-
extracted text
-
ASSESSING THE REHABILITATIVE POTENTIAL OF SCIENCE AND
SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION IN PRISONS: A STUDY OF THE SUSTAINABLE
PRISONS PROJECT
by
Sarah E. Clarke
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Study
The Evergreen State College
March 2011
© 2011 by Sarah E. Clarke. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Study Degree
by
Sarah E. Clarke
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
____________________________
Nalini Nadkarni, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
____________________________
Karen Gaul, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
____________________________
Kasey McKracken
David Heil & Associates, Portland, OR
____________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
Assessing the Rehabilitative Potential of Science and Sustainability Education in Prisons:
A Study of the Sustainable Prisons Project
Sarah E. Clarke
The Sustainable Prisons Project (SPP), a collaboration between the Evergreen State
College and the Washington State Department of Corrections, brings extensive
community partners together to offer science and sustainability education to incarcerated
women and men (offenders) in four correctional facilities in Washington State. Using
interviews and surveys of offenders and staff, this exploratory study drew upon a mixed
methods analysis to evaluate the effects of the suite of SPP activities on participating
offenders. This paper focuses on the qualitative findings from interviews. Rehabilitation
programs that are aimed at reducing crime once offenders are released are a major
correctional strategy and a part of social sustainability. I examined the extent to which the
SPP programs share characteristics with the most effective programs for reducing
recidivism and assessed the significance of science and sustainability education in the
rehabilitative potential of the SPP. Results suggest that SPP projects share characteristics
with successful rehabilitation programs. Science and sustainability education appears to
foster an environmental stewardship ethic and influences emotional health, improving the
quality of offenders’ lives while they are incarcerated and contributing to rehabilitative
outcomes.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………...1
1.1 The Sustainable Prisons Project……………………………………………….2
1.2 The Sustainable Prisons Project Evaluation…………………………………..5
1.3 Scope of Study and Definitions……………………………………………….5
1.4 Overview………………………………………………………………………7
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review……………………………………………………….8
2.1 The Importance of Rehabilitation in Reducing Recidivism…………………..9
2.2 Animal and Plant Programs in Prisons………………………………………12
2.2.1 Animals in Prisons…………………………………………………12
2.2.2 Plants in Prisons……………………………………………………15
2.2.3 Plants and Science and Sustainability Education in Prisons……….17
2.3 Elaboration of SPP Programs………………………………………………..18
CHAPTER 3: Methods…………………………………………………………………20
3.1 Overview……………………………………………………………………..20
3.2 Offender and Staff Interviews………………………………………………..21
3.2.1 Subjects…………………………………………………………….21
3.2.2 Procedures………………………………………………………….21
3.3 Offender Surveys…………………………………………………………….22
3.3.1 Subjects…………………………………………………………….22
3.3.2 Procedures………………………………………………………….23
iv
CHAPTER 4: Results…………………………………………………………………..24
4.1 Offender and Staff Interviews………………………………………………..24
4.1.1
Benefits of Participating in SPP………………………………….24
4.1.2
Challenges to SPP Program Implementation…………………….31
4.1.3
Recommendations for Implementing SPP Programs…………….34
4.2 Offender Surveys…………………………………………………………….37
CHAPTER 5: Discussion and Recommendations…………………………………….38
5.1 Discussion……………………………………………………………………38
5.1.1 Rehabilitation and the SPP…………………………………………38
5.1.2 Science and Sustainability Education……………………………...39
5.2 Implications…………………………………………………………………..40
5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………………41
5.3.1 Program Recommendations………………………………………..41
5.3.2 Research Recommendations……………………………………….44
5.3.3 Funding Recommendations………………………………………..46
5.4 Conclusions………………………………………………………………….46
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………48
APPENDIX A: Offender and Staff Interview Guides………………………………….57
APPENDIX B: ERC Projects and SSLS Survey Questions……………………………62
v
TABLES
Table 1
Statistics for the Prisons Participating in SPP…………………………….4
Table 2
Lecture Topics and Sample Size by Lecture……………………………..22
Table 3
Perceived Benefits to Offenders Participating in SPP…………………...25
Table 4
Perceived Challenges to Implementing SPP activities…………………..31
Table 5
Offender and Prison Staff Recommendations for SPP…………………..34
vi
Acknowledgments
I thank Nalini Nadkarni for guidance, encouragement, and advice throughout the
process of researching and writing my thesis. I thank Sherry Walton, who helped me
throughout the early stages, and Kasey McCracken for donating her time and energy to
assist me in both conducting and analyzing qualitative research. I thank Karen Gaul for
joining my committee in the final stages of my paper, pushing me to widen my
perspective and claim the importance of my work. The Washington State Department of
Corrections, particularly Dan Pacholke, provided help in facilitating evaluation. I
appreciate the help of the offenders and prison staff for sharing their experiences, opening
my eyes and giving me hope. Finally, I thank my friends and family who were steadfast
and generous in their love and encouragement.
vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
As human-induced global climate change and widespread modification of
habitat threaten humans and non-humans (Adger et al., 2003; Wake &
Vredenburg, 2008), there is a strong need for science education of the public
(Moser, 2006). Incarcerated women and men (hereafter offenders), represent a
large and underserved audience. Approximately 1 in 100 people in the United
States (U.S.) is incarcerated (Pew Center on the States, 2008, p. 7). They live in
stressful environments, spending nearly all of their time in their cells or working
at menial jobs (Johnson, 1995, p. 75) with little or no physical connection to
nature. They represent a population that is in need of science education. In this
thesis, I examine the effects of a program that brings scientists and community
partners into prisons to educate offenders about sustainability and science.
In the U.S., incarcerated women and men number 2.3 million (Pew Center
on the States, 2008, p.7). Ninety-five percent of these offenders will be released
from prison at some point (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004), equivalent to more
than 600,000 individuals released per year, or 1,600 per day from state prisons
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 338). Many will recidivate (be re-incarcerated through
repeated relapses into criminal behavior). In 1994, 67.5% of prisoners released in
the U.S. were rearrested within 36 months after their release (Langan & Levin,
2002). The public and policy-makers count a reduction in recidivism as the most
desired outcome of correctional interventions (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 340).
Correctional institutions use a variety of strategies to reduce crime and
recidivism, and the most effective interventions are rehabilitative in nature
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 334). Rehabilitation is intended to produce positive changes
in offenders so they will stop committing crimes (MacKenzie 2006, p. 4). The
most effective rehabilitation programs are vocational, academic and cognitive
behavioral programs (Drake et al., 2009, p. 184; MacKenzie, 2006, p. 334).
Vocational programs train and certify offenders in trades to pursue upon their
release. Academic programs provide formal adult, basic and secondary education
courses. Cognitive behavioral programs focus on individual-level (as opposed to
1
community-level) changes in thinking, reasoning, empathy, and problem solving
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 338).
Some vocational programs that contain cognitive behavioral elements use
plants and animals as part of their strategy. I refer to these programs as prison
animal programs (hereafter, PAPs) and horticultural therapy programs (HTPs).
They show promise as effective rehabilitative strategies (Britton & Button, 2005;
Cushing & Williams, 1995; Fournier et al., 2007; Furst, 2006; Moneymaker &
Strimple, 1991). A program that may integrate the positive points of PAPs, HTPs,
and successful rehabilitation programs, could bring science and sustainability
education to offenders. This type of program would address aspects of
sustainability through fostering environmental stewardship and opportunities for
offenders that may lead to a change in quality of life and a reduction in
recidivism.
The Sustainable Prisons Project (SPP) is a program that brings science and
sustainability education to prisons through conservation projects, green collar
education and training, and informative sustainable practices (SPP, 2010a). This
study is the first to assess the SPP. This study is unique because it evaluates the
entire set of SPP projects and uses a mixed methods study, focusing on qualitative
data from interviews with offenders (N=25) and prison staff (N=12) and
quantitative results of surveys on offender attitudes towards learning about
environmental topics and relationships with other offenders (N=174, N=179). The
SPP has similarities to PAPs and HTPs, in which studies focused strictly on the
behavioral, emotional and recidivism outcomes of similar programs.
The purposes of this paper are: 1) to use the preliminary formal evaluation
of the SPP to determine the extent to which its programs share characteristics with
the correctional programs that have been documented as being the most effective
at reducing crime; and 2) assess the significance of science and sustainability
education in SPP’s potential effectiveness in supporting rehabilitative and
education outcomes. This exploratory study will lead to recommendations for the
improvement of the rehabilitative potential of the SPP and indicate directions for
future research. This study may be useful for a variety of stakeholders: people in
2
the corrections industry, taxpayers, offenders, natural scientists, conservation
biologists, social scientists, horticultural therapists, PAPs practitioners, and those
interested in implementing similar projects at other enforced residential
institutions.
1.1 The Sustainable Prisons Project
Since 2008, the Sustainable Prisons Project has been implementing
science and sustainability education in four prisons in Washington State (Ulrich &
Nadkarni, 2009). The SPP’s emphasis is on bringing education and research on
science, nature, and sustainability to offenders and correctional staff. Some of
those activities involve the exposure and involvement of offenders with growing
and caring for plants and animals to achieve their goals of reducing the
environmental, economic and human costs of prisons (SPP, 2010c). These
programs intend to enhance environmental stewardship ethics, teamwork, and the
formation and pursuit of educational and career goals (SPP, 2010a).
The project started at a small scale and with a narrow focus. In 2004, The
Evergreen State College (TESC) faculty and forest ecologist Dr. Nalini Nadkarni
sought a way to reduce the illegal harvesting of mosses in old-growth forests of
the Pacific Northwest and simultaneously provide scientific outreach to nontraditional public audiences. Nadkarni sought a population with the time and
space necessary to conduct research on growing mosses under controlled
conditions (Muir, 2004), and created the idea of working with incarcerated
individuals to develop moss horticulture techniques. The Cedar Creek Corrections
Center (CCCC) near Littlerock, Washington proved amenable to the idea. The
CCCC and Dr. Nadkarni partnered to implement the “Moss-in-Prison” project
(Nadkarni, 2006).
The success of this program, indicated by the engagement of offenders,
prison staff, and participating scientists, spawned an in-prison lecture series called
“Sustainable Futures-Sustainable Lives” and led to experimentation with
sustainable living practices such as rainwater catchment and composting at CCCC
(Nadkarni, 2006; Ulrich & Nadkarni, 2009). These successes led the Washington
3
State Department of Corrections (WDOC), starting in 2008, to support TESC in
the expansion of pilot activities to include three additional Washington State
correctional facilities: Stafford Creek Corrections Center (SCCC), McNeil Island
Corrections Center (MICC), and the Washington State Corrections Center for
Women (WCCW) (SPP, 2010a). (Table 1).
Table 1
Statistics for the Prisons Participating in SPP
Sex of
Maximum
offenders
# beds
Facility
Location
Cedar Creek
Corrections
Littlerock,
M
500
Center
WA
(CCCC)
Washington
Corrections
Gig
Harbor,
Center for
F
900
WA
Women
(WCCW)
Stafford
Creek
Corrections
Center
(SCCC)
McNeil
Island
Corrections
Center
(MICC)
Acreage
Custody
levels
38
minimum
75
minimum,
medium,
and
maximum
Aberdeen
, WA
M
2,000
210
minimum,
medium,
and
maximum
Steilacoo
m, WA
M
1,260
89
medium
and
maximum
Washington State Department of Corrections [WDOC] 2010a; WDOC, 2010b;
WDOC, 2010c; WDOC, 2010e
The integrated work of the SPP pioneers green-collar education and
training, sustainable operations, and scientific research and conservation in
prisons (SPP, 2010a). Goals of the SPP include facilitating cost-effective,
environmentally sound practices for prison facility operations; educating and
training the prison community in science, sustainability and skills for the
emerging green economy; and conducting ecological research that links prison
staff and offenders with scientists and conservation partners who need help with
restoration of endangered species. (SPP, 2010a). The SPP has been directed
4
mainly towards a science and sustainability lecture series (SSLS); and hands-on,
ecological research and conservation (ERC) projects. The SPP has received
tremendous interest from the media, including over 50 newspaper, magazine, and
blog entries; five scientific journals and resources, and 17 radio, television, and
video recordings (SPP, 2010b).
1.2 The Sustainable Prisons Project Evaluation
In 2009, an exploratory study of the effects of the SPP programs was
conducted by the professional Portland, Oregon-based evaluation company David
Heil & Associates. This preliminary evaluation: a) measured potential changes in
offender attitudes about the environment and sustainability; b) gauged interest in
environmental issues; c) assessed knowledge gained from projects and lectures;
and d) assessed how SPP projects generally influenced the offenders and prison
community in general. With the assistance of other graduate students, I carried out
additional evaluation activities after SPP’s contract with David Heil ended in
2009.
1.3 Scope of Study and Definitions
In this study I chose to focus on a subset of the data that I found was often
lost in the tendency of the SPP and media outlets to focus on conservation and
money-saving outcomes. I was interested in how the SPP may have influenced
prisoners’ lives. I used grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2007) to evaluate my
qualitative data. Rather than starting out by developing a hypothesis, grounded
theory seeks to build the hypothesis from the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 1)
and analyze the data for concepts or themes. During the interviews I noticed that
the SPP seemed to be having many beneficial effects on the offenders. Out of a
desire to help the SPP and offenders, I wondered if the SPP had anything in
common with successful rehabilitation programs. I noticed that science and
sustainability education seemed to influence offenders in several ways. I wanted
to understand what those ways were and how they might influence rehabilitation.
5
To build an understanding of successful rehabilitation programs I drew
from literature on correctional strategies, focusing on studies conducted by the
Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) because their findings
inform the Washington State Legislature and affect the WDOC. I also draw from
studies that focus on adult in-prison offender populations. The term “offender” is
used throughout this paper because it is the preferred term in the WDOC.
Recidivism in Washington State is defined as “any felony offense
committed by an offender within 36 months” after their release (Drake et al.,
2010). Therefore the lifetime effects of rehabilitation programs are not measured.
Washington State has an overall recidivism rate of 50.5% for women and 64.6%
for men (State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2005).
I define nature on a systemic, ecological level, which incorporates
relationships and interdependencies between and among non-human organisms. I
define environment as the natural conditions that surround humans. The terms
nature and environment are part of larger discourses and are open to debate.
Mainstream discourses about nature and the environment have maintained a
separation between humans and the natural world (Cronon, 1995, p. 300) that
perpetuates a dynamic where nature and the environment are in need of human
control and domination (Cronon, 1995, p. 302). Other views of nature and the
environment include humans and social justice, local economic sustainability,
health, and community governance (Cronon, 1995, p. 300). I chose the definitions
that I did because the SPP and the literature I review views that nature and the
environment are separate from humans.
Sustainability is defined differently depending on the cultural and
historical context (Redclift, 2005). Many contemporary definitions of
sustainability have roots in the Bruntlandt Report, where sustainable development
is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). That definition is a model
based on growth, needs for economic and natural resources, and reinforces the
idea that nature is a resource in need of management (Redclift, 2005). Some other
6
definitions of sustainability address the emotional health of humans or social and
environmental justice (Redclift, 2005). The SPP emphasizes environmental
sustainability such as conservation outcomes. My study blends the three aspects
of sustainability listed above with special attention paid to offender rehabilitation,
quality of life, and education.
Science and sustainability education refers to informal science education
that is intended to increase people’s awareness and knowledge of the environment
and the challenges it faces. It is also intended in this context to foster “attitudes,
motivations, and commitments to make informed decisions and take responsible
action” (UNESCO, 1977), one of the most widely recognized definitions of
environmental education.
1.4 Overview
I organized this study into five chapters. In Chapter 1, I provide an
introduction to rehabilitation, the SPP, definitions and scope of study, and an
overview. In Chapter 2, I explore the use and types of crime reduction strategies,
discuss the importance of rehabilitation programs and which ones are most
effective in reducing criminal behavior. I also review the literature on the
rehabilitative significance of prison animal programs (PAPs) and horticultural
therapy programs (HTPs), and elaborate on SPP conservation projects.
In Chapter 3, I describe the methods used in the collection and analyses of
the data. These data include interviews of offenders and prison staff involved with
the SPP; and surveys of offenders participating in the SSLS. In Chapter 4, I report
the findings of my qualitative and quantitative analyses. In Chapter 5, I critically
examine my results in the context of the literature review on crime reduction and
rehabilitation, and PAPs and HTPs in prisons. I address the two purposes of my
study, talk about the implications of my study, make program and research
recommendations; and suggest sources of funding.
7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Importance of Rehabilitation in Reducing Recidivism
I use two studies of strategy-specific recidivism studies to explore the
connections between recidivism rates and rehabilitation programs. Both of these
studies use meta-analyses that combine recidivism studies on a variety of
programs from around the country (MacKenzie, 2006; Drake et al., 2009). The
types of programs used to reduce crime are classified into six categories
(MacKenzie, 2006, pp. 4-5):
1. Incapacitation deprives the offender of the capacity to commit
crimes…through detention…or through capital punishment.
2. Deterrence is punishment designed to be so repugnant that
neither the offender nor others will commit the crime in the
future.
3. Rehabilitation is directed toward changing the offender to
prevent future criminal behavior of the treated individual.
4. Community control or the surveillance and supervision of
offenders in the community is an attempt to reduce the
delinquent or offender’s capacity and/or opportunities for
criminal activities.
5. Structure, discipline, and challenge programs use physically
and/or mentally stressful experiences designed to change
offenders in positive ways (rehabilitation) or deter them from
later crime.
6. Other combinations of rehabilitation and control include
increasing surveillance and control, or the structure and
discipline, while at the same time providing rehabilitation
services. (MacKenzie, 2006, pp. 4-5)
From the early 20th century throughout the 1970s, sentencing and
corrections placed the primary emphasis on rehabilitation. During the 1970s,
crime control methods with an emphasis on incapacitation, deterrence, and “just
deserts” became increasingly popular (Andrews & Bonta, 2003, p. 330; Cushing
& Williams, 1995; MacKenzie, 2006, p. 7). There was a sense that “nothing
works” when it came to rehabilitation (Martinson, 1974), though this was
8
ultimately difficult to determine due to the lack of quality studies (Cushing &
Williams, 1995; MacKenzie, 2006, p. 56), and because of the lack of programs
that more adequately addressed offenders’ needs (Gillis et al., 1998). Despite a
generally poor view of rehabilitation, and a shift in correctional priorities,
rehabilitation remains a significant correctional strategy (McKenzie, 2006, p. 3;
Morris & Rothman, 1997, p. ix). Rehabilitation programs fall into following three
categories: 1) academic education, 2) vocational education and work programs,
and 3) cognitive behavioral therapy (MacKenzie, 2006, pp. 69-112).
1) Academic education programs include formal, adult basic and
secondary education; and literacy programs, including high school diploma or
GED classes (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 71). Life skills components have been added
to some educational programs, which help offenders learn “how to search for a
job, balance a checkbook, budget, control anger, make decisions, and set goals”
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 72). Limited quality research on the effectiveness of
education programs exists (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 74). However, academic
education programs are considered essential due to a general belief that education
is important in its own right (Applegate et al., 1997; Cullen et al., 1990) and
because of a strong correlation between educational level and criminal activity
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 70).
2) Vocational education uses “classroom-based education, job training,
and apprenticeships in areas such as electrical and carpentry skills” (MacKenzie,
2006, p. 95). It also includes Correctional Industries programs. Correctional
Industries employ offenders to produce a wide array of products for government
and private sectors, including furniture, health technology, automobile parts,
institutional and jail products, and more (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 101). Multicomponent programs can help offenders in either finding employment or
developing job search skills (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 103).
These programs provide offenders with multiple benefits, the most
important being providing offenders with “real-world work experience, job skills,
and vocational training” (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 92). All programs provide wages
either to the offenders themselves or to pay restitution to victims (MacKenzie,
9
2006, p. 91). Substantial research shows that crime is associated with
unemployment (Farrington, 1986; Sampson & Laub, 1990; Wolfgang et al., 1972)
and demonstrates that offenders are generally less educated, have fewer job skills,
and are more likely to be unemployed while in their communities (Andrews &
Bonta, 2003). Further, offenders who are employed in the first six months after
their release have fewer convictions than offenders who were unemployed and
that offenders who were employed were convicted at less than half the rate of
unemployed offenders (17% versus 41%) (Gillis et al., 1998). Nearly one-half of
surveyed offenders (47.4%) had an unstable job history (Gillis et al., 1998).
3) Cognitive-behavioral treatments focus on individual-level change in
thinking, reasoning, empathy, and problem solving (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 337).
Dysfunctional behaviors are transformed through changes in beliefs, attitudes, and
thought processes (Porporino et al., 1991). Cognitive-behavioral treatment aims to
develop abilities in social skills, problem solving, critical reasoning, moral
development, and coping (Henning & Freuh, 1996; MacKenzie, 2006, p. 133;
Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978). The premise is that cognitions, or perceptions, are
believed to affect behavior and “changes in cognitions can bring about changes in
behavior” (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 128). These techniques use modeling, roleplaying, reinforcement, concrete verbal suggestions, and cognitive restructuring.
The techniques are verbally interactive, self-reflective, and insight-oriented
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 61). Some evidence shows that these programs are
relatively effective at reducing recidivism (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 129).
In her recent meta-analysis of correctional programming, (MacKenzie,
2006) focused on the effectiveness of the different strategies to reduce recidivism.
Adamant about the need for evidence-based corrections, or a “program or policy
supported by outcome evaluations clearly demonstrating effectiveness” (Drake et
al., 2009), MacKenzie evaluated research on correctional programming with a
rigorous scoring system (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 20).
Her analyses demonstrated that the following in-prison programs were the
most effective in reducing crime for the adult offenders (in order from most to
least effective): 1) academic education, 2) vocational education, and 3) cognitive-
10
behavioral therapies. The types of evidence used by MacKenzie and others
demonstrated that correctional programs that use behavioral or cognitivebehavioral elements, are skill-oriented, and contain multimodal components are
more effective than other types of programming (Andrews et al., 1990;
MacKenzie, 2006, p. 334). None of the interventions focusing on punishment,
deterrence, or control significantly reduced recidivism (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 334).
The Washington State Legislature also bases its conclusions on evidencebased corrections. The WSIPP conducted a study using meta-analyses of each
type of correctional program, taking their study one step further to analyze the
costs and benefits to taxpayers and crime victims (Drake et al., 2009). They used
the same scoring system that MacKenzie did. The in-prison programs for adult
offenders (excluding special populations) that they found to be most effective are
as follows (from most to least effective): 1) vocational education, 2) academic
education, and 3) cognitive- behavioral therapy.
The results of the cost-benefit analysis showed that the most effective
rehabilitation programs also saved the most money for taxpayers. Both
MacKenzie and the WSIPP produced similar results on the effectiveness of
various programs though they used slightly different methods. There are other
considerations that must be taken into account when determining the best
rehabilitation strategy. First, individuals react differently to equivalent
environments, making it necessary to find the program most suited to an
individual’s needs (Seymour 1981, p. 25; Toch 1992, p. 7; Zamble & Porporino
1988, p. 13). Therefore no single rehabilitation program can be recommended for
an entire prison population (Cushing & Williams, 1995). Studies have
inadequately assessed the effects of implementation of programs (Pearson et al.,
2002). Programs also need to be long enough to have the expected impact on
participants (MacKenzie, 2006, p. 55).
Finally, although cognitive-behavioral therapies provide opportunities for
offenders to practice behavior change, researchers found that “maintaining
improvement and making a skill permanent require the slow steady work that
probably comes from new (neural) connections” (Doidge, 2007, p. 199).
11
Permanent changes for new behaviors take sustained practice and suggest the
formation of brand-new brain structures (Pascual-Leone et al., 1999). This would
in part explain why, when positive reinforcement at the prison ends, it is easy for
offenders to relapse back into criminal behavior (Pearson et al., 2002) when the
struggle to survive in “extremely adverse life conditions” (Rice & Remy, 1998).
2.2 Animal and Plant Programs in Prisons
Rehabilitation programs that also inspire the changes desired in cognitivebehavioral programs can include PAPs (Britton & Button, 2005; Cushing &
Williams, 1995; Fournier et al., 2007; Furst, 2006; Moneymaker & Strimple,
1991; Strimple, 2003) and horticultural programs (Jiler, 2006; Rice et al., 1998).
The PAPs are intended as vocational programs with an informal therapeutic
aspect. Horticultural programs can be intended as vocational, therapeutic, or both
(Jiler, 2006; Migura et al., 1997; Rice et al., 1998).
2.2.1 Animals in Prisons
Animals were originally used on prison farms as sources of food
(Strimple, 2003), and at some prisons are still used only as sources of food for the
prison industrial complex (Furst, 2006; Jiler, 2006, p. 26). However, PAPs, are
relatively new to prisons (Furst, 2006), instituted within the past 25 years (Britton
& Button, 2005; Furst, 2006). Since then, a variety of animals have been
introduced into the correctional setting for rehabilitative purposes, including dogs,
cats, and wild horses (Cushing & Williams, 1995; Furst, 2006; Strimple, 2003).
The most popular programs, and those for which most studies are available, are
programs that use dogs, which provide a service for the community by saving
dogs that were going to be euthanized and by training dogs for the disabled
(Cushing & Williams, 1995; Fournier et al., 2007; Moneymaker & Strimple,
1991). They are primarily intended to provide vocational training to the offenders
(Furst, 2006), and in some cases to earn college credits (Strimple, 2003).
The animals are also used for therapeutic benefits though there is no use of
the animals in direct conjunction with psychoanalysis or other clinical methods
(Furst, 2006). Approximately 30% of the programs award vocational certificates
12
including a state vocational certificate, a pet care technician certificate, or
veterinarian certificate. (Furst, 2006). In the national survey of PAPs, nearly 25%
of respondents indicated that the PAP includes a job referral or link to potential
jobs upon release. About 35% of surveys respondents knew of former offenders
working with animals since their release (Furst, 2006). Of the 48 states that
responded to the only inventory of PAPs in state correctional facilities, 38 had
PAPs in one or more of their correctional facilities (Furst, 2006). Survey
respondents overwhelmingly regarded these programs as positive (Furst, 2006).
The concept behind using PAPs originates in literature that explores the
therapeutic value of human-animal interactions (Furst, 2006). Psychosocial
effects on patients in psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes include
improvements in psychiatric symptomology, social behavior, and psychological
states (Fournier et al., 2007). Most PAPs studies are qualitative in nature (Britton
& Button, 2005; Cushing & Williams, 1995; Fournier et al., 2007; Furst, 2006;
Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991), and “indicators of social adjustment or
behavioral change have been used to gauge a program’s success” (Cushing &
Williams, 1995).
These altruistic activities give offenders such benefits as a sense of
empowerment and purpose not available from the typical menial jobs available in
prison; and greater self-esteem and self-confidence (Moneymaker & Strimple,
1991; Strimple, 2003; Toch, 2000). These altruistic activities can contribute to the
cognitive restructuring (Toch, 2000) that is the purpose of cognitive behavioral
programs. Moneymaker and Strimple (1991) reported that offenders felt more
compassion and love after working in a PAP program. Offenders gained increased
social skills and patience while working in a dog PAP (Turner, 2007), though
further studies are needed to determine the effects that increased social interaction
has on the offenders (Fournier et al., 2007; Turner, 2007). The most frequently
cited benefit of PAPs was the sense of responsibility and empowerment the
inmates gained by caring for their animals. There is anecdotal evidence that
offenders in these programs recidivate at lower rates than other offenders (Furst,
2006).
13
Three challenges accompanied these programs: 1) increased surveillance
of offenders in the program in an environment where being watched created
stress; 2) failure of offenders not in the program to respect the dog training; 3)
emotional turmoil that participants experienced when their dogs left the facility
for adoption (Britton & Button, 2005). However, offenders also experienced
increased freedom to walk around the prison grounds. There was more trust
instilled in them, and they knew they had to strive to live up to that. Other inmates
relished the chance to play with a dog. Gaining patience with their dogs helped
them gain patience with their fellow offenders (Turner, 2007).
One animal program that stands out is a vocational reentry project focused
on beekeeping. Sweet Beginnings in Chicago employs ex-offenders to provide
them with job skills and certification. 172 former offenders have been trained by
Sweet Beginnings over the last two-and-a-half years. While the rate of recidivism
is 55% in Illinois, it has only been 4% for the graduates of the program. All the
workers become members of the Illinois State Beekeepers Association and
receive 60 hours of training and are certified in beekeeping by a local college. The
honey and beeswax they harvest is incorporated into products such as lip balm
and body lotion. Sales from these products gain some of their income (Urban
Farm, 2010). They also rely on foundations for support, including The Boeing
Company, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation (North Lawndale
Employment Network, 2010).
PAPs Research Limitations
Controlled studies are difficult to conduct because the prison
administration cannot let offenders be randomly chosen to work in a PAPs
program (Fournier et al., 2007). Only a small number of inmates participated in
these programs, making sample sizes small and therefore harder to draw
conclusions (Fournier et al., 2007; Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991). Existing
studies did not account for confounding variables such as simultaneous
participation in other programs that may have had an influence on behavior
(Cushing & Williams, 1995). One way to offset the fact that offenders cannot be
14
randomly assigned to participate in PAPs is to randomly assign correctional
institutions to have PAPs (Fournier et al., 2007).
Gaining access to a prison population to conduct research is difficult.
Research changes prison routine and places an additional burden on prison staff
(Glenn, 2008). It may be important to study the non human-animal interaction
variables such as increased social interaction, to determine the extent to which
participation in these programs may increase social interactions and thereby
particularly affect social skills (Fournier et al., 2007). Although these studies did
not directly establish participation in PAPs as a cause of reduced behavioral
infractions and recidivism, participation in PAPs provided immediate emotional
benefits to the inmates and reduced recidivism and that further studies are
warranted (Cushing & Williams, 1995; Fournier et al., 2007; Moneymaker &
Strimple, 1991; Strimple, 2003; Turner, 2007).
2.2.2 Plants in Prisons
Programs that use plants in prisons are horticultural in nature, and focus
on education and certification, therapy, and/or production (Haller, 1998; Rice et
al., 1993). Many prisons have small gardening or greenhouse programs (Jiler,
2006, p. 66). The purposes of most of these programs are to reduce institutional
cost through food production, and provide vocational skills and/or certification
(Jiler, pp. 26 & 38). Some of them use horticultural therapy, important to this
study because many incorporate ecological approaches and participate in
conservation and restoration efforts (e.g. Riker’s Island in New York, San
Francisco County Jail). They are also important because they combine therapeutic
with vocational aspects and several feature reentry programs.
Horticultural therapy programs (HTPs), usually a component of
horticultural vocational programs, focus on “the process of learning and the
applicability of the material to other areas of the students’ lives” (Rice et al.,
1998), and provide an additional method for rehabilitation that other programs do
not incorporate. Horticultural therapy is defined as: “a treatment modality that
uses plants and plant products to improve the social, cognitive, physical,
psychological, and general health and well-being of its participants” (Simson &
15
Straus, 2003, p. xxiii). The most current study documented that 19% of state
prisons had formal or informal HTPs (Rice et al., 1998).
Metaphors are used to link nature, gardening and the offenders’ own lives:
weeding removes negative thoughts and harmful influences; transplanting and
watering “symbolize the stage of leaving jail and maintaining a productive life
outside” (Jiler, 2006, p. 37). Group gardening activities encourage teamwork and
communication skills as well as leadership, pride, and creativity (Rice et al.,
1998). Some of these programs incorporate post-release programs into the
standard vocational and therapeutic aspects of the programs.
One project that exemplifies these patterns is the Garden Project in San
Francisco, founded in 1992, to “provide support to former offenders through
counseling and assistance in continuing education, while also impacting the
communities from which they come.” (The Garden Project, 2000a). It teaches
offenders horticulture skills, provides them with a paycheck, opportunities to
develop life skills and continue their education to help them stay out of jail (The
Garden Project, 2000a). The program is supported by the sales of its produce,
private donations, foundation grants, and through county and city funds. More
than 10,000 people have been through their programs. Two years after release,
recidivism among Garden Project participants was 24% in contrast to normal San
Francisco jail offenders at 55% (Garcia, 1999). Some effects of the horticultural
therapy that were retained after release were lower depression, substance abuse
reduction, and a sustained desire to get help (Rice & Remy, 1998).
Another such project is in Riker’s Island, the largest jail complex in the
United States (20,000 offenders), which began its horticultural program in 1996
(Jiler, 2006, p. 13). Their GreenHouse and post-release GreenTeam programs are
vocational education programs that incorporate “garden therapy, science and
English literacy, life skill development, and job enrichment with programs for job
placement once a student has served his/her sentence” (Jiler, 2006, p. 27). These
programs are administered and funded by the Horticultural Society of New York,
which offers offenders post-release, 9-12 month paid internships to maintain
gardens throughout the city (Cernansky, 2009). Qualitative evidence suggests it
16
remarkably reduces recidivism (Jiler, 2006, p. 7). The San Francisco County Jail
and Riker’s Island programs change the quality of life within prisons and reduce
recidivism rates, and that they have stayed (18 years and 14 years, respectively)
documents the success of their programs.
2.2.3 Plants and Science and Sustainability Education in Prisons
Some vocational horticulture programs include partnerships between
prisons and environmental agencies whose aims are to cultivate native plants and
restore them to their native habitat, and eradicate invasive plant species. They
combine classroom education with hands-on experience in caring for the plants,
planting them in their native habitat, and cutting or spraying pesticide on invasive
plants with formal instruction and certification. These programs have existed in
numerous states, including Ohio, Hawaii, California, Michigan, Minnesota,
Florida, and Washington State (Associated Press, 2003; Big Stone National
Wildlife Refuge, 2010; Campbell & Carter, 1999; Farley, 2009; Martineau, 2009;
Prater & Menges, 1972; The Garden Project, 2000b).
In 2001, the Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge and the Prairie
Correctional Facility in Appleton, Minnesota began using offender labor to grow
and collect native plant seed (Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge, 2010). They
grew approximately 40 species of endangered native prairie plants for 600 acres
of the Refuge. Inmates received education in plant identification and plant life
history, and habitat requirements needed to maximize seed production. The
offenders who participated in the program gained a great sense of pride, selfworth and satisfaction as a result of being a part of the project, often returning to
tutor new participants. There have been no follow up studies on recidivism (Big
Stone National Wildlife Refuge, 2010).
Another such program also incorporated training in scientific inquiry. This
program took place at Fields High School, an accredited high school in the Ohio
State Reformatory in Mansfield, Ohio. They developed an ecology program to
study the interactions of organisms and their environment, including sampling
benthic organisms and running chemical analyses of water. The intention of this
program was to train the offenders in the current concerns and techniques of
17
ecology and to instill a stewardship ethic and appreciation for the aesthetics of
nature, which is much aligned with the intentions of the SPP (Prater & Menges,
1972). Offenders in the program established an Ecology Club, where they had the
opportunity to continue participation beyond the life of the formal program and
into their post-release life. Ecology Club was chartered and its members spoke to
organizations outside the prison. No recidivism studies were conducted. There
was qualitative evidence from an inmate who said that the program had been his
most meaningful rehabilitation experience (Prater & Menges, 1972).
2.3 Elaboration of SPP Programs
Since 2009, the SPP has implemented three Ecological Research and
Conservation (ERC) projects: 1) Prairie Restoration Project, 2) Oregon Spotted
Frog Project, 3) Apiculture/Beekeeping Project, and 4) Science and Sustainability
Lecture Series (SSLS).
1) The Prairie Restoration project is a partnership between the SPP, The
Nature Conservancy and U.S. Army. Started in 2009, the Stafford Creek
Corrections Center has to date propagated over 580,000 native plants of 30
different species for the Fort Lewis military base, which protects the largest
remaining portion of Puget Sound’s prairie ecosystem. More than 30 offenders
and 7 staff have worked on this project. Learning skills in native plant ecology
and large-scale seed production, The Prairie Restoration project provides an
opportunity to explain important ecological principles, prepare inmates for new
careers, opportunities for the offenders to build confidence, and a place to be
inspired by their successes in growing plants for a good cause (Elliott, 2010).
2) Installed at CCCC in 2009, the Oregon Spotted Frog Project is a
partnership between the SPP and the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
(WDFW). The Oregon Spotted Frog, which has disappeared from over 70% of its
historic range, is known in only three areas in Washington State. A pilot
translocation effort at a recipient site located on Joint Base Lewis-McChord
(JBLM) is underway (Cooper & Plomski, 2010). With an 84% survivorship rate at
CCCC, 55 frogs were released into JBLM wetlands in 2009. With an 86%
18
survivorship rate, 82 frogs were released in 2010. The CCCC has the greatest
survivorship rate of all rearing institutions including Northwest Trek and the
Oregon Zoo. The SPP and WDFW plan on doubling the number of frogs in 2011
(they will receive around 200 eggs to raise), and will conduct a pilot study
comparing different populations of the Oregon Spotted Frog (J. Cooper, pers.
comm., December 12, 2010).
3) In 2009, approximately 28 offenders and 5 staff participated in a pilot
training program to become beekeepers. Under the direction of SPP and
correctional staff, offenders at CCCC and SCCC expanded existing beekeeping
operations by installing and maintaining new hives. A contracted beekeeper and
biologist developed, lead, and evaluated a beekeeping course to provide
certificates to offenders. In the SPP program offenders participated in education
about bee biology and behavior, and beekeeping equipment and commercial
business practices (SPP, 2010e).
4) In the SSLS (as of December 2010) 36 presenters from diverse
organizations, including the Washington State Department of Ecology, the
Northwest Indian Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center, and the South Puget
Sound Salmon Enhancement Group, delivered a total of over 66 lectures.
Delivered at CCCC, WCCW, SCCC, and MICC, lecture topics spanned both the
personal health and environmental aspects of sustainability. Topics have included
the Poetry of Nature, Science, and Sustainability, Nearshore Restoration in Puget
Sound, Sustainability and the Fair Trade Industry, and Ethnobotany. Over 1000
offenders have participated in the SSLS, which was started in 2005 and will
continue through at least June 2011.
19
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
3.1 Overview
I used mixed methodologies, relying primarily on qualitative data, and two
sets of quantitative data. Both sets of data drew from offender and prison staff
experiences with the SPP programs. Qualitative methodologies allow for
evaluating aspects of programs that are not revealed by quantitative techniques
(Mrazek, 1993) and help the researcher get insights into the inner experience of
participants and to discover rather than test variables and hypotheses (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008, p. 12). These methods allow the researcher to study programs in
detail and depth, where the data collection is not limited to “predetermined
categories of analysis” (Patton, 1987, p. 9). Interview-based qualitative research
generally involves small sample sizes for the amount of detail sought, rather than
a wide range of responses (Biklen & Bogdan, 1992, p. 3, Patton, 1987, p. 9).
Quantitative methods, in contrast, fit diverse experiences into predetermined
categories, facilitate comparison of the data, and provide results that can be
generalized. They rely on larger sample sizes to answer a limited set of questions
(Patton, 1987, p. 9), and they set out to prove or disprove a hypothesis that they
hold as they enter the study (Biklen & Bogdan, 1992, p. 31).
I used grounded theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2007) to evaluate my
qualitative data. Rather than starting out by developing a hypothesis, grounded
theory seeks to build the hypothesis from the data (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 1)
and analyze the data for concepts or themes. Those themes can then be developed
into even higher-level categories and theories (Corbin & Strauss, 2007, p. 55). I
used five-point Likert Scale items to generate quantitative data from the offender
surveys. A Likert scale is an attitudinal scale that measures “the intensity of
respondents’ attitudes towards the various aspects of a situation” (Hoy, 2009, p.
145) and indicates the extent to which a respondent agrees with a statement (Hoy,
2009, p. 124).
20
3.2 Offender and Staff Interviews
3.2.1 Subjects
Offenders (all males) were selected because of their direct participation in
SPP science projects and lecture series. Staff members (male and female) were
selected because of their peripheral or direct involvement with the SPP.
Permission to interview staff and offenders was granted by the WDOC- and
TESC-approved Human Subjects Review application. Six offenders and four staff
members were interviewed at CCCC and 19 offenders and eight staff were
interviewed at SCCC, for a total of 37 interviewees (25 offenders and 12 staff).
3.2.2 Procedures
A semi-structured format was used for all interviews, which provided
freedom to ask additional questions on unexpected or noteworthy responses. The
Associate from David Heil & Associates framed, wrote and asked the majority of
questions. Interviews were recorded with a digital audio recorder with extension
speakers. Handwritten notes were taken in the event that the audio recordings
were lost or damaged. Most interviews lasted about 30 min, with the exception of
the larger groups of offenders, which lasted 60 min. Staff interviews were
conducted as one-on-one interviews (12 staff total), and the offender interviews
were interviewed in groups of 2, 3, 4, and 6.
Content from all the interviews was transcribed by David Heil &
Associates, and I reviewed each transcribed interview three times, and then
analyzed them for possible benefits of SPP programs for offenders as observed by
offenders and staff. I also identified the most commonly mentioned challenges to
program implementation and recommendations for program development by
offenders and staff. I counted a comment or a concept as a theme if it was
mentioned 5 or more times.
The interviews for offenders and staff included questions about their
experiences with SPP activities: their observation of effects on the prison
community that seemed to occur from SPP activities; their perception of
challenges to implementing SPP programs; and their recommendations for SPP
program development (Appendix B).
21
3.3 Offender Surveys
3.3.1 Subjects
The subjects for the surveys were all offenders (male and female). They
were selected because of their direct participation in the ERC projects or lecture
series. The total number of offenders that filled out matched pre- and post-surveys
for the lecture series was 179 for the first set of questions and 174 for the second
set of questions. The total number for those who filled out matching pre- and
post-surveys for the ERC projects was 16. Permission to survey offenders was
granted by the WDOC. The lectures and the sample size of each lecture ranged
widely in terms of topic and size (Table 2).
Table 2
Lecture Topics and Sample Size by Lecture
Lecturer
Date
Sample
Size
Wolves: Endangered
Species Ecology,
Conservation, and
Wildlife-Related Jobs
Megan Moskwa,
Education Director,
Wolf Haven
International
11/12/09 (SCCC)
11/19/09 (MICC)
6/1/10 (WCCW)
47
43
16
Ant Biology, Social
Behavior, and
Scientific Research:
Lessons for the
Human Race
John Longino, Ph.D.,
Entomologist and
Faculty Member The
Evergreen State
College
12/1/09 (MICC)
15
People, Planet,
Profit: Sustainability
101
Sarah Clarke,
Research Associate,
Sustainable Prisons
Project
12/1/09 (WCCW)
17
Don Foran, Ph.D.,
Poet and Faculty
Member, The
Evergreen State
College
1/5/09 (WCCW)
24
Lance Winecka,
Executive Director,
South Puget Sound
Salmon
Enhancement Group
2/2/09 (WCCW)
22
Topic
Poetry of Nature,
Science, and
Sustainability
The Science and
Sustainability of
Salmon in the Pacific
Northwest
Total Sample
Size
22
184
3.3.2 Procedures
The surveys that were administered for the ERC projects included fivepoint scaled items designed to measure the offenders’ attitudes towards their jobs
and other offenders (Appendix C). SSLS Surveys included the five-point scaled
questions designed to measure interest in increasing social interactions within the
prison community and their interest in learning about the environment and lecture
topics (Appendix C). Participants in the SSLS were asked to complete a
retrospective Post-Lecture Survey at the conclusion of each lecture, and
participants in the ERC projects were asked to complete Pre- and Post-Project
Surveys.
For the ERC project survey analysis I analyzed questions C1-C6
(Appendix C). I combined the responses from the three sets (beekeeping, prairie
plants, and frogs) of surveys. I also aggregated the response categories, i.e., I
combined the responses of “strongly agree” and “agree” together, and “strongly
disagree” and “disagree.” I used a paired t-test to compare mean responses to
questions before and after offenders participated in a single cycle of the specific
ERC project. For the SSLS survey analysis, I used questions B1-B4 (Appendix
C). I combined responses to B1 and B2; and B3 and B4. I aggregated the response
categories in the same way that I aggregated categories for the ERC project
surveys. I used the McNemar test to determine if there was a significant
difference in proportions of offenders who answered “strongly agree/agree” from
the pre- to post-SSLS responses.
23
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
I separate this chapter into two sections: Offender and Staff Interviews and
Offender Surveys. I focus here on three themes that have emerged from using
grounded theory to evaluate my qualitative analysis: 1) the benefits that the
offenders believe they receive from participation in SPP programs 2) challenges
to SPP program implementation, and 3) offender and prison staff
recommendations for SPP programs.
The quantitative analysis is also exploratory. The two most significant
results that emerged from this analysis were: 1) offenders were interested in
seeking information on lecture-specific environmental topics and 2) offenders
were interested in talking to other offenders about these topics. I first discuss the
findings from the interviews, followed by the results of the survey analyses.
4.1 Offender and Staff Interviews
4.1.1 Benefits of Participating in SPP
Using grounded theory I identified a wide variety of benefits, ranging
from attitudes towards the environment, behavior with other offenders, and
personal benefits (Table 3). I discuss the three most common perceived benefits:
1) excitement about and interest in environmental topics, 2) an increase in social
interactions and positive conversations, and 3) an increase in job skills and
opportunities.
24
Table 3
Perceived Benefits to Offenders Participating in SPP
Excitement about environmental topics
Increase in positive conversations
Job skills & opportunities
Bigger worldview
Benefit of hands-on work
Connection to environment
Self esteem
Ideas for post-release behavior
Giving back to community
Nurturing instinct
Therapeutic effects on the individual
Awareness of environmental issues
Generating sustainability ideas
Empathy
Hope
Validation as human beings
N
81
71
26
19
17
15
14
12
11
8
8
7
6
5
5
5
Interest in and Excitement about Environmental Topics
The most commonly reported benefit of SPP programs was an interest in
and excitement about environmental topics. Both staff and offenders noticed that
the offenders became very interested in the specific science topics that they were
exposed to by the SPP. One staff member believed that offenders were interested
more in learning about and working with bees than the job position. The offenders
liked to talk about what they learned and there were many comments similar to
the one that follows, where an SPP participant talks about his engagement with a
specific topic:
It was pretty enlightening about what kind of sociology is
behind the bee and what they do and how they do it and
how they live. And then on top of that, of course, what
their purpose is on Earth and what they do for the
environment and our food.
Many offenders believed that the lectures were a starting point that piqued
other offenders’ interest in learning. Offenders who were known to regularly
attend lectures came to play a role as a spokesperson or ambassador for the SPP
25
lectures and ERC projects. This enthusiasm and interaction are rare occurrences in
the prison environment, where apathy, alienation and social distancing prevail
(Haney, 2002). Here, one offender reveals the phenomenon of playing the role of
ambassador and the impression that the interest of the other offenders made on
him:
The people who go to see them (the lectures), the ones in
my building that I talk to want to know if they are going to
have more and they are really interested. Its like wow, its
amazing for how many people came up to me asking if
they are going to have more of the seminars. Its amazing.
Prison staff were also impressed by the enthusiasm and interest that the
offenders showed:
After the initial lecture they actually came across as being
interested. I mean truly interested. They came up with good
questions and when they came back to work they wanted to
know when is the next one. They were all excited about it.
Many offenders believed that others became excited as word spread from
those who were already participating in the SPP. One offender remarked “Him
being around me and talking about it (beekeeping) got me interested more and
more.” This man eventually became involved in and very committed to the
beekeeping ERC and planned to pursue beekeeping after his release.
A staff member said “once people go to a lecture they will submit a job
change in order to work in the sustainability part of what we do here.” One
offender wanted to work with the bees so badly that he gave up on of the most
sought after, highest-paying jobs as a coordinator for Correctional Industries
($16.00/hr). For offenders and administrators these responses are promising. The
SPP program has the potential to improve conditions within the prison
environment and further offenders’ learning, in turn increasing their chances of
success outside the prison walls. For educators and those concerned with
26
environmental conservation these results show an increased interest in the
environment that could lead to conservation action and behaviors.
Increase in Social Interactions and Positive Conversations
The second most significant benefit that interviewees believed was a result
of the SPP was an increase in social interactions and positive conversations inside
and outside of SPP programs. Because the men often seek to undermine and harm
each other, offenders usually keep to themselves in prison (Haney, 2002). One
man gave a strong impression of the prison environment as he perceives it and
how he believes the SPP provided a way in which this fact of prison life is
counteracted:
It encourages you to talk to people you wouldn’t normally
talk with in prison, especially a closed society where
associations with people are always liabilities and never
benefits. It (the SPP) gets you into situations where you can
talk to other people without it being a liability.
According to one staff member, conversations that do happen in prison
revolve around negative topics that keep offenders in a narrow field of vision.
One of the inmates had this to say:
People on the inside (of SCCC) who are doing the bee class
that I knew of, we talked about it later. We would talk about
what they did compared to what we did out here (outside
the perimeter of SCCC). It brings positive commonalities
instead of the crimes we committed or had in common.
Prison staff also noticed this phenomenon. They believed that the SPP was
keeping the offenders busy and changing conversation topics, thereby
contributing to changing thought processes. Here is what one staff member had to
say:
27
I think the lecture series helps broaden their minds, gives
them things to work on and things to discuss. When they’re
discussing those types of things they’re not talking about
escape and trying to exploit other people. It changes their
thought process in a beneficial way.
As offenders in the beekeeping ERC project learned about the biology of
bees and gained hands-on experience in beekeeping, they piqued the interest of
other offenders and were sought out by offenders who wanted to learn about bees.
It is likely that there is still anxiety in the social situations that the SPP
seems to create and that the newness of positive interactions may be
uncomfortable for people conditioned to negativity, but it does seem that these
interactions could be relieving and provide offenders with at least some sense of
community and belonging. Another way in which prisoners are isolated is by
staying within their own class, ethnic and prison backgrounds. Offenders
believed that the SPP projects helped them cut across social barriers:
We had a bunch of people with different backgrounds. Our
prison backgrounds are different and probably our social
and cultural backgrounds are as diverse as our jobs at
prison are, yet we are all laughing when we are getting
around the bees.
Lastly, one of the offenders believed that the SPP created increased
communication between offenders and staff, where usually staff have to
keep a certain personal distance from offenders. As a result of working on
the frog project one offender said he got to “interact with the prison
counselors on a different level” and could talk with them about things
other than “pushing the paperwork through.” While I recognize the need to
keep some level of personal distance between offenders and prison staff,
this type of interaction could potentially contribute to less strained
relations within the prison, helping reduce fear and mistrust between
offenders and prison staff.
28
Increase in Job Skills and Opportunities
The third most significant benefit as perceived by offenders and prison
staff is an increase in job skills and opportunities. The SPP exposed offenders to
an array of job possibilities that went beyond the menial jobs they often have in
prison (Haney, 2002). The offenders know that having specialized job skills will
help them find employment, an important goal that will help them keep from
reoffending. One offender expressed the hope that he believed he received by
being exposed to new job opportunities through the SPP:
What I’ve seen since the schools have come in, you
couldn’t hope for anything more. It gives people the
opportunities that they can make it out there.
Offenders also felt that the work they were exposed to through the SPP
was more engaging than the menial labor that was widely available. They liked it
because there was more thinking and pleasure involved through accomplishments
such as seeing their beehives thrive. A wider array of types of jobs can diversify
an offender’s skill sets, therefore increasing the opportunity for employment and
the possibility of finding work that they care about. Staff remarked that offenders
in the conservation projects improved their work performance during the project
and that many other offenders were seeking to do the same so they could become
involved with the ERC projects.
By bringing in lecturers who either had their own business or who
informed offenders of other jobs, two offenders expressed that the SPP opened
their eyes to what other people were doing outside of prison to make money and
that they could make money legally as well. Being in a prison environment where
offenders keep to themselves and do not communicate much can be detrimental to
developing key job skills such as interpersonal relations and teamwork (Haney,
2002). Prison staff believed that offenders in the ERC projects were learning to
communicate and work together as a team, and that some of this is because the
offenders are exposed to a different culture via the SPP:
29
It (beekeeping ERC project) makes them better employees.
They’re learning job skills and they’re learning how to
work with others and they’re exposed to a different culture
than they are exposed to every day when they’re living
inside here.
Offenders and staff claimed that as a result of SPP programs, they became
interested in looking into the following topics after they are released (# of
requests in parentheses):
•
•
•
•
•
•
agriculture (1)
beekeeping (6)
forestry (1)
frog rearing (1)
horticulture (1)
making goods out of recycled materials (1)
That the SPP seems to offer increased job skills and opportunities is
promising for quality of life and rehabilitation outcomes. Employment is one of
the factors that reduces an offender’s likelihood to continue committing crimes.
As Table 3 indicates, other benefits are not particularly surprising. These include
widening of the offenders’ worldview as they learn more about science and
sustainability; receiving benefits of the hands-on work that comes with the ERC
projects; and an increased sense of connection to the environment. Additionally,
there were emotional benefits that the offenders and staff believed came with
participation in the SPP: increased self-esteem by being responsible for the health
of the organisms under their care and having increased freedom to make
independent decisions within the projects, empathy for living organisms, calming
therapeutic effects, altruistic feelings of giving back to the community, and
validation as human beings as a result of interacting with SPP staff and guests
who visited the prison from the outside.
30
4.1.2 Challenges to SPP Program Implementation
There were not a wide variety of challenges mentioned by prison staff
(offenders were not interviewed about challenges). Most of the challenges had to
do with not having enough time (Table 4). The interview questions and responses
focused on perceived difficulties of implementing SPP activities rather than
problems the offenders may face as a result of participation in SPP. Of the
challenges that were frequently talked about, the three most frequent were: 1)
getting more interest and participation in the SPP, 2) the need for additional
security staff, and 3) finding staff with the time to take on SPP projects.
Table 4
Perceived Challenges to Implementing SPP Activities
Interest and participation in the SPP
Need for additional security staff
Finding staff to take on projects
Time for staff to attend lectures
N
13
12
10
5
Interest and Participation in the SPP
Getting staff and offender interest and participation were the biggest
challenges that were mentioned. Participation in sustainability-related behavior is
a challenge with most Americans (Moser, 2006). Finding interest and
participation within prison walls has parallels to and differences from how this
manifests outside of prisons. One similarity is that it is difficult to get more than
a core group of people interested in science and sustainability. Here one prison
staff member speaks to this phenomenon:
(Is there anything that is particularly challenging making
lectures happen in this kind of setting?) Getting the interest.
Other than the 65 that come to every lecture we have or
every event that we have, getting the interest of everybody
else. That seems to be our hardest, short of going to every
unit and making them sign up.
31
Prison staff also believed that one of the roadblocks to getting more
offender participation is the mistrust that offenders have towards prison staff and
Washington State. They felt that in general offenders have a “what’s in it for me”
attitude and may think that the State is making money from such programs. Staff
is also a critical factor in the success of any program, and they have the power to
sabotage sustainability and education efforts. In this arena the tensions between
staff and offenders reveal themselves again. The prison staff we interviewed
believed that other staff may not participate if they think the proceeds of recycling
went to an offender fund, and vice versa. Staff felt that top-down mandates to
make offenders and staff participate in sustainable behavior could alienate people
and keep them from participating. These results show that while there is great
interest with a core group of offenders and staff, and the word appears to be
spreading, the challenge remains to getting a wider audience within the prison
walls to participate in the SPP and in sustainable practices in general.
Security Concerns and the Need for Additional Security Staff
The second biggest perceived challenge was security concerns and the
need for additional security staff. Prisons are structured environments where
movement and the types of items allowed to the offenders are very restricted and
closely monitored. SPP activities, especially ERC projects, feature hands-on
components, including sharp tools and chemicals. Prisons are careful about what
items they allow outsiders to bring in because the offenders could use certain
items for weapons, escape mechanisms, or to sell to each other. When an SPP
lecturer or scientists wants to bring in items, each item must be approved at least
two weeks in advance of the SPP activity. One staff member mentioned that SPP
staff and guests need to be vigilant about getting approval for items ahead of time
since it can put staff on the spot to complete this last-minute approval work:
…the security clearance…we’re getting better at it but
sometimes people like to wait a really long time before they
give us that. The person I go to it kind of puts her on the
spot to get them done, or like a last minute person is going
to come, which isn’t a huge deal but you have to get the
information and sit down at the computer and get it cleared.
32
Adding programs such as the SPP presents a need for finding additional
security staff to monitor the offenders. One staff person explained how and why
they have to ask for additional staff:
We want to keep custody and security in mind and they’ll
say give them a couple of days and they’ll (security staff)
figure out if they can do it. We’re probably at that tipping
point now as far as programs and supervision being able to
properly supervise them with the number of offenders we
have. We do have a lot of people out there working and not
that many supervisors.
Other security concerns arise with some activities that are part of
sustainable practices, such as collecting recycling outside the perimeter fence,
which cannot be done if it is foggy outside. Additionally, SPP programs are by
necessity limited to people who are on good behavior, others cannot participate
because it is a security concern. The prison must also be mindful about where
they place programs because some offenders do not have clearance for lowersecurity areas.
Finding Staff with the Time to Take on SPP Projects
The third most frequently mentioned challenge was finding staff with
enough time to oversee the SPP projects, in which offenders were expressing
growing interest. With budget cuts resulting in layoffs and cuts in existing
programs, prison staff is extremely busy. These budget cuts also make it difficult,
if not impossible, to hire staff dedicated solely to SPP activities. One staff
member put it succinctly when they said that they believe that “the biggest
challenge is trying to make sure we have the staff to cover it all.” A staff member
who works on the beekeeping projects at one of the facilities talks about her
experience of having beekeeping duties in addition to her normal duties as a
counselor:
33
Its sometimes very taxing…as a counselor we are
constantly dealing with things that change and fluctuate all
the time. Sometimes all of a sudden something new
happens (with their counseling work) and boom it has to
be done now and we want it done now. That’s all fine and
good but you have something out there (with the bees) that
says go take care of this now or we are going to lose this.
The last and least frequently mentioned challenge was that of finding the
best times for staff to attend lectures. Because staff are so busy, they are often not
able to make it to lectures during the day. Holding lectures in the evening also
presents challenges. Dinner for the staff would not be available at the prison. Staff
would likely have to go home, which is often far from the facility, and come back
out later for the lectures.
4.1.3 Recommendations for Implementing SPP Programs
There were not a wide variety of recommendations. The most common
recommendations made by offenders and prison staff revealed a desire for more
SPP activities (Table 5). There were not a wide variety of recommendations. The
three most noteworthy were: 1) add new topics for SPP activities, 2) add formal
vocational training, and 3) expand existing SPP activities.
Table 5
Offender and Prison Staff Recommendations for SPP
Add new topics for SPP activities
Add formal vocational training
Expanding existing SPP activities
More hands-on activities
Add academic education
Change length & frequency of lectures
Ensure longevity of SPP
N
19
12
9
8
5
5
5
Add New Topics for SPP Activities
Given the positive feedback of prison staff and offenders, it may be no
surprise that the majority of recommendations centered on expanding upon SPP
activities in various ways. The most frequent requests were to incorporate new
34
topics in the SSLS and ERC projects. Suggested new topics included (frequency
of topic in parentheses):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alternative energy (wind, solar, and marine-generated energy) (6)
Behavior change for sustainable practices (1)
Composting biosolids (1)
Cricket rearing for ERC frog project (3)
Dog training (1)
Hydrology (including wastewater management, recharging water
tables, and water quality) (3)
Pedology (1)
Raising endangered organisms (turtles & butterflies) (2)
Vermiculture (1)
Wastewater management (1)
Since the time of the interviews two of these topics have already been
instated within some of the institutions: 1) butterfly rearing and 2) cricket rearing
for the ERC frog project. The most interest was shown in the topic of alternative
energy and arose from concern for the environment and a belief that there will be
increasing jobs available in this field.
Add Formal Vocational Training
Offenders and staff knew that helping offenders find employment is a key
to help them make a living and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. The
offenders were excited about getting skills that would give them a leg up in the
emerging green economy. To the offenders, the SPP offers the possibility of a link
to find meaningful, well-paying work in the prison and upon their release,
something that is normally difficult for an offender/ex-offender to find (Stafford,
2006). The offenders we interviewed felt that the SPP introduced them to better
options where they could learn how to create their own business, or find work in a
more engaging field, such as beekeeping. One offender talked about his desire for
a vocational component of SPP by linking them directly to the community, as
well as his view of the jobs normally available to ex-offenders:
35
Ideally if we had an organization that gave some vocational
classes, for instance like beekeeping, and they put us
together with companies like beekeeping companies of
some sort, that would interview you and hire you directly
out of prison so you wouldn’t have that down time…If you
had a job waiting for you directly out of prison on
something you were trained for and you can immediately go
into something better than a crappy part-time minimum
wage job.
Expand Existing SPP Activities
The third most frequent recommendation was to expand existing activities.
Eight out of the nine requests were for expanding the ERC projects. Following are
the requested ERC project expansions (frequency in parentheses):
•
•
•
•
All of the ERC projects (1)
Horticulture (3)
Endangered frog rearing (1)
Beekeeping (3)
With the horticulture program, the desire was to expand the gardens
themselves. For beekeeping, there were three requests: 1) increase the amount of
hives, 2) increasing the amount of time during the year that it is done (from spring
to fall), and 3) do research on colony collapse via the beekeeping they are doing.
One staff member requested that the SSLS repeat the lectures because there are so
many new offenders coming in each week. There were more offenders involved
in beekeeping and horticulture than there were in the frog rearing, which may
explain why there was only one request for the frog rearing.
Other recommendations are not surprising given the interests of offenders
and staff. Hands-on work was the most engaging for the offenders, creating
academic components, increasing the length and frequency of the lectures, and
supporting the longevity of the programs all fit in line with the offenders and staff
being excited and enthused about SPP projects
According to the offenders and prison staff we interviewed, offers
something hopeful that enhances and widens the offenders’ worlds while still in
36
prison. The SPP takes their minds beyond prison walls and opens up new
opportunities, giving them positive foci. The perceived challenges to
implementing SPP are complex issues to resolve, and it seems that the most
frequent recommendations related to other, easier to talk about topics. Clearly, to
implement the recommendations to increase SPP activity, the challenges will need
to be faced and worked through.
4.2 Offender Surveys
The McNemar test showed that there was a significant difference between
the pre-SSLS and post-SSLS survey scores for questions B1-B4, where there was
an increase in offenders’ likelihood to seek out information on and talk to other
offenders about environmental topics after participating in a lecture. These
findings support the interview results where offenders and staff believed that the
SPP was increasing interest in environmental topics and increasing social
interaction and positive conversation. The paired t-test showed no significant
differences between the pre- and post-ERC project survey questions that
measured the offenders’ attitudes towards their jobs and other offenders. Because
the SSLS survey and qualitative analyses results indicated that the SPP did have
effects on the offenders, the ERC project survey results suggest not that the SPP
does not have effects, but rather that the survey instrument may need to be
refined.
37
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter I address the purposes in my introduction: 1) determine the
extent to which SPP programs share characteristics with the correctional programs
that have been documented as being the most effective at reducing crime; and 2)
assess the significance of environmental education in the SPP’s potential
effectiveness in supporting rehabilitative outcomes. I then discuss the implications
of my study for a variety of stakeholders. I end with recommendations for
program improvements and future funding and research.
5.1 Discussion
5.1.1 Rehabilitation and The SPP
Excitement and Interest in the Environment and Increase in Social
Interaction and Positive Conversation.
Although it suggests an improved quality of life, the theme of excitement
is not a part of any specific rehabilitative strategy. Responses from prison staff
and offenders in the increase in social interaction and positive conversation theme
indicated that the SPP seems to have social interaction among offenders,
including peer mentoring. The quantitative analysis of the SSLS also supported
the common belief that increased social interaction among offenders happened as
a result of the SPP.
The accounts of the offenders and prison staff that we interviewed suggest
that the SPP helped offenders build social skills, gain confidence, change thought
processes, and practice problem-solving skills; some of the same skills that
offenders in PAPs, HTPs, conservation and ecology programs gained (Big Stone
National Wildlife Refuge, 2010; Fournier et al., 2007; Prater & Menges, 1972;
Rice et al., 1993; Turner, 2007). Increased social interactions develop
interpersonal skills that the offenders need to hold a job, a deficit described by
Motiuk and Brown (1993). Results suggest that participation in the SPP fulfills an
aim of cognitive behavioral therapies when it directs attention to more productive,
positive thought processes (Porporino et al., 1991), as it gives a chance, through
38
practice of new skills, to develop new neural pathways that contribute to lasting
behavior change (Pascual et al., 1999).
Job Skills and Opportunities
Although the SPP did not provide vocational certification or formalized
vocational programs, the interviewees believed that it provided offenders with
real-world work experience (including building interpersonal skills), wages, and
job skills, described by MacKenzie as aspects of vocational programs
(MacKenzie, 2006, p. 92). These outcomes of SPP participation address a major
deficit for people who have fewer job skills and are more likely to be unemployed
while in their respective communities (Andrews & Bonta, 2003).
Lower-Level Themes and Occurrences
Some of the less frequent themes suggest that the SPP has effects similar
to those of cognitive-behavioral programs and is fostering an improved quality of
life. These themes included increased self-esteem, altruistic motives, empathy,
nurturing, hope, and increased freedom, which help develop “abilities in social
skills, problem-solving, critical reasoning, moral development, and coping”
(Henning & Freuh, 1996; MacKenzie, 2006, p. 133; Mahoney & Arnkoff, 1978)
and changing “beliefs, attitudes and thought processes” (Porporino et al., 1991)
from originally dysfunctional behaviors. These effects were similar to those of
PAPs (Moneymaker & Strimple, 1991; Strimple, 2003; Toch, 2000), HTPs (Jiler,
2006), and plant conservation programs (Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge,
2010). Along with requests for more academic education, results suggest that the
SPP project outcomes combine aspects of all three of the most effective
rehabilitation programs.
5.1.2 Science and Sustainability Education
The responses from offenders and prison staff indicate that science and
sustainability education appear to have played two roles in the SPP: 1) increasing
an environmental stewardship ethic; and 2) improving quality of life and
providing therapeutic effects. Quantitative results from the SSLS surveys also
show an increased interest in environmental topics. Outcomes of SPP projects
seemed to include fulfilling the desired outcomes of environmental education as
39
described by UNESCO (1978). The interviews also suggest that science and
sustainability education improved the quality of offenders’ lives and contributed
to cognitive-behavioral outcomes by giving them excitement, positive topics of
conversation, self-esteem, encourage a nurturing instinct, a connection to the
environment, and other outcomes.
Sources of Bias and Confounding Variables in my Study
In my study, no control group was used and so there was simultaneous
participation in other programs, a common problem when conducting studies in
correctional institutions, listed by Cushing and Williams (1995). Sample sizes
were relatively small and offenders were not randomly assigned to the program or
my study; as with PAPs and HTPs, SPP offenders must be meeting a standard of
good behavior, making truly random sampling impossible. SPP participants had
an interest in environmental issues before participating in the SPP and the 2009
Heil report demonstrated that offenders who participated in the SPP rated higher
than the national average for caring about things like biodiversity (McCracken &
Magharious, 2009). Offenders may have over-reported positive effects because of
wanting to be seen in a favorable light. Lastly, my study served as a pilot study,
therefore pilot tested, benchmark instruments were not used to collect the data for
this study.
5.2 Implications
My work suggests that the SPP creates rehabilitative outcomes, inspires an
environmental stewardship ethic, and improves the quality of life for offenders.
These results have implications for a variety of stakeholders. For those associated
with the Corrections Industry, the SPP represents a promising rehabilitation
program that contributes to a more positive view of corrections: it saves taxpayer
money through sustainable practices and reducing crime, and helps the
environment. For those reasons, this study is also of interest to taxpayers. The
SPP is worthwhile to offenders because it provides a way to gain job and life
skills, as well as improve their quality of life while incarcerated.
40
For natural scientists and science educators this program taps a new
audience that is extremely receptive to science and sustainability education, and
provides an opportunity to learn how to reach less interested audiences.
Additionally, offenders may generate useful questions for research because they
bring “a fresh perspective” (Nadkarni, 2004). Social and natural scientists will
benefit from such a program because it provides an ideal place to study the
interrelated social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability, as well
as inviting an expanded view of nature and sustainability.
For horticultural therapists, beekeeping and frog rearing could enrich HTP
experiences and outcomes. Though working with non-companion animals is
atypical of PAPs, working with bees and frogs could provide a new treatment
option. Finally, this study can help those interested in implementing similar
programs at enforced residential institutions by highlighting benefits and
challenges of science and sustainability programs.
5.3 Recommendations
5.3.1 Program Recommendations
I recommend the following changes to SPP programs to increase the
potential of contributing to sustainability through rehabilitation. The SPP should
create:
•
•
•
•
formalized vocational programs
formalized academic education components
formalized cognitive-behavioral components (including
horticultural and animal therapy)
reentry programs
These are ambitious recommendations and must be implemented
incrementally. Vocational training is the most effective at reducing recidivism and
was requested by both offenders and staff. In other Recommendation categories:
ERC Projects, Lectures, Participation, offenders and staff requested that the SPP
41
provide employment opportunities (e.g. training, certification, and post-release
employment).
Vocational Program
The SPP can do several things to formalize vocational training. In general,
certification can be achieved by working with community colleges. The offenders
that I interviewed responded most enthusiastically to the apiculture program so
that program may be the best one to develop. This could include finishing and
implementing the apiculture curriculum that a former SPP guest scientist created.
The program could be incorporated into a community college course or the
offenders could be certified as Master Beekeepers, as Sweet Beginnings does with
former offenders (Urban Farm, 2010).
The SSLS can be integrated into a vocational program as well. The SSLS
has already, as some staff and offenders recommended, been given an overarching
theme that ties into the horticulture program. This idea could be expanded to other
prisons. Group gardening activities could be incorporated into the horticulture
program to encourage teamwork and communication skills as well as leadership,
pride and creativity (Rice et al., 1993). These programs could also include job
placement once a student has served her/his sentence (Jiler, 2006, p. 27). All
aspects of training should use hands-on components per offender and staff
requests.
Academic Components
Part of the vocational training should be to incorporate academic
education, either through community colleges or The Evergreen State College.
There was interest in scientific research from offenders and staff in the apiculture
program. SPP already has programs in place that provide natural places for
research and academic education, benefitting both offenders and scientists, and
fitting in with a goal of the SPP: to advance scientific understanding and research.
Like the PAP at WCCW and the program at Fields High School (Prater &
Menges, 1972), the SPP could offer academic credit for those participating in
vocational training.
42
Cognitive-Behavioral Components
There was no direct request on the part of offenders or staff that cognitivebehavioral elements be incorporated into SPP programs. However, these
programs are effective at rehabilitation and address deficits that education cannot.
Since ERC projects seem to have effects closely related to those of participating
in HTP or PAPs, and the effects of those programs contribute to cognitive
restructuring, I recommend pursuing horticultural or animal-assisted therapy. To
accomplish this change the SPP or WDOC would need to hire staff trained in
cognitive-behavioral methods to create effectiveness and sustainability of the
program.
Dedicated staff could tailor the program to meet goals, track effectiveness
of the programs, and integrate with the offenders’ counselors. Hiring these staff
would emulate the activities at Riker’s Island and San Francisco Jail.
Additionally, SPP staff member observed that offenders have the tendency to
challenge staff by creating their own projects within the gardens at one of the
facilities (C. Elliott, personal communication, July 13, 2010). Part of the increased
self-esteem offenders believed came from working on ERC projects came from
having the freedom to make independent decisions. If allowed to exert some sense
of control over their environment in this way, it could further teach the offenders
team building, social, and problem-solving skills. This could be further
accomplished by, for example, creating offender teams that could compete to
conceive and establish gardens or study designs for research on bees or frogs.
Reentry Program
Offenders are released back into what are often poor, under-served
communities. This defeats the purposes of in-prison rehabilitation programs and
the inspiration of an environmental stewardship ethic among offenders. Offenders
need follow-up support to help them adapt to life stresses and continue with the
progress they made in rehabilitation programs (Rice & Remy, 1998). There is a
drastic difference in recidivism for offenders who are employed in the first six
months after their release (17% recidivism versus 41% for those not employed)
43
(Gillis et al., 1998), and reentry programs address this deficit by giving offenders
jobs when they are released.
Just as counseling services are incorporated into the post-release Garden
Project, they could also be incorporated into an SPP reentry program, particularly
because offenders are also found to need continued emotional support after they
are released (Pearson et al., 2002). To implement such programs the SPP would
need to find additional funding which I address in the next section.
Nature and Sustainability
Something for the SPP to consider is how it defines nature and
sustainability. Although the SPP refers to nature as separate from humans, in
practice it demonstrates a more holistic view of nature and sustainability. On one
hand, the SPP emphasizes environmental sustainability such as conservation
outcomes. But through its practices it addresses more than restoring Puget Sound
prairies. As demonstrated in this study through the expressions of the offenders,
their sense of dignity, their education, being treated as intelligent equals, ability to
participate in something that carries their imagination and capability beyond the
prison, and the invitation to think about and provide solutions to environmental
issues/problems are significant sustainability outcomes of the SPP and fulfill the
SPP’s goals/mission: to reduce the environmental, economic and human costs of
prisons, in part through “helping offenders rebuild their lives” (SPP, 2010d). The
SPP is in a unique and influential position to contribute to holistic views of nature
and sustainability.
5.3.2 Research Recommendations
I make two recommendations for research:
•
•
Controlled, empirical studies to isolate the effects of the SPP while
in prison and to determine if the SPP reduces recidivism.
Ongoing interviews and focus groups of staff and offenders
(including types of staff who have not been interviewed before) to
incorporate feedback and experiences into ongoing program
development
44
Equal importance should be given to continuing both quantitative and
qualitative analyses. For recidivism-specific, empirical studies, enlisting the help
of the WSIPP, a research organization created by the Washington State
Legislature, could be invaluable. With little cost to the SPP, the WSIPP could
conduct rigorous studies that carry weight in legislative processes, and provide the
SPP with valuable information. Ways to minimize biases in quantitative studies
include setting up a control group that participates only in other programs that
SPP offenders participate in, but without participation in SPP. Another study
could use a control group of people on the waiting list to participate in SPP
programs much as Fournier et al. (2007) did, or a control group of people not
involved in SPP programs but who are exhibiting good behavior.
Because of the limited number of positions in ERC projects, and a limited
number of seats and interest, it may be impossible to work with large sample
sizes. It is also difficult to assign random offenders to participate in SPP activities
because of security concerns with offenders with behavioral problems. The SPP
could also attract offenders (note: only those exhibiting good behavior), or just
have them assigned, to attend SPP events and participate in a study to see how
effective the SPP would be when not preaching to the choir. Interviewing factions
of staff that have not been interviewed before, including security staff, can reveal
important roadblocks to and solutions for implementing SPP projects that
quantitative methods cannot show (Mrazek, 1993).
Offenders in particular are more invested and are better served when their
experiences and needs are identified through interviews. Interviewing offenders,
including women offenders, about the unique challenges that working with the
SPP may have for them personally can help serve them more effectively.
Interviewing offenders who are not interested in the SPP may be able to help the
SPP and prison staff understand what might get more people involved in the SPP.
Having offenders, or SPP staff that the offenders trust, conduct interviews of
offenders could help minimize over-reporting positive effects.
The instruments used in my study can now serve as the pilot-test for larger
scale research. The ERC project survey questions in particular will need to be
45
improved. Other well-respected studies could be located and used to provide a
benchmark. Examples include the Human-Animal Interaction Scale (to help
understand the details of offender involvement with animals), and the Social
Skills Inventory (SSI) (to measure basic emotional and communication skills) that
were used in the Fournier et al. (2007) study.
5.3.3 Funding Recommendations
While DOC has provided the most funding for the SPP, this resource is
very limited, especially in this time of economic uncertainty. The SPP can pursue
several options to secure additional funds:
•
•
•
•
Foundations and agencies
Fundraising events
Business competition events
Selling products from reentry programs
The first is approaching foundations, such as those Sweet Beginnings
used: The Boeing Company, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Ben & Jerry’s
Foundation (North Lawndale Employment Network, 2010). Other options include
approaching horticultural and apiculture societies, local counties and cities,
private donors, and business competitions, such as the Social Impact Exchange
Business Plan Competition. Fundraising events are another viable option for
fundraising. These could include an annual gala dinner where attendees purchase
tickets and bid on auction items, or a “tea,” such as the one that Sweet Beginnings
holds (North Lawndale Employment Network, 2010). Finally, another avenue is
to sell the products that would be produced in the reentry programs (i.e. honey
and beeswax products; and produce). Local companies or organizations could also
hire the services of offenders who could rent out beehives.
5.4 Conclusions
The SPP holds considerable promise as a rehabilitative strategy and that
the SPP appears to share characteristics with successful rehabilitation programs.
My data also indicated that science and sustainability education increases an
46
environmental stewardship ethic and provides offenders with a greater quality of
life. Given the possible benefits for a wide variety of stakeholders and a good
public image in the media, it is advisable to continue the SPP and conduct more
rigorous qualitative and quantitative studies to determine the SPP’s effectiveness.
This thesis was written during a time of increasing budget cuts throughout the
U.S. and in Washington State, making it more difficult to conduct studies and
support SPP activities. As more funding eventually becomes available and if the
SPP is shown in more rigorous studies to be effective, the SPP’s programs should
be expanded within the WDOC and possibly to other enforced residential
institutions. Programs like the SPP have the potential to improve the quality of
people’s lives and those of non-human organisms. In the process the SPP may
also broaden definitions of sustainability, nature, and the environment.
47
REFERENCES
Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Hulme, M. (2003). Adaptation to climate change in the
developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3 (3): 179-195.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing.
Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990).
Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically
informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-397.
Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (1997). Public support for correctional
treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. Prison Journal, 77,
237-258.
Associated Press. (2003). Indian ridge inmates work to restore watershed. The Olympian,
January 2, 2003. Retrieved on June 1, 2010 from Environmental Protection
Agency website: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/update/u022703.pdf
Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge. (2010). Into the great wide open: Prairie
Correctional Facility helps restore and preserve local endangered prairie lands.
From Kim Bousquet, personal communication, March, 5, 2010.
Biklen, S. K., & Bogdan, R. C. (1992). Qualitative research for evaluation: An
introduction to theory and methods. Second edition. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Brewer, C. (2001). Cultivating conservation literacy: “Trickle-down” education is not
enough. Conservation Biology, Vol 15 (5): 1203-1205.
Britton, D.M., & Button, A. (2005). Prison pups: Assessing the effects of dog training
programs in correctional facilities. Journal of Family Social Work, 9, (4), 79-95.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Correctional populations in the United States. Special
report
NCJ 205336. U.S. Department of Justice.
Campbell, C., & Carter, F. D. (1999). The Florida Department of Corrections
involvement in exotic pest plant control. In D. T. Jones & B. W. Gamble (Ed.),
Florida’s garden of good and evil: Proceedings of a joint conference of the exotic
48
pest plant council and the Florida Native Plant Society. Homestead, FL:
Everglades National Park.
Cernansky, R. (2009). Rikers Island Sprouting Green: Gardening Project Helps ExPrisoners Plant, Grow, and Not Go Back to Prison. Planet Green, Discovery.
Retrieved October 6, 2010 from http://planetgreen.discovery.com/foodhealth/prison-gardens-growing-trend.html
Cooper, J., & Plomski, L. (2010). Incarcerated men as partners to conservationists in
rearing endangered frogs for translocation. Report for the South Sound Science
Symposium.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.C. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Cronon, W. (1995). Uncommon ground: Toward reinventing nature. W.W. Norton &
Company: New York, N.Y.
Cullen, F. T., Skovron, S. E., & Scott, J. E. (1990). Public support for correctional
treatment: The tenacity of rehabilitative ideology. Survey of Cincinnati and
Columbus residents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 6-18.
Cushing, J. L., & Williams, J. D. (1995). Wild mustang program: A case study in
facilitated inmate therapy. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22 (3/4), 95-112.
Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself. Penguin Books: New York, N.Y.
Drake, E. K., Aos, S. & Barnoski, R. (2010). Washington’s Offender Accountability Act:
Final report on recidivism outcomes. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute
for Public Policy, Document No. 10-01-1201.
Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to
reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims
and Offenders, 4, 170-196.
Dryzek, J.S. (1997). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford
University Press: New York, N.Y.
Elliott, Carl. (2010). Growing plants and potential: Stafford Creek nursery project.
Retrieved December 20, 2010 from the Sustainable Prisons Project website:
49
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/2010/06/22/growing-plants-andpotential-stafford-creek-nursery-project/
Farley, J. (2009). Inmates helping group restore salmon habitat. The Spokesman-Review.
Retrieved March 4, 2010 from the Spokesman-Review website:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/aug/19/inmates-helping-group-restoresalmon-habitat/
Farrington, D. (1986). Age and crime. In M. Tonry and N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and
Justice (Vol. 7, pp. 189-250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fournier, A. K., Geller, E. S., & Fortney, E. V. (2007). Human-animal interaction in a
prison setting: Impact on criminal behavior, treatment progress, and social skills.
Behavior and Social Issues, 16, 89-105.
Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. The Prison Journal,
86, 407-430.
Garcia, K. (1999). Jail Sentences reduced to thyme served: Unique gardening program
for inmates. SF Chronicle. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from the San Francisco
Chronicle SFGate website: http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1999/04/17/MN101683.DTL
Gillis, C., Motiuk, L., and Belcourt. (1998). Prison work program (CORCAN)
participation: Post-release employment and recidivism, R-69. Toronto: Research
Branch, Correctional Service of Canada. Retrieved October 6, 2010 from
Correctional Service of Canada website: http://www.cscscc.gc.ca/text/rsrch/reports/r69/r69_e.pdf
Glenn, D. (2008). Security and paperwork keep prison researchers on the outside. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved March 17, 2010, from
http://chronicle.com/article/SecurityPaperwork-Keep/32887/
Haller, R. (1998). Vocational, social, and therapeutic programs in horticulture. In S. P.
Simson & M. C. Straus (Ed.), Horticulture as therapy: Principles and practice.
New York, NY: Food Products Press.
Haney, C. (2002). From prison to home: The effects of incarceration and reentry on
children, families, and communities. National Policy Conference: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, The Urban Institute.
50
Henning, K. R., & Freuh, B. C. (1996). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of incarcerated
offenders: An evaluation of the Vermont Department of Corrections cognitive
self-change program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 31-42.
Holling, C. S. (2000). Theories for sustainable futures. Conservation Ecology 4(2): 7.
Hoy, W.K. (2009). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Jiler, J. (2006). Doing Time in the Garden: Life Lessons Through Prison Horticulture.
Oakland: New Village Press.
Johnson, R. (1995). Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison. Wadsworth
Publishing: Belmont, CA.
Langan, P.A., & Levin, D.J. (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. (Report
NCJ 205336). Retrieved August 1, 2010 from Bureau of Justice Statistics:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/abstract/rpr94.htm
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: reducing the criminal activities of
offenders and delinquents. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mahoney, M. J., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies. In S. L.
Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior
change: An empirical analysis (pp. 689-722). New York: Wiley.
Martineau, J. (2009). Prison in Freeland, Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge partners
in growing native plants. The Saginaw News. Retrieved March 4, 2010 from
http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/saginaw/index.ssf/2009/01/prison_in_freela
nd_shiawassee.html
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. Public
Interest, 10, 22-54.
McCracken, K., & Magharious, G. (2009). 2008 Sustainable Prisons Evaluation Report.
Portland, OR: David Heil & Associates.
Migura, M. M., Whittlesey, L. A., & Zajicek, J. M. (1997). Effects of a vocational
horticulture program on the self-development of female inmates. Horticultural
Technology, 7 (3), 299-304.
51
Moneymaker, J. M., & Strimple, E. O. (1991). Animals and inmates: A sharing
companionship behind bars. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16 (3/4), 169191.
Morris, N., & Rothman, D. J. (1997). The oxford history of the prison: The practice of
punishment in western society. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Moser, S.C. (2006). Talk of the city: Engaging urbanites on climate change.
Emvironmental Research Letters 1: 1-10.
Motiuk, L. L., & Brown, S. L. (1993). The validity of offender needs identification and
analysis in community corrections (R-34). Ottawa, Canada: Research and
Statistics Branch, Correctional Service of Canada.
Mrazek, Rick. (1993). Alternative Paradigms in Environmental Education Research.
Troy, OH: The North American Association for Environmental Education.
Muir, P. (2004). An assessment of commercial ‘‘moss’’ harvesting from forested lands in
the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. Final Report to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. Corvallis, OR.
Nadkarni, N.M. (2004). Not preaching to the choir: Communicating the importance of
forest conservation to nontraditional audiences. Conservation Biology, 18 (3):
602-606.
Nadkarni, N. M. (2006). The moss-in-prison project: Disseminating science beyond
academia. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8 (4), 442-443.
National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators 2010. U.S.
Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
North Lawndale Employment Network. (2010). News Release: North Lawndale
Employment Network to hold fifth annual Sweet Beginnings Tea to benefit
Westside employment programs. Retrieved October 13, 2010 from Sweet
Beginnings website: http://www.sweetbeginningsllc.com/wpcontent/uploads/012610_5th_Annual_SB_Tea_Rev_FINAL.pdf
Pascual-Leone, A., Hamilton, R., Tormos, J.M., Keenan, J. P., & Catala, M. D. (1999).
Neuroplasticity in the adjustment to blindness. In J. Grafman and Y. Christen,
eds., Neuronal plasticity: Building a bridge from the laboratory to the clinic. New
York: Springer-Verlag, 94-108.
52
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of
behavioral/cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency,
48 (3), 476-496).
Pew Center on the States. (2008). One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008. Washington
DC: Pew Center on the States. Retrieved December 5, 2009 from Pew Center on
the States website:
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL
_2-1-1_FORWEB.pdf
Porporino, F. J., Fabiano, E. A., Robinson, D. (1991). Focusing on successful
reintegration: Cognitive skills training for offenders, R-19. Canada: Research and
Statistics Branch, Correctional Service of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Prater, B. L., & Menges, D. J. (1972). Ecology behind prison walls. The American
Biology Teacher, 34 (1), 11-13.
Redclift, M. (2005). Sustainable development (1987-2005): An oxymoron comes of age.
Sustainable Development (13): 212-227.
Rice, J. S., & Remy, L. L. (1998). Impact of horticultural therapy on psychosocial
functioning among urban jail inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 26
(3/4), 169-191.
Rice, J. S., Remy, L. L., Whittlesey, L. A. (1998). Substance abuse, offender
rehabilitation, and horticultural therapy practice. In S. Simson & M. C. Straus
(Ed.), Horticulture as therapy: Principles and practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The
salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review: 55: 609-627.
Seymour, J. (1981). Niches in prison: adaptation and environment in correctional
institutions. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Simson, S.P., & Straus, M. (2003). Horticulture as therapy: Principles and practice.
Haworth Press: Binghampton, N.Y.
53
Stafford, C. (2006). Finding work: How to approach the intersection of prisoner reentry,
employment, and recidivism. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy,
13, (2): 261-283.
State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2005). Recidivism of adult
felons: 2004. Olympia, WA: State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines
Commission.
Strimple, Earl O. 2003. A History of Prison Inmate-Animal Interaction Programs.
American Behavioral Scientist, 47, (1): 70-78.
Sustainable Prisons Project. (2010a). About. Retrieved December 15, 2009 from the
Sustainable Prisons Project website:
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/about/
Sustainable Prisons Project. (2010b). Press Room. Retrieved on August 1, 2010 from the
Sustainable Prisons Project website:
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/press-room/
Sustainable Prisons Project. (2010c). Sustainable Prisons Project. Retrieved October 12,
2010 from the Sustainable Prisons Project website:
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/
Sustainable Prisons Project. (2010d). What we do. Retrieved December 14, 2010 from
the Sustainable Prisons Project website:
http://blogs.evergreen.edu/sustainableprisons/what-we-do/
Sustainable Prisons project. (2010e). Project summary: Scientific research and
conservation. Sustainable Prisons Project 2009 Final Report.
The Garden Project. (2000a). The Garden Project. Retrieved October 7, 2010 from The
Garden Project website: http://www.gardenproject.org/thegardenproject.htm
The Garden Project. (2000b). The Earth Stewards Program. Retrieved October 7, 2010
from The Garden Project website:
http://www.gardenproject.org/theearthstewardsprogram.htm
Toch, H. (1992). Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Toch, H. (2000). Altruistic activity as correctional treatment. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (3), 270-278.
54
Turner, W. G. (2007). The experiences of offenders in a prison canine program. Federal
Probation, 71 (1), 38-43.
Ulrich, C., & Nadkarni, N.M. (2009). Sustainability research and practices in enforced
residential institutions: Collaborations of ecologists and prisoners. Environment,
Development, and Sustainability, 11 (4), 815-832.
UNESCO. (1977). Final Report Tbilisi. Paper presented at the Intergovernmental
Conference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia. Paris:
UNESCO.
Urban Farm. (2010). Honey of a deal. Urban Farm: Sustainable City Living, Fall 2010,
10.
Wake, D.B., & Vredenburg, V.T. (2008). Are we in the midst of the sixth mass
extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 105 (1): 11466-11473.
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2010a). Cedar Creek Corrections Center.
Retrieved February 26, 2010 from the Washington State Department of
Corrections Website: http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/prison/cccc/
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2010b). McNeil Island Corrections
Center. Retrieved February 26, 2010 from the Washington State Department of
Corrections website: http://www.doc.wa.gov/search/results.asp?search=mcneil
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2010c). Stafford Creek Corrections
Center. Retrieved February 26, 2010 from the Washington State Department of
Corrections website: http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/prison/sccc/
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2010d). Sustainability & Environmental
Focus. Retrieved August 1, 2010 from the Washington State Department of
Corrections website: http://www.doc.wa.gov/goals/sustainability/
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2010e). Washington Corrections Center
for Women. Retrieved February 26, 2010 from the Washington State Department
of Corrections website: http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/prison/wccw/
Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zamble, E., & Porporino, F. J. (1988). Coping, Behavior, and Adaptation in Prison
Inmates. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
56
APPENDIX A: OFFENDER AND STAFF INTERVIEW
GUIDES
Sustainable Prisons Project: Offender Interview Guide
Introductions
• Evaluation of the Sustainable Prisons Program; Look for ways to improve the
program.
• Don’t have to participate in the evaluation; this is our way of learning how the
program works.
• Group interview:
o I will ask questions and ask you all to provide input.
o Do not need to raise hands but try not to talk over each other. We are
recording the interview, so minimizing background noise is important.
o You do not need to agree. We would like to hear different
perspectives.
o Using a spider mic to record answers.
• Any questions?
• Please introduce yourselves so that I know you names (first name only)
I’d like to spend time hearing from you about any lectures that you have attended
and any of the sustainable practices or science/conservation programs in which
you have participated.
Lectures
First, let’s talk about you involvement in any of the Sustainable prisons activities
here at Stafford Creek.
1. Have you attended any lectures?
Lectures: prairie ecology, native plant restoration, beekeeping, recycled
products design, forest ecology, arboriculture, organic gardening, alternative
energy
a.
b.
c.
d.
How many? Which ones?
What led you to decide to attend in the lectures?
Are you glad that you attended?
Are there things that could have made the lectures more interesting or
useful for you? What?
e. What did you get out of attending the lectures?
PROBE:
• Did you learn something that you didn’t know before the lecture?
What?
• Is there anything that you felt differently about after leaving the lecture
(PROBE: the environment, the importance sustainable practices,
etc.)? What?
57
•
•
Is there anything that you think that you have done differently as a
result of attending a lecture (e.g. making sure to recycle, participating
in a sustainable practices program, etc.)? What?
Do you think that attending these types of lectures will help you when
you leave prison? How?
Sustainable Practices Programs
Now, lets talk about the sustainable practices programs.
2. Are you involved in any of the sustainable practices programs (The HUB)?
Sustainable Practices: recycling, composting, organic gardening,
horticulture greenhouse, beekeeping, water & energy conservation, motorless
lawn mowing, bicycle restoration, K-9 Rescue program
a.
b.
c.
d.
Which programs have you been involved in?
How are you involved in the program?
What made you decide to get involved?
Do you think that undertaking these programs are important for the prison
community? Why?
f. What do you get out of participating in these programs?
PROBE:
• Are there opportunities to learn? What?
• Have any of your opinions about the environment or the importance of
sustainable practices changed since you began participating in the
program? If so, how have they changed?
• Since you began participating in the program have you noticed any
changes in your interests in the environment or your behavior towards
the environment?
• Do you think that participating in this program will help you when you
leave prison? How?
Science Research/Conservation Programs
Now let’s talk about the prairie plant and beekeeping programs.
3. Have you been involved in the science research/conservation programs?
Scientific Research/Conservation Programs: Native plant restoration,
Beekeeping training/research
a.
b.
c.
e.
Which programs?
What is/was your role in the project?
What made you decide to get involved?
Do you think that undertaking these programs are important for the prison
community? Why?
g. What do you get out of participating in these programs?
PROBE:
• Are there opportunities to learn? What?
58
•
•
•
Have any of your opinions about the environment or the importance of
sustainable practices changed since you began participating in the
program? If so, how have they changed?
Since you began participating in the program have you noticed any
changes in your interests in the environment or your behavior towards
the environment?
Do you think that participating in this program will help you when you
leave prison? How?
Future Directions
Lets’ talk about some of your ideas for new components of the Sustainable
Prisons project.
4. First, do you have any ideas for how the staff could get more offenders
involved in these programs (the lectures, sustainable programs, or
conservation projects)?
5. How could the programs be improved to…
…better support your understanding of the environment and sustainable
practices
…provide you with information and skills that will be helpful when you leave
the prison?
6. Are there any new programs that you think could be added to complement the
lecture series, sustainable practices, and conservation programs?
Sustainable Prisons Project: Staff Interview Guide
Introductions
• Evaluation of the Sustainable Prisons Program; Look for ways to improve the
program.
• Don’t have to participate in the evaluation; this is our way of learning how the
program works.
• Using a digital recorder to record answers.
• Anonymous
• Any questions?
Program Involvement/Feedback
7. Have you attended any lectures?
Stafford Creek Lectures: prairie ecology, native plant restoration,
beekeeping, recycled products design, forest ecology, arboriculture, organic
gardening, alternative energy
Cedar Creek Lectures: amphibian ecology/conservation, beekeeping, organic
gardening and composting.
h. How many? Which ones?
59
i. How engaged did you find the offenders to be?
j. Do you have any feedback about the format or content of the lectures?
k. Have you noticed any changes among the prisoners and/or officers during
the lecture series?
PROBE: knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors related to the environment
l. What effect, if any, do you think the lectures have on the prison
community?
PROBE: Prisoner relationships? Prisoner-officer relationships?
8. Are you involved in any of the sustainable practices programs?
Stafford Creek Sustainable Practices (the HUB): recycling, composting,
organic gardening, horticulture greenhouse, beekeeping, water & energy
conservation, motorless lawn mowing, bicycle restoration, K-9 Rescue
program
Cedar Creek Sustainable Practices: recycling, composting, organic
gardening, horticulture greenhouse, beekeeping, water catchment basins, lowflush toilets, energy conservation, field crews with Department of Natural
Resources (e.g. tree planting, wildland firefighting)
f. Which programs have you been involved in?
g. How are you involved in the program?
h. Who participates in these programs?
PROBE: How are they selected? Why do you think that they choose to
participate?
i. Do you think that undertaking these programs are important for the prison
community? Why?
j. Have you noticed any changes among the prisoners and/or officers during
the lecture series?
PROBE: knowledge, attitudes, & behaviors related to the environment
k. What effect, if any, do you think the lectures have on the prison
community?
PROBE: Prisoner relationships? Prisoner-officer relationships?
l. How does participation (and the outcomes of participation) in the
sustainability-related programs compare to the other programs?
9. Have you been involved in the science research/conservation programs?
Stafford Creek Scientific Research/Conservation Programs: Native plant
restoration, Beekeeping training/research
Cedar Creek Scientific Research/Conservation Programs: Captive rearing of
endangered frogs, Beekeeping training/research
a. Which programs?
b. What is/was your role in the project?
c. Do you think that undertaking these programs is important for the prison
community? Why?
60
d. Have you noticed any changes among the prisoners and/or officers who
participate in these programs?
PROBE: knowledge, attitudes, behaviors & skills related to the
environment
e. What effect, if any, do you think these programs have on the prison
community (i.e. relationships between offenders and officers).
Successes & Challenges
10. Across the programs that we have discussed, what have been some of the
more successful aspects of the programs? [Provide examples]
PROBE: What are important features/considerations to make these types of
programs work in the prison setting?
11. What challenges have you faced in implementing/working with the programs?
PROBE: Is there anything that you have done that works well to address these
challenges?
Goals/for Sustainable Prisons/New Directions
Looking ahead…
12. How would you know that that the sustainable prisons program is working
here? What would success look like?
Probe:
Specifically, with regard to…
Prisoner knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, & skills
Prison Community
13. Where do you think that you currently are on the pathway to getting there (for
each area of success identified)? What steps do you see for getting there?
What needs to happen first?
14. What are the greatest challenges that you see in moving in that direction?
15. Do you currently see an opportunities to support these efforts?
16. Are there any new program components that you would like to see added to
the group of Sustainable Prisons programs (new directions in which the
program should head)?
61
APPENDIX B: ERC PROJECTS AND SSLS SURVEY
QUESTIONS
SSLS surveys: Section C
C. Your opinion. Please circle one number for each statement.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Don’t
Know
1. When I have a choice,
I prefer to spend time
with my fellow
offenders rather than
alone.
1
2
3
4
0
2. My relationships with
fellow offenders are
important and
meaningful to me.
1
2
3
4
0
3. I would suffer if I
didn’t have
interactions/relationsh
ips with other
offenders.
1
2
3
4
0
4. I feel good about the
job and activities I
have at the facility.
1
2
3
4
0
5. I trust some of the
other offenders.
1
2
3
4
0
6. I feel like my
contributions to the
community are
appreciated by others.
1
2
3
4
0
62
SSLS surveys: Section B
B. Your Interests. We would like to know about your interests before
attending today’s lectures and now that you have attended the lectures.
Please circle one number for how you felt about each statement before the
lectures and one number for how you feel about each statement after the
lectures.
4
5
Seek information
on the
environment?
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Very
Likely
3
4
Likely
Very
Likely
2
3
Neutral
Likely
1
2
Unlikely
Neutral
How likely
were you/ will
you be to…
1
Very
unlikely
Unlikely
AFTER the Lectures
Very
unlikely
BEFORE the Lectures
1
2
3
4
5
5
Seek information
on sustainability
and/or climate
change?
1
2
3
4
5
5
Talk to another
offender about
issues related to
the
environment?
1
2
3
4
5
5
Talk to another
offender about
sustainability
and/or climate
change?
1
2
3
4
5
63
