Abstract
Wildfires in the United States (US) require tens of thousands of personnel a day to manage and suppress. Some US states use incarcerated wildland firefighters (IWFF) to perform wildland firefighting duties, but risks to IWFFs have not been investigated. We provide an overview of the potential hazards that wildland firefighting poses to IWFFs while considering inherent socio-environmental injustices that may compound adverse effects of hazardous exposures. Chronic health conditions are more common in the US prison population than the general US population. IWFFs do work involving exposure to hazards that can include smoke, fire, and soil. More research on IWFFs is necessary to best inform allocation of resources and reduce environmental injustice.
INTRODUCTION
Each year in the United States (U.S.) wildfire burns millions of acres of land, with the yearly acreage burned increasing over the last 30 years due to a number of factors, including climate change and over 100 years of fire suppression, which allowed accumulation of flammable material. 1 Wildland firefighters (WFFs) are dispatched to both suppress the fire and reduce potential impacts on people and property. For example, in the U.S. on a single day in September 2022 over 20,000 personnel were fighting wildland fires. 2 This large workforce is comprised of a traditional workforce of paid and career firefighters as well as incarcerated firefighters. A number of U.S. states routinely use incarcerated wildland firefighters (IWFFs), who can make up a substantial number of firefighters deployed to suppress wildfires. In California alone, it is estimated that about one third of WFFs are incarcerated, meaning approximately 1600 incarcerated people work at fire camps at any given time. 3 Recent fires in and around Los Angeles have garnered media attention for the over 1000 IWFFS who worked to contain them and the challenges they faced, including long shifts for much lower pay than other WFFs. 4
Incarcerated populations, because they are structurally restricted from exercising autonomy over their environment and lives, are inherently vulnerable to environmental injustices. In addition, communities with high indications of structural racism, including incarceration, have higher exposure to environmental hazards. 5 Due to trends in policing in nonwhite communities, incarcerated individuals are more likely to come from communities experiencing environmental injustices. Prisons are frequently located in areas with environmental justice concerns, 6 and the environmental exposures of imprisoned individuals are likely to follow the trajectory of high exposure burden established prior to their incarceration. This trajectory of high environmental exposure burden may include exposures during wildland firefighting activities potentially higher than exposures experienced by other WFF populations.
Even in the most ideal of conditions, WFF experience hazardous exposures. During suppression activities, WFF are exposed to a variety of occupational hazards, not limited to the complex mixture of numerous air contaminants known as smoke, soil hazards, and noise, and thus may experience negative health consequences as a result of their occupation. There have been several recent reviews on the occupational and health risks of wildland firefighting. 7 However, despite the important intersections of social and environmental justice, underlying health and well-being, and wildland firefighting exposures, the potentially increased and cumulative risks to the IWFF population have been missing from these broader assessments.
The goal of this commentary is to provide an overview of the potential hazards that wildland firefighting poses to the population of IWFFs, considering the inherent socio-environmental injustices that may compound impacts, and to highlight the need for research on this overlooked population both during and after engaging in wildland firefighting activities.
INCARCERATED PEOPLE
General population of incarcerated people
Incarcerated people are not randomly selected from society. Indeed, there are extreme racial/ethnic disparities in risk of imprisonment in the U.S. due to differential criminalization, policing, and sentencing practices that have been carried out throughout the nation’s history, and especially since mass incarceration began in the mid-1970s. 8 Although Black and Hispanic/Latinx individuals comprise 32.7% of the general U.S. population, 9 they account for 68.4% of the U.S. federal prison population, 10 which is also almost entirely male (93.2%). 11 Black men have a much higher risk of spending time in prison compared with any other group, 12 and although there have been substantial declines (from 49.6% in 2004 to 16.2% in 2016), lifetime risk of imprisonment for Black males in the U.S. remains high compared with other groups. 13
Health disparities in the general U.S. population due to structural racism 14 are reflected and amplified within the prison system. Over 43% of the U.S. prison population in 2012 experienced a chronic health condition compared with 31% of the general U.S. population, 15 a disparity that remains after adjustment for demographic characteristics (including race/ethnicity). 16 In addition, people in prison and those with a history of imprisonment have a high likelihood of experiencing chronic health problems (e.g., mental health conditions, cardiovascular disease, asthma) 17 and low access to health care. 18 It is important to note that the prevalences of health conditions in incarcerated individuals may be higher than estimated due to both underdiagnosis and underreporting from a patchwork system of prison health care with no established standards of care. 19
It is important to note that the subject of incarceration itself, independent of wildland firefighting activities, poses environmental justice issues, as incarcerated people have little power to alter their own exposures. Communities in which prisons are situated often areas that suffer from environmental injustices—40% of prisons are in communities with high environmental injustice threat. 20 Related to disaster-specific work, there is significant overlap between natural hazard affected areas and incarcerated populations, 21 and experiences of disaster although incarcerated have been characterized by potentially traumatic experiences, with unpredictability, cramped quarters, and lack of potable water with heavy reliance on staff. 22 There are calls for more work at the intersection of incarceration, health, and climate-related events, 23 especially wildfires, with the goal of improving disaster response policies within carceral systems. 24
Incarcerated wildland firefighter population
States that routinely use incarcerated individuals for wildland firefighting include California, Georgia, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming, though most U.S. states with published emergency management plans consider incarcerated individuals a key labor resource in disaster response plans. 25 The number of IWFFs in each state varies; California, as previously stated, may have a WFF workforce that is about one-third IWFFs (approximately 1,600 people) working at fire camps at any given time. 26 In Washington and Oregon, there are up to 225–400 incarcerated people working as IWFFs. 27 Specific current and past enrollment in most IWFF programs is not readily available, though the historic development of the California Conservation Camps program is well documented and, as the most robust such program, can serve as an indicator of potential pressures influencing program development. In California, using the labor of incarcerated has been legal since 1851, and in 1915 the state legislature allowed creation of road camps to house incarcerated people outside of established prisons, although they built public roads (and other public works). 28 In 1946, due to labor pressures of World War II, one of those road camps was converted to the first permanent Conservation Camps, or camps where IWFF are housed although on assignment. 29 By the late 1950s, there were 16 such camps, and by 1966, there were 41 camps. 30 There are currently 35 camps. 31 Along with the number of established camps, the hours worked from such camps has waxed and waned with political pressures; by 1959 2.9 million hours were worked by enrollees, followed by a gradual increase to 7 million hours worked in 1966 and a sharp decline in 1972 with Reagan-era budget cuts. 32 This was followed by another expansion, and in 1983 the program expanded to include female IWFF, and there were 5.5 million hours worked by enrollees. 33 The state of California has benefitted from IWFF labor so much that in 2014, the office of the Attorney General of California (Kamala Harris) worked against sentence reductions because doing so would be detrimental to wildland firefighting efforts. 34 IWFF health research will likely become more pressing as more areas experience longer wildfire seasons 35 and therefore require larger WFF, and potentially IWFF, workforces.
The eligibility criteria for IWFF are subject to state-specific restrictions, based on the types of offenses, the type of custody, formal schooling, and ability to pass a physical fitness test. 36 For example, in California, where the largest incarcerated wildland firefighting program exists, individuals are eligible to participate if they are considered by medical staff to be in good physical fitness, they must have “minimum custody status,” and they must have eight years or less remaining in their sentence. Minimum custody status means that they have the lowest security classification and have maintained “good behavior” although incarcerated. In addition, people charged with crimes related to sexual offenses or arson are not eligible to participate. 37 As discussed above, due to historical and contemporary racial/ethnic disparities in policing and sentencing, a Black or Hispanic/Latinx man is more likely to be in prison than a white person. 38 It is therefore important to examine IWFF programs in this light of racial/ethnic inequities: it is possible that a person of color in the general population may be more likely to become an IWFF than a white person in the general population.
In addition to potential inequities in who is eligible to participate in IWFF programs, another relevant aspect of IWFF program participant is that of reduced freedom to willingly choose to participate and thus reduced capacity to exert control over their environmental exposures beyond that conveyed by being incarcerated. Participation in IWFF programs is nominally voluntary, though the level of free-will that an incarcerated individual is able to exert is questionable 39 —the very nature of imprisonment is that of stripping individuals of their freedom, and thus people in prison do not have the same capacity of free will to volunteer as people not imprisoned. Some states provide miniscule monetary compensation and/or provide a sentence reduction, although others do not compensate their incarcerated firefighters for their work. 40
Although the work of wildland firefighting may pose particular risks to incarcerated persons, participating in IWFF programs may offer some particular benefits as well. Sociological research on incarceration has long emphasized that people in confinement develop strategies to exert control, find meaning, and preserve dignity despite constraints. 41 In this context, firefighting can represent more than coerced labor: it may provide moments of autonomy, skill-building, and solidarity with peers. IWFFs’ accounts highlight how the work allows them to reframe their circumstances, experience outdoor environments, and contribute to a collective purpose. For example, the ability to spend time outside of a prison 42 and the sense of freedom it provides may be particularly enticing, especially as it pertains to family visits permitted outside of prison for some facilities 43 and safer living conditions. 44 As former IWFF Amika Mota states, “It was one of the few jobs that allowed you to leave prison grounds—a dream when you’re locked up.” 45 In addition, published testimonials from former IWFFs indicate a variety of positives associated with participating in IWFF programs. David Desmond explains a feeling of rehumanization, whereby “…people would hold up thank-you signs. People would bring pastries, sodas, or sandwiches to us. No one treated us like inmates; we were firefighters.” 46 This sentiment is echoed by IWFF Eddie Herrera “…being incarcerated, it’s this sense of feeling like you’re nothing. You’re basically lost, you know? In those moments, I didn’t feel any of that. I felt like I was human again.” 47 In addition, former IWFFs indicate a sense of pride and camaraderie, both of which may be difficult to access although incarcerated; David Desond: “On the ride home in the crew-carrying vehicle, we would feel a sense of pride. Back at camp, we’d put the ‘hood mentality on pause, and everybody became friends.” 48 Joshua Bligh, another former IWFF, states “Inmate fire crews carry with them a sense of pride in the midst of much shame. It becomes a balancing act, a foot in the right direction of restoring our image.” 49 and “…in prison, where camaraderie is in short supply or severely distorted, it is truly inspiring to work together on the fireline.” 50 An incentive that recently became more pertinent is that time spent outside of a prison would likely drastically reduce a person’s potential of contracting dangerous infectious diseases, such as COVID-19. 51 In summary, firefighting may provide rare moments of freedom, camaraderie, and purpose that stand in contrast to the monotony of prison life. These reflections underscore that IWFFs are not only subjected to risk but also carve out pathways to dignity, resilience, and limited forms of joy. Acknowledging this agency adds nuance to understanding the IWFF experience, situating their voices alongside the structural conditions that shape the hazards they face. In light of this, research concerned with the health of IWFFs is even more needed to parse not only the potential harms but also the potential benefits of participating in these programs.
Another potential reason for participation is that individuals may feel as if they are building skills to gain career opportunities after their incarceration concludes, 52 though the reality of career opportunities may be difficult or impossible to obtain depending on their state of residence due to limitations on hiring employees who have criminal records. 53 Until 2020, IWFFs in California were not eligible to be employed as firefighters in all situations post-incarceration; however, recent legislation allowed for some IWFFs to be employed as firefighters after taking additional steps (i.e., conviction dismissal). 54
Incarceration poses particular pressures not only before but also after an individual has started participating in an IWFF program. After initial training in an IWFF program, an individual can be deployed to a conservation camp where they stay and work on fire preparedness or response efforts. If at this point an IWFF refuses to work for any reason, including unsafe working conditions, there may be disciplinary action, including additional time added to their sentence, and they may be transferred to a different prison with higher security than the one they left. 55 As outlined in a 2023 complaint, Leavitt v Nevada, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, the threat of these can be enough for IWFFs to continue work to their detriment—in this particular case, six IWFFs continued working despite the soles of feet being burned severely enough to require debridement and one person’s boot soles melting: “When the firefighters attempted to take their socks off on the bus, they found that the socks had melded to their feet…and that night could only shower or reach the restroom by crawling on their hands and knees.” 56 In the face of such pressures, as former IWFF Amika Mota states “…our medical care was insufficient for the injuries we sustained. There was no therapy after difficult calls.” 57 Indeed, in Leavitt v Nevada, the case documents state that “Though the firefighters were processed back into the [Conservation Camp] by [Nevada Department of Corrections] staff who observed the Plaintiffs’ pain and inability to walk, none of the Plaintiffs received medical treatment that night.” 58
Despite coercive factors that lead to participation in WFF programs during incarceration, some research has shown that these programs may have positive impacts on mental wellbeing as an activity outside of the prison walls by offering a reprieve from the carceral environment, the opportunity to develop new skills, and the chance to contribute to public safety. Former IWFF Joshua Bligh attests that “I learned valuable skills and through the experience was able to feel like I was giving back to the society which by my actions had wronged, and removed myself from.” 59 This insight illustrates how IWFFs may find purpose, pride, and limited forms of autonomy through firefighting, even as the broader structure of prison labor remains coercive. To date, however, research on IWFF programs has focused primarily on behavioral outcomes. Further work is needed to characterize the occupational exposures IWFFs face and to assess the health consequences of this labor.
WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING
Exposure hazards
Non-incarcerated WFF population
Exposure hazards in the wildfire environment can include smoke, soil components (e.g., asbestos and silica) and soil-borne pathogens (e.g., valley fever), 60 heat stress, 61 noise from heavy equipment and chainsaw use, 62 tree hazards (especially in blight- or arthropod-affected areas), 63 and burnover (when fire overtakes equipment and/or personnel). 64 Hazards that WFFs encounter are specific to work tasks 65 and geographic region. 66 Occupational exposure limits (OEL) for silica, noise, and smoke contaminants are frequently exceeded for WFFs (e.g., noise exposure over OEL for 32% of individuals). 67 In addition, as general federal OELs set by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are set for a shorter shift than WFFs experience (8 hours versus 12 hours), 68 they may not be protective for WFFs.
Despite these potentially inappropriate OELs, WFFs, however, benefit from OSHA standards for firefighters that require employers to ensure that individuals are physically fit to perform the required duties, both provide and annually inspect appropriate personal protective equipment, and provide training for workplace activities. 69 They also benefit from OSHA’s participation in enforcing anti-retaliation laws, 70 thus allowing WFFs to advocate for their own safety. WFFs are also able to join unions, the International Association of Fire Fighters or the National Federation of Federal Employees, that provide an avenue by which individuals could advocate for policies promoting the fair compensation, safety, and well-being of members. 71
WFFs can be exposed to higher concentrations and different compositions of smoke than the general public, as they are closer to the fires. In addition, compared with structural firefighters (firefighters operating in populated areas to mitigate damage to human-made structures), WFFs may have different exposure to volatile organic compounds and to less stable smoke components such as levoglucosan and acrolein, 72 though no studies have yet examined how this difference in composition may alter health consequences of exposure. WFFs are also less protected from these exposures compared with structural firefighters because no respirator currently meets the specifications for wildland firefighting set forth by the National Fire Protection Association or is certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 73
IWFF population
People who are sent to jail and prison have generally faced a lifetime of exposures to environmental hazards greater than the general population, 74 and this is particularly pertinent when considered in the context of increases in natural hazards over time. 75 Prisons may not have the resources or incentives to prioritize mitigating environmental and disaster-related exposures to incarcerated populations. 76 In addition to the environmental exposures from incarceration, being recruited and working as WFFs during their incarceration exposes these individuals to occupational hazards of wildland firefighting tasks and living at the deployment camps which results in high levels of exposure to wildfire smoke (even when they are not actively firefighting). 77
As IWFFs are assigned to work on hand crews, they generally perform specific suppression tasks, compared with WFF working on other crew types such as engine or aviation. 78 Hand crews focus on digging and holding the fireline as well as mop up. Constructing a fireline involves digging down to bare mineral soil and using chainsaws to remove any burnable or burning material. Holding a fireline involves monitoring an active fireline to ensure that the fire does not breach any containment lines. Mop-up involves digging out any burning or smoldering material to aid in extinguishing the fire. These tasks have been associated with relatively high exposures to smoke compared with other WFF tasks in past assessments. 79 In addition, all of these tasks can also expose IWFFs to physical hazards, soil, and noise. IWFFs are more often given tasks involving soil exposure (e.g., mop-up) and those that require strenuous exertion (e.g., moving equipment up and down inclines), 80 which may put them at higher immediate risk for physical injuries, burns, 81 and the effects of soil hazards such as contracting Valley Fever. 82 Data on IWFFs are sparse; 83 however, given the disproportionate representation of Black and Brown people in the U.S. prison system and broad existing health inequities within the incarcerated population discussed above, IWFFs very likely have poorer baseline health than non-incarcerated firefighters 84 even after passing required fitness tests. This may lead to a higher risk for long-term health consequences from exposures among IWFFs than among other WFFs.
Despite these potentials for higher exposures and higher risk for long-term health consequences, IWFFs do not benefit from structural protections through OSHA or advocacy and support through unions as do WFFs. IWFFs are not unionized, 85 which means that there are no protections or guarantees of attention (or protection from retaliation) for those who raise concerns about working conditions such as excessive heat. 86 Similarly, IWFFs are not covered by federal OSHA regulations, which do not consider states as employers, 87 though state-specific OSHA regulations may provide some protections for IWFFFs. For example, California OSHA provides some limited protections for IWFF (e.g., worksite inspections), though far fewer than those for non-incarcerated WFFs in identifying hazards and enforcing hazard regulations. 88
Health effects
Among the non-incarcerated WFF population
There are many potential health effects of wildland firefighting. Exposure to wildfire smoke is associated with numerous health effects, including, but not limited to, cardiovascular disease exacerbations, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and mortality among the general population. 89 Studies conducted specifically on WFFs have found decreased lung function as well as systemic inflammation and oxidative stress; 90 these may result in similar outcomes as those found in the general population. In addition, heat-related illness 91 and fungal infections 92 are possible health effects associated with wildland firefighting work, as are burns 93 and physical trauma. 94
WFFs may also experience mental health challenges as a result of their work. As part of wildland firefighting, they may experience extremely stressful events, including close calls with potentially harmful or fatal situations (e.g., fire entrapment, falling tree hazards) and encountering human remains. 95 One survey found that WFFs experienced symptoms of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder at prevalences that were 2.5, 3, and 4 times higher, respectively, than those among the general population. 96 Other work has also found post-traumatic stress disorder among WFFs. 97
To date, no scientific studies have examined health effects among IWFFs, despite the higher prevalence of underlying health conditions that can increase their risk of experiencing poor health outcomes from wildfire smoke exposure, soil exposure, or heat stress. 98 There was one gray literature source indicating that the risk of requiring hospital care for California IWFFs was four times that of non-incarcerated WFFs between June 2013 and August 2018, though the methods for this inquiry were unclear. 99 The exposures and hazards associated with fighting wildfires while incarcerated may have lifelong impacts, above and beyond the lifelong impacts of incarceration alone. In addition, these lifelong impacts may compound with other features of an individual’s experience, as, for instance, someone in prison already has a higher chance of having mental health challenges 100 that the psychological stresses of incarceration and of wildland firefighting are added to. Prior to and particularly after incarceration, this population is socially and economically vulnerable and additionally is likely impacted by other environmental exposures, lacking the socioeconomic capital and freedom from regulation that would allow them to exercise autonomy over their environment and lives. Social and environmental justice are inexorably linked, 101 and the population of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals are likely to experience multiple stressors with cumulative impacts on their health and well-being. There are no known studies to date focusing on the health of IWFFs, either during, immediately after, or long after they participate in WFF activities.
EXAMINING HEALTH RISKS IN IWFFS
To examine the potential health issues associated with wildland firefighting, although incarcerated, it is critical that research on the health effects of wildland firefighting focuses not on WFFs as a whole but is specifically designed to assess the health of incarcerated WFFs. However, there are challenges to studying this population. Primarily, data availability on this population is limited because there are no standards for maintaining records across different firefighting programs across states or even for maintaining health care records within the departments of corrections (DOCs). In instances where data are collected, it is managed differently across states, and it is prohibitively difficult to get access to data from the DOC for research purposes. Although access to this data should be difficult to acquire to protect the privacy of incarcerated people, there should be standards and procedures for acquiring and analyzing data to allow for health research that could yield sufficiently impactful results. There are also differences in the way that health care is administered by various states’ DOCs and the ways health records are stored. These issues make it difficult to study trends in health outcomes across multiple states among IWFFs. Prospective cohorts offer an alternative to using administrative records, allowing for predefined data to be collected and consistent data collection methodologies to be employed.
Creating a prospective cohort of IWFFs would carry the standard logistical challenges of large prospective cohort studies along with additional challenges of the specific population and the emergency nature of their work environment. Incarcerated individuals are a protected population due to concerns of coercion, 102 which are historically warranted. 103 Studies would therefore need to involve extra care and oversight to reduce the risk of coercion. Incarcerated individuals transition between housing situations and experience housing instability more so than the general population; 104 therefore, following participants after their incarceration concludes would require additional effort. Though it might be possible to leverage parole address records to this end, which would also entail administrative oversight and permissions. Any activities involving incarcerated persons would need to consider complex ethical questions not limited to those of coercion (including correcting potential confusion as to if researchers were acting as part of the police system) and compensation, such as informational resource provision and health care-related resources. The challenges in such efforts would be substantial; however, large reentry studies have begun to explore solutions to those challenges, 105 such as leveraging participation in state-run re-entry programs and including more participant contact events with study staff than in cohort studies with other populations. Collaboration between state DOCs (and other prison administrators) and researchers is critical to advance our understanding of how IWFF health is impacted by wildland firefighting programs.
CONCLUSION
Given our reliance on WFFs and the increase in annual acreage burned each year as well as the continued use of IWFFs, it is crucial to understand the health risks associated with wildland firefighting, specifically during incarceration. In addition, the socio-environmental injustices that incarcerated persons are exposed to at all time points (before, during, and after incarceration) demand that we understand the risks conveyed by their contexts and not simply assume that study results from work with non-incarcerated WFF cohorts will translate directly to IWFFs. Understanding the risks conveyed by these many avenues of harmful exposures is necessary to inform allocation of resources to reduce environmental injustice and, in so doing, make our public health practice responsive to those populations disproportionately impacted.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
H.V.J.: Conceptualization and writing, editing; K.N.C.: Conceptualization, writing, and editing; I.H.P.: Conceptualization and writing; C.G.: Conceptualization, editing, and editing supervision.
Footnotes
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Jason D. Sacks, Kristen M. Rappazzo, Jesse Engebretson, Swati Rayasam, and Kathleen Navarro DuBose for their review and comments.
AUTHOR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors attest that they have no real or perceived conflicts of interest.
FUNDING INFORMATION
H.V.J. was supported by a National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) training grant F31ES033509. K.N.C. was supported by NIEHS training grant T32ES007018. I.H.P. was supported by NIEHS grants P30ES023513 and R21ES029693. C.G. was supported by an institutional grant awarded to the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P2CHD050924).
DATA AVAILABILITY
This work used no data.