COMMENT – Prison Horticulture Programs
Posted under: Eden Rolves, Webster University – Saint Louis
COMMENT – Prison Horticulture Programs: Reducing Recidivism Through Rehabilitative Transformation
Prison horticulture programs are often overlooked despite their ability to empower participants, improve mental health, and reduce recidivism rates. These programs yield positive outcomes, including increased self-esteem, life satisfaction, and confidence, as well as reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety. The symbolic interactions and connections formed during these programs influence personal development, and the acquisition of new skills and training increases participants’ chances of successful reintegration into society upon release. It is, however, essential to prioritize the needs of participants and focus on training and education as the primary drivers of these programs to achieve rehabilitation and reduced recidivism rates.
“I absolutely love it. Because it’s like, when you put a seed in the soil, right, and then you watch it, and it’s like, you’re growing with that seed” (quoted in Farrier et al., 2019). Many incarcerated individuals express satisfaction with their participation in prison horticulture programs. These programs go far beyond simple horticultural training, offering incarcerated individuals a unique opportunity for empowerment and connection, skill development, and mental health improvement. By engaging participants in growing plants as food, tending gardens, and understanding ecological systems, these programs provide an experience that challenges traditional punitive approaches to prison environments. Prison programs have been effective in reducing recidivism, and prison horticulture programs have the same (if not greater) effect. Many researchers have studied the direct outcomes of these programs on recidivism and mental health (DelSesto, 2022; Farrier et al., 2019; Holmes & Waliczek, 2019; Jauk-Ajamie & Blackwood, 2024; Lee et al., 2021; Timler et al., 2019; Toews et al., 2018). These programs should be implemented in more prisons with attention to program structuring that reflects the needs of the participants, including fundamental human rights to leisure, health, and participation in cultural life (United Nations, 1948, Articles 24, 25, and 27).
While not every prison has a prison horticulture program, they have become exceedingly popular throughout the United States. The first prison horticulture program was a Master Gardener program introduced in 1991 to State Park Correctional Center, a minimum-security prison in South Carolina (Polomski et al., 1997). Participants in that program went through mostly the same steps as a non-incarcerated person would to become a Master Gardener, including undertaking intensive horticulture training, passing an exam, and providing volunteer service. This paved the way for many future prison horticulture programs, which now encompass four main types: animal agriculture, crop and silviculture, food processing and production, and horticulture and landscaping (Prison Agriculture Lab, n.d.). At least one prison in every state has a horticulture and landscaping program, and more prisons are included if we count these other categories (Prison Agriculture Lab, n.d.). Motivation for implementing these programs often centers on four main drivers: finances, idleness reduction, retributive aims, and training. The first three drivers focus on benefiting institutions, while the fourth builds skills for incarcerated individuals themselves (Prison Agriculture Lab, n.d.).
Prison horticulture programs have been shown to improve the mental health of their participants. Research on mental health and horticulture therapy outside of prison finds that these programs produce mental health benefits to participants by decreasing their social isolation (Howarth et al., 2018). To explore how these programs function in a carceral setting, a study using participant observation, questionnaires, and post-program surveys followed five participants (Lee et al., 2021). Researchers found that participants displayed higher depression scores before the program than after, and higher self-esteem and life satisfaction scores after the program than before (Lee et al., 2021). This study was limited because of its small sample size, but reflects broader trends found in other studies; higher confidence levels often correlate with the acquisition of new skills, and participants noted feeling confident in their ability to better manage their lives due to their horticulture skills and the possibility of work in that field post-incarceration (Farrier et al., 2019). Participants in one study expressed feelings of tranquility during their gardening program because it served as a stress reliever that took their minds off their worries and provided a reprieve from the carceral environment (Jauk-Ajamie & Blackwood, 2024). Overall, studies suggest that prison horticulture programs yield an increase in measurable categories such as self-esteem, life satisfaction, and confidence – all of which lead to improved mental health. For instance, results from a mixed methods study on a horticulture therapy mental health recovery program showed that participants became more socially engaged and aware of the value of social networking following program participation (Howarth et al., 2018). The psychological effects of prison horticulture programs appear to be positive overall, promoting self-esteem, life satisfaction, stress relief, and social skills.
Horticulture programs also reduce recidivism – a person’s relapse into criminal behavior and incarceration within three years of release (National Institute of Justice, n.d.) – if structured correctly with specific attention to both the participants and the correctional facility in which they reside. At the least, they are as effective as other prison programming (Cammack et al., 2002). In Matthew DelSesto’s (2022) review of prison horticulture studies, he suggests that many features of horticulture programming support the theory that these programs result in desistance from crime. These features include building occupational skills, finding a feeling of self-control and tranquility, making social connections, contributing to a broad creative project, finding meaning in life through many types of symbolism, and the ability to rework one’s own identity (DelSesto, 2022). These benefits help participants transition back into communities after release, suggesting that it may be useful to let them remain enrolled in horticulture programs while on parole to reinforce confidence in skills and a sense of meaning in society (Holmes & Waliczek, 2019). Studies on horticultural prison programs reflect findings related to other types of prison programs; they achieve lower recidivism rates for program participants than for those who participated in no programs at all (Cammack et al., 2022). In response to critics who question whether these programs exploit participants, DelSesto (2022) emphasizes the importance of focusing on the needs of the participants on the path of rehabilitation and healing – not on the financial or publicity benefits the institutions would receive. When designing programs, organizations should carefully consider the social, mental health, and economic needs of participants. This is key to reducing recidivism and must take priority over direct institutional gain.
Prison horticulture programs act as a transformative tool for empowerment, providing incarcerated individuals with the invaluable opportunity to reclaim their self-identity and develop valued skills within a structured rehabilitative context. By engaging participants in meaningful cultivation processes, these programs facilitate growth with vocational training and opportunities to partake in self-directed learning, environmental care, and personal responsibility (Holmes & Waliczek, 2019). This is reflected in the metaphors used by participants in interviews, focus groups, and surveys. For example, in one case report, a post-program interview participant said: “I felt impressed by the vitality of the plants; they managed to survive in the garden plot despite the poor growing environment. By equating this situation to my life, the program helped me feel revitalized and achieve emotional stability” (quoted in Lee et al., 2021). Engagement with living ecosystems offers participants not only a metaphorical framework, but also a literal framework for personal development because the cultivation of plants becomes a powerful analogue for personal growth, resilience, and the hope of transformation (Timler et al., 2019). This overlaps with opportunities for skill acquisition and mental health development, which challenges the common themes of marginalization and dehumanization that frequently characterize prison environments. Humanizing incarcerated individuals is the bare minimum and empowering them should be the goal. Studies on both men’s prisons and women’s prisons suggest that prison horticulture programs empower participants through social interaction, skill building, and hard work (Jauk-Ajamie & Blackwood, 2022; Timler et al., 2019). This is a much-needed component of carceral environments because empowerment and self-esteem promote mental health, humanize individuals, and reduce anomie – a sense of disconnection from society, which results from the difference between culturally established goals and one’s true ability to achieve them.
Several theoretical perspectives can help explain the value of prison horticulture programs, beginning with George Herbert Mead’s “symbolic interaction theory” (see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022). These theoretical approaches illustrate the effects of participants’ interactions with the plants and with each other. Symbolic interaction theory contends that the social world is constructed by everyday interactions and mutually understood symbols. These interactions and symbols shape society and social behaviors. Multiple participants in different studies identified symbolic aspects of prison horticulture programs; for example, in an anonymous review, one participant thanked the program staff by saying “you helped me grow like a flower” (quoted in Jauk-Ajamie & Blackwood, 2022). Participants in food-based horticulture programs also made metaphors symbolically linking themselves and other participants to the plants they grew. One such participant reflected that even though individuals joined the program for confidential reasons, they all shared the space: “I think people who come here, it’s confidential why they come here but I think we all, we’re like peas in a pod” (Howarth et al., 2018). Another person from the same study pointed out the unique social connection formed in these programs. In an exit interview, they said, “I think when you share that level of pain with other people, you do have a connection,” highlighting the ways that their connection over shared emotion and circumstances impacted them socially (Howarth et al., 2018). For participants in a study on a men’s prison, social interaction lowered chances of negative interactions and altercations between those incarcerated (Timler et al., 2019). Symbolic interaction theory provides a framework for understanding social interactions (or lack thereof) and how they impact the well-being of incarcerated individuals.
The rehabilitative effects of prison horticulture programs can also be better understood using Robert Merton’s (1938) theory of “anomie” and Robert Agnew’s “general strain theory” (Agnew & Brezina, 2019).[1] If the issue is that deviance and anger occur because culturally set goals are impossible to achieve outside of prison, then rehabilitation is a way to provide resources and thereby ease frustration with and disconnection from society. Studies frequently focus on education and vocational training in horticulture programs as ways of rehabilitating participants. A participant from a program that cultivated food for the prison and its surrounding community recalled interactions that gave him hope for his life post-release: “I’ve gone into so many places now, the food banks, and they’re all happy to see me, sit and chit chat, and it’s like, ‘Hey, when you get out are we still going to see you?’ All the food banks that we go to here have all said ‘If you ever want a job,’ or if I want to volunteer” (quoted in Timler et al., 2019). The distance between participants and the outside community was reduced, eliminating anomie. The idea of being reconnected with society, socially as well as through a possible occupation, gave the participant something to look forward to and work towards. The sense of life satisfaction and self-esteem reported by participants also suggests that these programs ease strains by rehumanizing incarcerated people and providing an easier transition back into society (Farrier et al., 2019; Holmes & Waliczek, 2019; Howarth et al., 2018; Jauk-Ajamie & Blackwood, 2022; Timler et al., 2019). Studies regularly cite feelings of being reconnected with others, prepared for life post-program, and capable of achieving goals. By reducing feelings of dehumanization, strain, and anomie in the prison environment, prison horticulture programs reduce recidivism rates and improve mental health.
Some researchers critically examine the structure and drivers of prison horticulture programs. Carrie Chennault and Joshua Sbicca (2023) and Evan Hazelett (2023) argue there is a mix of exploitative and rehabilitative aspects, due in part to inherent issues of racial capitalism and power imbalances in the correctional field. Racial capitalism is an intersectional framework that sees capitalism as profiting from the labor of marginalized people. This idea ties into many critiques of prison horticulture programs, since prisons benefit from claiming to be rehabilitative or “green” and receiving public approval and legitimacy (Chennault & Sbicca, 2023; Timler et al., 2019). Agriculture and horticulture programs, even when driven by vocational or training goals, can reproduce oppression and marginalization because they function in an environment that has an inherent power imbalance (Chennault & Sbicca, 2023; Hazelett, 2023). For example, programs are meant to aid communities and individuals outside of prison, including offering therapeutic benefits to incarcerated people, yet programs driven by reparative ideals use incarcerated labor to provide food that goes outside of the prison – not directly benefiting laborers by providing them with nutrition (Chennault & Sbicca, 2023; Timler et al., 2019). Considering that the U.S. carceral system has a population that overrepresents marginalized identities (Smiley, 2019; Tonry, 2011), such practices can perpetuate subordination based on race, ethnicity, class, and gender.
Prison horticulture programs should reflect the needs of participants, first and foremost, before focusing on how such programs can benefit institutions. I recommend the implementation of prison horticulture programs in more prisons, with training prioritized as a primary driver. Training programs present the opportunity to connect incarcerated individuals to employers, which spurs feelings of hope and promotes community connection, thereby reducing chances of recidivism (Timler et al., 2019). Although there are financial benefits of these programs because they reduce prison costs, the well-being of participants should take precedence because prisons are ideally rehabilitative institutions. Financial drivers should be an added benefit, rather than the whole goal of a program, because financial incentives often lead to the oppression of marginalized groups (Chennault & Sbicca, 2023; Hazelett, 2023). These programs require a nuanced and tailored approach to have the desired mental health improvement and recidivism-reducing effects. It is important that people understand how vocational, educational, and recreational prison programs work because, when executed correctly, they can reduce recidivism through rehabilitation (Latessa et al., 2002). Prison horticulture programs are at least as effective as other rehabilitation programs, and studies suggest that they are particularly useful tools for reducing recidivism through mental health improvement, symbolic interactions and connections, and personal growth and empowerment.
References
Agnew, R., & Brezina, T. (2019). General Strain Theory. In Handbook on Crime and Deviance, edited by M. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. Penly Hall, & A. Lizotte, pp. 145-160. Springer International Publishing.
American Horticultural Society. (n.d.). Master Gardeners. Retrieved from https://ahsgardening.org/master-gardeners/.
Cammack, C., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2002). The Green Brigade: The psychological effects of a community-based horticultural program on the self-development characteristics of juvenile offenders. HortTechnology, 12(1): 82-86.
Chennault, C., & Sbicca, J. (2023). Prison agriculture in the United States: Racial capitalism and the disciplinary matrix of exploitation and rehabilitation. Agriculture and Human Values, 40(1): 175-191.
DelSesto, M. (2022). Therapeutic horticulture and desistance from crime. Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 61(4): 444-462.
Farrier, A., Baybutt, M., & Dooris, M. (2019). Mental health and wellbeing benefits from a prisons horticultural programme. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 15(1): 91-104.
Hazelett, E. (2023). Greening the Cage: Exploitation and Resistance in the (Un)Sustainable Prison Garden. Antipode, 55(2): 436-457.
Holmes, M., & Waliczek, T. M. (2019). The Effect of Horticultural Community Service Programs on Recidivism. HortTechnology, 29(4): 490-495.
Howarth, M., Rogers, M., Withnell, N., & McQuarrie, C. (2018). Growing spaces: An evaluation of the mental health recovery programme using mixed methods. Journal of Research in Nursing, 23(6), 476-489.
Jauk-Ajamie, D., & Blackwood, A. (2022). “I Grow Every Day, like Plants.” An Evaluation of a Gardening Program for Women in a Residential Community Corrections Setting. Women and Criminal Justice, 34(1): 64-87.
Latessa, E. J., Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2002). Beyond Correctional Quackery: Professionalism and the Possibility of Effective Treatment. Federal Probation, 66(2): 43-49.
Lee, A.-Y., Kim, S.-Y., Kwon, H. J., & Park, S.-A. (2021). Horticultural therapy program for mental health of prisoners: Case report. Integrative Medicine Research, 10(2).
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5): 672-682.
National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Recidivism. Retrieved from https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism.
Polomski, R. F., Johnson, K. M., & Anderson, J. C. (1997). Prison Inmates Become Master Gardeners in South Carolina. HortTechnology, 7(4): 360-362.
Prison Agriculture Lab. (n.d.) Prison Agriculture in the United States. Retrieved from https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/d099a2bae4834903aa33cde46c62b4ba/?views=Extras.
Smiley, C. (2019). Money for Freedom: Cash Bail, Incarceration, and Reentry. In Prisoner Reentry in the 21st Century: Critical Perspectives of Returning Home, edited by K. M. Middlemass & C. Smiley, pp. 345-356. New York: Routledge.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2022). George Herbert Mead. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mead/.
Timler, K., Brown, H., & Varcoe, C. (2019). Growing connection beyond prison walls: How a prison garden fosters rehabilitation and healing for incarcerated men. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 58(5): 444-463.
Toews, B., Wagenfeld, A., & Stevens, J. (2018). Impact of a nature-based intervention on incarcerated women. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 14(4): 232-243.
Tonry, M. H. (2011). Punishing Race: A Continuing American Dilemma. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
© Copyright 2025 Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights. All rights reserved.
Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights is an academic journal that provides space for undergraduate students to explore human rights issues, challenge current actions and frameworks, and engage in problem-solving aimed at tackling some of the world’s most pressing issues. This open-access journal is available online at www.webster.edu/rightingwrongs.
[1] Anomie is a sense of disconnection from society due to a disparity between culturally accepted goals and the actual ability to achieve those goals (Merton, 1938). General strain theory explains that perceived injustice causes frustration and anger that lead to socially deviant behavior (Agnew & Brezina, 2019).