After an extremely enlightening conversation with Debbie Rutt from Portland State University, we began trying to focus the scope of our project. We began by identifying all of the stakeholders related to the prison garden system and listing the benefits and potential negative points for each. This exercise helped us to assess where there was overlap; for instance, having a garden improves the visual appeal of the prison which affects prisoners, corrections officers, prison administration, family members of the prisoners, and more. It was also important to identify wins and losses. While the pros outweigh the cons for the corrections officers, having a garden would be extra work for them and there is the concern of having prisoners use tools. It will be key for us to keep some of these in mind while also determining a project that maintains all of the wonderful benefits.
After that, we came up with 5 potential garden types; a garden for skill building and vocational training, one for healthy food production, one for inmates and their families, one for conservation and restoration, and one for beautification. Our conversation with Debbie helped steer us into identifying these options and unpacking their unique qualities and benefits. A garden that focuses on food production could give prisoners healthy meals and could provide food for the Pittsburgh Food Pantry while a conservation/restoration garden could educate prisoners about horticulture while also protecting and growing local endangered species.
Design and Policy 