s Environment and
Health News 586, February.
Morello-Frosch R (2002) Discrimination and the political economy of environmental
inequality. Environment and Planning C–Government and Policy 20(4):477–496.
Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant (1994). “Racial Formation in the United States.” New
York, London: Routledge.
Pulido L (1996) “A critical review of the methodology of environmental racism
research.” Antipode 28(2):142–159
Pulido L (2000) “Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban
development in Southern California.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90(1):12–41
Pulido L,Sidawi S,Vos RO (1996). “An archaeology of environmental racism in Los
Angeles.” Urban Geography. 17:419–39
Principles of Environmental Justice. (1991) Proc. of First National People of Color
Environmental Leadership Summit.
Romm, Jeff (2002). “The Coincidental Order of Environmental Justice. In Justice and
Natural Resources”, edited by K. M. Mutz, G. C. Bryner and D. S. Kenney.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
"Roots of Success” (2009-2016). Berkeley, CA. rootsofsuccess.org
87
Sen, Amartya (1981). “Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation.”
New York: Oxford University Press.
Schlosberg, David. (2013) "Theorising Environmental Justice: The Expanding Sphere of
a Discourse." Environmental Politics 22.1: 37-55.
Sustainability in Prisons Project (2016). sustainabilityinprisons.org
Szasz, Andrew, and Michael Meuser (1997). “Environmental Inequalities: Literature
Review and Proposals for New Directions in Research and Theory.” Current
Sociology 45 (3): 99-120.
Taylor, Dorcetta E (2000). "The Rise of the Environmental Justice Paradigm: Injustice
Framing and the Social Construction of Environmental Discourses." American
Behavioral Scientist 43.4: 508-80.
Turner, Robin Lanette., and Diana Pei Wu (2002). “Environmental Justice and
Environmental Racism: An Annotated Bibliography and General Overview
Focusing on U.S. Literature, 1996-2002.” Institute of International Studies, U of
California, Berkeley. Bibliography (Berkeley Workshop on Environmental
Politics).
Van Vugt & Samuelson (1999). “The impact of metering in a natural resource crisis: A
social dilemma analysis.” Personality and social psychology bulletin 25: 731-745.
Walker, Gordon P. (2012) Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence and Politics.
London: Routledge.
Weber, Sarah R., Marc P. Hayes, Tiffany Webb, and Carri J. Leroy (2015).
"Environmental Education in Prison: A Comparison of Teaching Methods and
Their Influence on Inmate Attitudes and Knowledge of Environmental Topics."
Interdisciplinary Environmental Review IER 16.2/3/4: 267.
White, Rob, and Hannah Graham (2015). “Greening Justice: examining the interfaces of
criminal, social, and ecological justice.” BRIT. J. CRIMINOL 55: 845-65. Oxford
University Press on Behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
Wright, Paul (2015). "Re: Comment on the Inclusion of Prisoner Populations in EPA’s
Draft Framework for EJ 2020 Action Agenda." Executive Director, Human
Rights Defense Center.
88
89
Appendix
SURVEY SAMPLES
A.
True or False. Please answer the questions below by circling the best
answer.
1. Since its beginning, the conservation nursery has successfully cultivated
over 1 million plants.
TRUE
FALSE
UNSURE
2. We are restoring the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly population in
Washington because it is pretty to look at.
TRUE
FALSE
UNSURE
3. Amphibians are an indicator species and one reason is that they take in
their surrounding water by breathing through their skin.
TRUE
FALSE
UNSURE
Neutral
Likely
Seek information on the
environment?
1
2
3
4
5
Seek information on [the lecture
topic]?
1
2
3
4
5
Talk to another inmate about issues
related to the environment?
1
2
3
4
5
Very
Likely
Unlikely
Very
Unlikely
B. How likely are you to…
90
Talk to another inmate about [the
lecture topic]?
1
2
3
4
5
SURVEY/ ANALYSIS KEY
Term/Acronym
Definition
WCCW
Washington Corrections Center for Women
(Gig Harbor, WA)
SCCC
Stafford Creek Corrections Center (Aberdeen,
WA)
BEFORE
Answers from pre-lecture survey
AFTER
Answers from post-lecture survey
Q1 = Question 1
How likely are you to… seek information on
the environment?
Q2 = Question 2
How likely are you to… seek information on
the lecture topic?
Q3 = Question 3
How likely are you to… talk to another inmate
about issues related to the environment?
Q4 = Question 4
How likely are you to… talk to another inmate
about issues related to the lecture topic?
Likert Scale
Attitude scale common to survey-based
research. In response to Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4,
the scale of 1 to 5 represents likelihood:
1 = very unlikely
2 = unlikely
3 = neutral
4 = likely
5 = very likely
Negative Shift = AntiEnvironmental Shift
Comparing pre-and post-lecture surveys
shows a shift in attitude towards 1 on Likert
Scale.
Positive Shift = Pro-Environmental Comparing pre-and post-lecture surveys
Shift
shows a shift in attitude towards 5 on Likert
Scale.
91
No Attitude Shift
Reported same attitude on Likert pre- and
post-lecture surveys
Asterisk (*)
Represents statistical significance
SUSTAINABILITY IN PRISONS PROJECT: WA STATE PROGRAMS
(sustainabilityinprisons.org 2016)
AIRWAY
HEIGHTS
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
CEDAR CREEK
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
Roots of Success, environmental literacy course
Gardens – 60-70 inmate gardeners, 34,000 lbs grown
for the kitchen in 2013, 1000 lbs grown for Second
Harvest Food Bank in the summer of 2015
Pawsitive dog training – prison program: dog training
and adoption, partnering with Diamonds in the Ruff
and SpokAnimal
Waste sorting and recycling
Workshops
Master Gardening classes
Food waste composting (shipped offsite to commercial
composter); developing a bark composting program
Firewood donation program – partnering with SNAP
Spokane; cut and delivered 303 cords of wood to low
income and senior citizens last cold season (20122013); on track to donate 800 cords this cold season
LEED Silver certification for two buildings
Nature imagery in maximum security mental health
area
Computer refurbishing: fixing up donated computers
for non-profits
Beekeeping: bee colony collapse research, honey
collection, manufacturing lotion and lip balms from
beeswax, one-time beekeeping certification for staff
and inmates
Large-scale, in-vessel composting; inmate’s story on
composting
Vermicomposting
Endangered species conservation and certificate
program: western pond turtle rehabilitation,
partnership with Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Woodland Park Zoo, and PAWS
Prairie restoration crew, partnership with Center for
Natural Lands Management, Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
Washington Department of Natural Resources,
92
CLALLAM BAY
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
COYOTE RIDGE
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Zoo, Pacific Rim Institute
for Environmental Stewardship, Whidbey-Camano
Land Trust, Friends of Puget Prairies, Wolf Haven
International, and City of Steilacoom
Gardens
Horticulture program with vocational college credits,
partnership with Centralia College
Pet program: dog training for veterans, dog training
and adoption, partnership with Brigadoon Service Dogs
Waste sorting and recycling
Tilapia and aquaponics
Water reduction and catchment
LEED certified Perimeter Control Office, new
construction
Workshops
Woodshop projects with reclaimed wood, partnership
with DNR Urban & Community Forestry Program
Gardens: growing for the prison kitchen
Dog training and adoption, partnership with Welfare
for Animals Guild (WAG!)
Composting: developing in-vessel system on site
Waste sorting and recycling
Roots of Success, environmental literacy course
Developing waste water heat recapture program,
partnership with the Center for Sustainable
Infrastructure
Green Building and Carpentry, partnership with
Peninsula College
Gardens
Dog training and adoption: Ridge Dogs, partnership
with Benton Franklin Humane Society, Adams County
Pet Rescue and Forgotten Dogs Rescue; new kitten
program!
Food waste composting (shipped offsite to commercial
composter; large-scale in vessel system in
development)
Waste sorting and recycling
LEED Gold certified campus
Craft (teddy bear) donations, made from salvaged
materials
Roots of Success, environmental literacy course
93
LARCH
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
MISSION CREEK
CORRECTIONS
CENTER FOR
WOMEN
MONROE
CORRECTIONAL
COMPLEX
Conservation nursery for native sagebrush, partnership
with the Bureau of Land Management and the Institute
for Applied Ecology
Gardens
Food bank crop donations, partnership with Clark
County Food Bank
Wood Craft donations, from donated and salvaged
wood
Larch Cat Adoption Program, partnership with West
Columbia Gorge Humane Society and Humane Society
for Southwest Washington
Large-scale, in-vessel composting
Waste sorting and recycling
House plants in living units, in cells and in dorm
windows
First Washington State prison to eliminate trash can
liners
Waste reduction led by kitchen staff
Endangered species conservation and certificate
program: Western pond turtle rehabilitation (brand
new!), partnership with Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Zoo, and PAWS
Endangered species conservation and certificate
program: Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly rearing and
release, partnership with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Joint Base
Lewis-McChord, and the Oregon Zoo
Gardens; grew 2,500 pounds of vegetables for the
prison kitchen in 2015!
Small-scale composting
Waste sorting and recycling
Water use reduction & water catchment
Pawsitive Prison Project: cat adoption program,
partnership with Kitsap Humane Society
Workshops
Project Feeder Watch: bird identification and data
collection
LEED Silver Certified living unit, new construction
Salmon habitat restoration, partnership with Hood
Canal Salmon Enhancement Group
Vermiculture and vermicomposting, partnership with
City of Monroe, supply worm program start up at other
prisons and Fircrest Residential Habilitation Center
94
OLYMPIC
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
STAFFORD
CREEK
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
Developing Sustainable Practices Lab, to include: bike
repair, wheelchair repair, and woodshop
Science and Sustainability Lecture Series
Gardens & greenhouses
Pet program: dog program in partnership with Summit
Assistance Dogs; cat training and adoption in
partnership with Purrfect Pals
Composting
Waste sorting and recycling: large-scale with pick-line
Recycling and repurposing wood, donations to Monroe
Senior Center
Water use reduction and water catchment
Bicycle repair, partnership with Snohomish County
Sheriff’s Office
Medical equipment refurbishment
LEED-Certified Buildings: Three buildings at Monroe
Correctional Complex are either rated gold or silver
Gardens
Horticulture program, partnership with Peninsula
College
Pet program: dog training and adoption, partnership
with Olympic Peninsula Humane Society
Large-scale, in-vessel composting (including waste
from Clallam Bay Corrections Center)
Waste sorting and recycling
Green Building and Carpentry, partnership with
Peninsula College
Wood recycling and repurposing, partnership with
Westport Shipyard and donations benefiting Quillayute
Valley School District
Water use reduction and water catchment
Ponds for every living unit!
Beekeeping
Birdhouses
Large-scale, in-vessel composting
SPP’s first Conservation nursery for rare and
endangered prairie plants, partnership with Center for
Natural Lands Management, Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
Washington Department of Natural Resources,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Oregon Zoo, Pacific Rim Institute
for Environmental Stewardship, Whidbey-Camano
Land Trust, Friends of Puget Prairies, and Wolf Haven
International
95
WASHINGTON
CORRECTIONS
CENTER
WASHINGTON
CORRECTIONS
CENTER FOR
WOMEN
Gardens
Greenhouses
Pet programs: Freedom Tails, partnership with Harbor
Association of Volunteers for Animals (HAVA); and dog
training for veterans, partnership with Brigadoon
Service Dogs
Waste sorting and recycling: large-scale with pick-line
Water use reduction and water catchment
Bicycle repair, partnership with local Lions Club
Science and Sustainability lecture series
Medical equipment refurbishment, partnership with
Joni and Friends: Wheels for the World
Roots of Success, environmental literacy course
Large-scale, in-vessel composting
Extensive gardens
Food bank crop donations, partnerships with Thurston
County Food Bank, The Saint’s Pantry Food Bank, The
City Reach Food Bank, and The Shelton Community
Kitchen
Waste sorting and recycling
House plants in nearly every common area
Shoe and clothing re-purposing and recycling,
partnership with Correctional Industries
Conservation nursery for seed production of rare and
endangered prairie plants and horticultural program,
partnership with Centralia College, Center for Natural
Lands Management, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Horticulture program, partnership with Centralia
College
Nature Imagery program in the Skill Building Unit (in
development for the Intensive Management Unit)
Science and Sustainability Lecture Series
Conservation nursery for rare and endangered prairie
plants, partnership with Center for Natural Lands
Management, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
Department of Natural Resources, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Oregon Zoo, Pacific Rim Institute for
Environmental Stewardship, Whidbey-Camano Land
Trust, Friends of Puget Prairies, and Wolf Haven
International
Gardens – partnership with WSU Extension, Pierce
County
96
WASHINGTON
STATE
PENITENTIARY
Horticulture program with vocational college credits,
partnership with Tacoma Community College
Pet Program: Prison Pet Partnership
Bee keeping, including certification process for inmate
beekeepers, partnership with Mother Earth Farm
Chickens!
Large-scale, in-vessel composting
Waste sorting and recycling
Science and Sustainability lecture series
Rare species conservation program: Pacific Northwest
Monarch butterfly captive rearing, release, and
tracking, partnership with Washington State University
Department of Entomology
Gardens
Rental garden boxes (for inmates’ personal use)
Beekeeping
Pet Program: dog training and adoption and cat
training and adoption (Kittens in the Klink), both in
partnership with the Blue Mountain Humane Society
Waste sorting and recycling: large-scale with pick-line
Hazardous waste reduction by 95%
Sustainable Practices Lab: furniture repair,
vermicomposting, bicycle and medical equipment
refurbishment, fabric and wood re-use, cultural crafts,
quilt and teddy bear creations, sign shop, and TED talk
videos
Roots of Success, environmental literacy course
97
SUSTAINABILITY IN PRISONS PROJECT
FISCAL YEAR 2015 REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
SUSTAINABILITY FOCUS: ecological
ESSENTIAL
COMPONENTS
PROGRAM
AREAS
Partnerships
and
collaborations
with multiple
benefits
education
and
training
Bringing
nature
“inside”
social
economic
Engagement Safe and
Evaluation,
and
sustainable tracking and
education operations dissemination
conservation sustainable
and
operations
scientific
research
community
contributions
evaluation
Education and Training (sustainabilityinprisons.org)
In today’s economy, green-collar workers—people with expertise
in ecology, energy efficiency and Earth-friendly development—are
in increasingly high demand for their skills. This includes
vocational and trade-level workers: carpenters who construct
green buildings, weatherization specialists, installers of solar
panels and wind turbines, ecological research assistants, organic
farmers, beekeepers, and others.
The Sustainability in Prisons Project inspires and trains inmates
and correctional staff through guest lectures, an environmental
literacy program, and hands-on workshops. Activities are geared
toward improving prison sustainability while connecting
participants to the larger world of scientific research and
conservation. Topics have included plant and wildlife ecology,
sustainable agriculture, urban horticulture, alternative energy, and
building with recycled materials. We introduce inmates to
educational and employment opportunities that they may pursue
after release, a critical factor for reducing recidivism according to
the Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
98
Education Programs
Education is integral to SPP’s programs; our aim is to make the most of formal and
informal opportunities for education, and to offer new knowledge and new
practice to inmates, staff, and all partners. SPP programs dedicated to education as
a central focus include our Science and Sustainability Lecture Series, an
environmental literacy course called Roots of Success, and those community
college programs related to nature and/or sustainability.
Community College Courses
CCCC, MCC, WCC, and WCCW offer vocational horticultural classes, and those
students gain access to classroom instruction and hands-on work in those prisons
extensive gardens. At CCCC, horticulture graduates may be hired as Teaching
Assistants who largely oversee the greenhouses, aquaculture program, and many
fields. At MCC, the students interface with the vermicomposting program which
has a robust scientific basis. At WCC, the students also participate in SPP’s
conservation nursery, producing seeds of a prairie violet essential to rare and
endangered butterflies in the region. WCCW’s students have access to diverse
specialties such as flower arrangements, house plants, and farming.
Through a partnership with Peninsula College, CBCC and OCC recently started
offering Green Building and Carpentry. Other facilities also have vocational
building programs that include green building modules.
In FY15, SPP met with Brian Walsh, former instructor at CBCC, and now the Policy
Associate for Corrections Education at Washington State Board for Community
and Technical Colleges. We share interest in creating more sustainability-related
vocational programs. Planning is in progress for an arboriculture education
program, leveraging the expertise of DNR’s Community Forestry program.
SPP Staff and Organization
There are many corrections, academic, conservation, and community organization
staff contributing the success of SPP; however this chart is limited to core staff at
WDOC and Evergreen. For the majority of FY15, SPP was co- directed by Dr. Carri
LeRoy from Evergreen and Mr. Dan Pacholke from WDOC. In April 2015, Mr. Steve
Sinclair assumed the Director role for the WDOC side of the partnership. SPP CoFounder Dan Pacholke transitioned from his role as Director to SPP Senior Advisor
for Corrections. The organization currently includes three Senior Advisors, four
staff, and nine program coordinators.
Program Coordinator positions are staffed by Evergreen students working 19
hours per week. Student- staff are typically recruited from the Evergreen Master of
Environmental Studies graduate program and work for two year terms. Each
summer several students complete their work with SPP and new students begin.
Two individuals not named on the chart below worked in conservation nursery
coordinator positions for SPP during FY15.
99
Partnerships
Partnerships and collaboration are an essential component of SPP work and
nearly every SPP program. We continually work to identify new potential partners
and mutually beneficial programs. A working list of SPP partnerships is included
as Appendix 3; during FY15 at least 60 different organizations contributed to SPP
programs in WA.
Funding
The WDOC contract made up approximately 40% of SPP funding in FY15. The
percentage of SPP funding provided by WDOC varies from month to month as
other funding sources become available or close. In FY15, SPP had just under
$500,000 in funds from 11 different sources, including our WDOC contract.
Roots of Success
Roots of Success is an environmental literacy curriculum developed by Dr. Raquel
Pinderhughes, Professor of Urban Studies & Planning at San Francisco State
University (more at rootsofsuccess.org). WDOC began offering the program in July
2013, and interest and availability of the program has grown steadily since. Staff
and offender responses to the program content have been very positive. Inmateinstructors have successfully delivered the full curriculum (10 modules, minimum
of 50 hours) with minimal staff supervision. Thus far, a total of 406 inmatestudents have received certification for all ten modules of the curriculum. Eighteen
(18) CI inmate-students have been certified for the condensed curriculum.
Since the last reporting period, 173 inmate students have graduated. Washington
Corrections Center graduated 9 inmate students from the abbreviated version of
the curriculum, Expanded Fundamentals.
All students complete a Roots of Success-created survey at the conclusion of the
class; highlights shared by the organization:
In FY15, 25 offenders and 6 staff members were certified as Roots of Success
instructors. Six existing instructors were promoted to Master Trainers, a
certification that allows them to certify other Instructors. At the close of the
100
reporting period, plans were in motion to provide Roots at 11 of the 12 prisons in
WA.
The primary challenge to the Roots of Success program was the per student cost
incurred by host facilities. SPP staff explored options for reducing that cost, and
those efforts continue in FY 16.
101
LECTURE SERIES
During fiscal year 2015, highlights from SPP’S Science and Sustainability Lecture
Series include:
• Early development for a lecture series in the Intensive Management Unit (IMU)
at Monroe Correctional Complex with the help of Mike Walker, IMU and ITU
Program Manager
• Development underway for a lecture series at Washington Corrections Center;
Associate Superintendent Dean Mason created a lecture series DOC staff-team
who visited the lecture series program at SCCC and met with staff; program
expected to begin fall 2015
• Lecture series certificates now recommend transfer credits for enrolled students
at The Evergreen State College (Evergreen)
• Met high demand for scientific nature drawing with two workshops on that topic
• Held the first live animal presentation at SCCC
• In response to high demand and limited classroom space at SCCC, updated
lecture series sign up
to first-come-first serve
• First presentation by previously incarcerated lecturers (SCCC 5/25/2015)
• Overall attendance of the Lecture Series for FY15 continued to increase, and was
up 11% at SCCC and 7% at WCCW compared to FY14. This is likely due to no
cancelled lectures this year; for the first time, a lecture was held at both WCCW
and SCCC every month for the first time—no emergent security situations
interfered, and no lecturers canceled at the last minute!
Since the lecture series became a consistent offering in 2009, we have recorded
4,000 inmate-attendees at the two main facilities, 3,062 at SCCC and 1,886 at
WCCW. Counting individual students who have attended the lecture (removing
repeat attendance), we have recorded 1,749 inmate-students, 969 from SCCC and
780 from WCCW. Adding known inmate-students from other facilities and years,
we estimate at least ~2000 inmate-students have attended the lecture series.
As reflected in participant surveys and anecdotal shares, inmate-students respond
very positively to the lecture series. Workshops and lectures with an interactive
component appear to generate the highest levels of student engagement. Students
also frequently request lectures that cover job opportunities and offer resources;
Lecture Series Program Coordinator, Tiffany Webb, prioritized lectures from
experts willing to bring green jobs information from their respective field.
The lecture series continued to offer three levels of certification recognizing
attendance of 5 lectures, 10 lectures, and 20 or more. Level 3 certificates were
updated to recommend consideration as transfer credit for admitted students at
The Evergreen State College, a potential academic benefit to the many
incarcerated students without other access to higher education credits. Certificate
recipients showed very strong, positive emotional response to the updated
certificates, suggesting social-emotional benefits as well. Since certificates have
102
started to recommend credit, interest in the lecture series has increased at both
facilities. Next year, we plan to also offer certification to DOC staff members that
attend lectures. Lecture series certificates awarded are detailed in Table 16 below.
103
