Future in Progress Web Screens

The following represents a brief selection of screens from our Future in Progress web screens.

Dashboard, a landing screen with options and a student’s current points:

Career Wheel, career landing page, shows possible career categories colored based on student interest:

 

Category Page, students can rate their interest in different careers and see a breadth of possibilities:

 

Career Detail, Student can compare their preferences to those of average professionals in a career, details about what the career entails, and videos or photos from local people within the selected career:

Insights and Ideas for the Hill District

Background on the Hill District

The Hill District, one of ninety neighborhoods, is on the cusp of a major transition. While residents welcome the opportunities that come from increased investment in the area, they are worried about being pushed out. They have reason to worry. In the 1960s, to make way for development of a new civic area, developers bulldozed the business district that had been the core of the Hill District community, and 8000 residents and 400 businesses were displaced.

In a public meeting concerning the Lower Hill development in the late 1950s, one official noted that “Approximately 90 percent of the buildings in the area [lower Hill] are sub-standard, and have long outlived their usefulness, and so there would be no social loss if these were all destroyed.”As developers are eying the Hill District once again, the community is striving to ensure that longtime Hill residents are part of the renaissance rather than becoming victims of it.

Approach for Our Project

We aim to enable the Hill District community members to share their stories to encourage richer dialogue about the neighborhood’s past and future, between residents and non-residents. We hope that it can help not only map history, but also help map the future of the Hill District.

Research and Design Process

Final Concept

A place-based story and information database, the content of which is collected from policy and community sources, aggregated, and then accessed via a centralized website, as well as provocations in the world that both supplement the site and publicize it.

Intracommunity Storytelling

Empower the community to collect, share and understand one another’s stories in order to help strengthen their existing network.

 

Design Principle

Afford use by young and old, easily accessible. Allow people to both contribute stories and ideas, and see and interact with those of others. Create a collection of stories that will outlive the individuals who carry them now.

Policy Priniciple

Mayor-elect Bill Peduto has published several policy papers highlighting the importance of bringing communities together around a table to discuss common challenges in their neighborhoods. The creation of this repository will work towards this important goal. It is important for communities to create strong relationships within themselves, which can lead to greater familiarity, lower crime, and a larger support network. This tool will create stronger internal communities which will require less outside assistance, which is a positive result of this policy.

Community Advocacy

Inform discussions with policymakers and development groups in order to enable a shared vision of the future.

Design Principle

Collecting disparate stories and information, now only available by getting to know residents overtime, to help make information more accessible and easier to aggregate.

Policy Principle

Better mapping of history and priorities can help the community advocate better for themselves. Better mapping of history and priorities can help development groups avoid stepping on toes unnecessarily, and know where they need to do additional community outreach work before moving forward.

Nonresident Interaction

Encourage non-residents to look beyond their preconceptions and understand how the Hill’s rich history informs the complexities of the present, as well as the community’s hopes and fears for the future.

Design Principle

Share the authentic voice and history of the Hill District to help non-residents empathize with the frustrations and heartbreak in its past. Provide non-residents with opportunities to explore the Hill District both virtually and in-place.

Policy Principle

The more non-residents understand the Hill District, the more they will care about what happens there, and more allies helps soft power of the Hill District community. Some non-residents may also be prospective future residents, if they know more about the Hill District they may be more likely to approach the move into the neighborhood respectfully.

Final Poster

Final Deliverables

Gold Runner-Empathy Game:

This game intended to create empathy and allow the audience to connect with the problems: Institutional Memory Lost & Unequal Balance Power Dynamics.

Presentation Poster

After the audience empathized with the problem we intended to solve, we introduced our solution with this poster and a rough website prototype. Please see: http://pablosantaeufemia.wix.com/bridgeforbillions

Here you can find more details on the materials we used to facilitate the presentation.

• Poster for Design and Policy Presentation-December 4th 2013
• Methods for Design
• Persona Cards used in Gold Runner Game

Our Final Outcomes

FINAL_CARE_Posters

PRISON VIDEO

Prison Gardens

PRISONREFLECTION recidivismdata Policy-3 Policy-2 Policy-1

Supplementary Presentation – Hill District

Here is our presentation that we had alongside our poster. This was intended really to wrap up our process to have for our and the classes’ records, rather than serve as a polished or formal presentation. View via the link below (PDF).

Final Presentation

PRISON VIDEO PROCESS

One of the major aspects of our final presentation is a video that we would show to potential partners in order to explain our program, why we need their help, and point out that there are successful prison garden and horticulture programs around the country.

Per Kristin’s suggestion, we made a stop motion video. I found that the medium lent itself beautifully to the subject matter. We had such a difficult time getting access to the prison just for a visit so animating the video myself made more sense since it would have been difficult to use photography or video. I developed a visual system that was bright, breezy, and has a distinctly human feeling to it. Since this video is intended for potential partners and not for inmates, I decided that it was important to make it somewhat playful since we are encouraging them to participate. And at the end of the day this is a happy project, even if it is within the walls of the prison. Visiting the prison really inspired me to make a video that did bring some color and vitality to the prison which is so commonly thought of as austere and dreary. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t a place that I wanted to spend the rest of my life in. But seeing that these inmates were just people that look like you and me made me want to find a way to bring some joy or purpose into their lives. Yes they’ve broken the law or committed heinous crimes. But these are men who are doing their time and paying their debt to society. I think they deserve a chance somewhere and I think our program could be it.

PRISON VISIT

Our visit to the State correctional Institution (SCI) was a truly unique and enlightening experience. Although it would have been helpful to visit at an earlier stage of the project, we were able to learn a great deal about how the prison operates, the living conditions or the inmates, and the general prison layout. SCI is primarily used for inmates who need to complete therapy or training programs. The school offers studies in various crafts and there are volunteer-run AA and NA programs. We met with the assistant to the superintendent, the principle of the prison school, the librarian, and the director of programming. Each of them provided great insight into not just their tasks and relations with the inmates, but also their perspective on the feasibility and logistics of a potential garden and horticulture program.

 

SCI is currently focusing on becoming accredited with the American Correctional Association (ACA), which will culminate with an inspection next year. The ACA outlines specific policies and regulations that the prison must be accountable for or else they are liable for inmate lawsuits regarding things like air quality or amount of cell space. A garden/horticulture program could definitely play a positive role in SCI’s goal to become accredited.

 

The employees we spoke with were enthusiastic about developing a garden but the lack of adequate green space proved to be a barrier. They suggested pursuing the project at the Mercer County Prison where they already have gardening contests and flowerbeds. The program director also pointed out the issue of working around the union; giving the task of running a garden or teaching a horticulture class would not be in any job description of current employees. While the focus of our project is on lowering recidivism rates and providing inmates with employment opportunities post-release, the program director was more interested in developing a garden for “special needs inmates” (i.e. any prisoner with mental or behavioral problems). She thought that gardening would be a solid therapeutic option for them and something that the prison currently does not offer.

 

We were encouraged to learn that gardening tool safety would not be as much of an issue as we initially anticipated. All of the classrooms that require the use of tools are checked three times a day and the tools are organized along a wall so that each tool and its location are visible at all times. When not in use, the tool cage is locked. It also seemed that monetary resources would not be much of a problem either. The program director and the assistant to the superintendant alluded several times that there was a healthy budget for programs, activities, and library materials. We were also encouraged when we read through the food menu of the week. SCI offers two different protein options per meal and incorporate fresh food whenever possible. Since the employees cannot bring in their own food, they eat the same lunch as the inmates, with the addition of a salad bar option.

 

Just being around the inmates was fascinating enough. We were allowed to walk into two different cells, observe inmates during outdoor time in the yard, and learn about their daily routine. We are excited to reflect more on our experience at SCI. We were thrilled with how receptive everyone was to our program concept and we look forward to possibly pursuing it furthe

r. 

Policy Research

Information of Pennsylvania Department of Correction

–  1 in 200 adult Pennsylvanians is currently incarcerated in a Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution.

–  Between 2001 and 2011, the number of inmates admitted into the Department of Correction increased by 41.9%, from 12,593 in 2001 to 17,875 in 2011.

–  Approximately 6 in 10 inmates recidivate within three-year time frame after release from prison.

–  Overall recidivism rates have been stable over the last ten years. While re-arrest rates have been slowly increasing over the last 10 years, and re-incarceration rates peaked around 2005 and began to decline in the most recent years.

–  Nearly 75% of the re-arrest offenses committed by release inmates within three years after they release from prison are for less serious offenses. 51% are for a drug or property offense. Only 17% of all arrests are for violent offenses. (1.3% for murder)

–  The DOC population decreased by 454 inmates during 2012, the largest one-year population drop in over 40 years.

–  In 2012, in order to reduce the population of DOC, two pieces of correctional reform legislation were passed as a result Governor Corbett’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative: Act 122 of 2012, and Act 196 of 2012.

–  The DOC population is expected to decrease by 3605 inmates over the next 5 years, largely as the result of the enacted JRI as well as internal population-reduction initiatives. (The Prison Garden could be one of the internal initiatives.)

–  PA DOC can save approximately $44.7 million annually by reducing its one-year re-incarceration rate by 10 percentage points.

–  PA DOC can save approximately $16.5 million annually by reducing admissions to state prison who are recidivists by 10 percentage points.

Statistics from other prison/jail garden

The Garden Project, which was founded in 1992 in California, provides job training and support to offenders in county jails. The participants grow organic vegetables for donation and learn horticulture and landscaping skills. The recidivism studies conducted by San Francisco County showed that, in 2002, while 55 percent of our prisoners are rearrested within a year, those who go through the Garden Project have a recidivism rate of 24 percent, and that’s after two years.

Insight Garden Program (IGP), in collaboration with San Quentin State Prison, provides rehabilitation to self-selected prisoners through the process of organic gardening. The program includes classroom course curricula and hands-on experience of re-connecting through nature. In late 2013, Insight Garden Program expands to Solano State Prison in Vacaville, CA. IGP conducted a recidivism study in 2011, among 117 men who had paroled between 2003 and 2009, less than 10% returned to prison or jail within a 3-year timeframe, compared to the California state’s 70% recidivism rate.

Sandusky County Jail Gardening Program, started in 2009, Sandusky County, Ohio, aimed at cutting costs and providing fresh food for the inmates. The program saved more than $25,000 for jail system in 2009 and donated about 400 pounds of produce to local food pantries and soup kitchen in 2010. Further success can be seen at the lower recidivism rate: compared to the general Sandusky County Jail inmate population, which has a 40% recidivism rate, only 18% of inmates who participate in the garden program are rearrested.

Greenhouse, a garden program started in 1996 and designed to rehabilitate convicts in Rikers Island, New York City’s main jail complex. With a greenhouse, a classroom and a garden, participating inmates receive applied skills including woodworking and learning how to build planters as well as job counseling. Once the convicts are released Greenhouse offers 9-12 month paid internships as part of the Green Team, where they maintain gardens at public throughout the city. The recidivism rate for graduates of the program is 5-10 percent, compared to 65 percent for the general inmate population.

Roots to Re-entry, Launched in 2006, partnering with Pennsylvania Horticulture Society, the City of Philadelphia, and other private institutions around the city. The program gives inmates a chance to develop new skills, gain hands-on landscaping experience, and pursue meaningful employment upon their release.

Current Prison Garden Projects in U.S. states and State Policy

Most of the states in U.S. have garden projects either on state prison level or on county jail level. Each state’s Department of Correction has policies on the educational and vocational programs in correctional institutions. The state policies address the authority and responsibility, program choosing process, inmate assessment and referral, program operations, placement priorities, offender responsibility, and education records/certification. These general state policies provide basic operation guidelines for prison garden programs, but not explicitly and specifically state governments’ policies towards prison garden.

In 2012, Minnesota passed a state law requiring correctional facilities to start gardens if space and security allow:

Minnesota Statutes 2013, section 241.241, PRISON GARDENING PROGRAM. The commissioner shall establish a gardening program for inmates at each correctional facility where space and security allows for operation of a garden. The garden shall be primarily tended by inmates. The commissioner shall strive to raise produce that can be used to feed inmates in state correctional facilities. The commissioner shall donate any portion of the harvest that cannot be used to feed inmates to food shelves and charities located near the correctional facility where the produce was grown. (History: 2012 c 155 s 3)

 

Pennsylvania state policies

Except for Minnesota, the majority states in the country don’t have specific laws or policies addressing the establishment of prison garden in both state level and county level. However, as the same with other states, Pennsylvania Department of Correction (PA DOC) has detailed policies on treatment programs, educational services, recreational and therapeutical activities, general and mental health care, food service and equal employment opportunity. The policies state the procedure and general guidelines for activities inside the prisons which prison garden project could rely on and obey to. Besides, the DOC also has a detailed policy on project management, which states the responsibility and project management process utilizing the standard project management methods. All the policies DOC implemented manage to meet the American Correctional Association (ACA) standards and requirements.

Even though there is not a specific policy addressing the prison garden project, we can follow all the related policies to propose the prison garden project to the targeted State Correctional Institution (SCI) first, and then after the SCI reports to PA DOC central office and gets the approval of the office, we can start our prison garden project in specific institutions. However, the prison garden concept is not brand-new to Pennsylvania Correctional systems. The State Correctional Institution at Mercer already have a flower garden and a corn field and they also have a garden competition each year for inmates which has been considered popular and welcome among inmates.

As the Department of Correction of other states which have prison gardens in correctional institutions, PA DOC doesn’t include detailed programs or projects in its policy document and only provide general guidelines for such activities. Although numbers of state prisons have adopted similar prison garden project all around the country, most states don’t pass the prison garden project as a law as Minnesota did. The reasons could be multiple: the effectiveness on reducing recidivism rate still needs to be tested and validated; policies are meant to be concise and general, while making prison garden a state law might not be feasible and effective for all the states; the prison garden project not only requires available space and additional supervision and security consideration, it also involves the budget control, responsible personnel, tool management and unions. The complexity of running a prison garden in correctional institution requires more detailed guidance and instructions, which could fluctuate from institution to institution based on the nature and conditions of each institution.

Potential policy changes could include more detailed requirements and regulations of such projects, government incentives or tax credits towards organizations that implement or sponsor rehabilitative and skills development programs. A more elaborate policy could include the responsibility, authorization, project length, working schedule, tool management, participation limitations, the requirements for a certificate, payment and et al. the policy should also address the security levels and supervision levels of institutions to implement such project and give the discretion to each institution to operate based on its own conditions.  Government incentives or tax credits could be given to correctional institutions which have positive outcomes of prison gardens or outside organizations which cooperate with SCI or sponsor the prison gardens.

Future in Progress

Problem: Students don’t know what they want to be when they graduate from high school. Planning for life after high school is not the number one priority and is overlooked by many high school students. Currently, in Pittsburgh and in the United States, there are hundreds of jobs available, however the American workforce is not equipped with the skills needed to do those jobs. Students do not know about the jobs in high demand or the training required to do these jobs. So how can students learn about their interests, and strengths to figure out what they want to do?

Our Proposal As a team, we have brainstormed ideas to help high school students think about their future. We met every Wednesday night to talk about our findings and to brainstorm ideas. Each one of us had a unique role within the team to help us develop our final idea. We combined design and policy methods to produce our findings. After talking to counselors at the Propel school, the director of the Neighborhood alliance, and high school students, we developed tools that helped show us what the priorities of most high school students are, what student’s value when it comes to choosing a job, and how they feel about life after high school. We have come up with a final concept that we think will be useful and could be implemented.

FUTURE IN PROGRESS Future in Progress or FiP for short, is a non-profit organization that works with community non-profits, foundations, businesses, schools, and volunteers. It is the product of primary and secondary research methods. We thought about the things that would incentivize high school students to commit to their future and to start planning for life after high school. FiP came up with a point system that will give students the chance to earn money for taking initiative and participating in activities like career mentoring or taking the PSAT.

Click on the link below to view how the program works:

How does the program work?

Below are the links for our poster boards:

Final Concept 1

Final Concept 2  

Future in Progress will help students on their journey to find a career that they enjoy so that they can be successful. -Ana Vazquez-Trejo, Molly Johnson, Alex Krysiak, Robyn Hammond, Salwa Al-Mannai

Interview with a former inmate

Today we interviewed Peter, a former inmate from a prison in California. He worked in the prison garden while he was there. Working in the garden was a really awesome experience for him and he’s glad he did it. We learned a lot that we hadn’t known before, and he encouraged us to consider issues we hadn’t previously thought about. Here are a few notes from our conversation:

• The garden was relatively large, 5 acres (about 4 football fields), and they grew many different things on it, from strawberries to brussels sprouts.
• All of the food from the garden was donated to a homeless shelter rather than being used in the prison kitchen. The reason for that is because the prison gets substantial funding for the kitchen and are not in need of more produce.
• Peter described how the garden was run…some inmates were paid to work in the garden while others were volunteers. They had to be invited to work on it, and they could always use more help. Everyone has to have a job at the prison, and working in the garden provided a very different experience than the more standard prison jobs.
• Some inmates are eager to learn during their incarceration, and the garden provides a good opportunity for this. It also serves the purpose of passing time and just getting by.
• Gardening was a much harder job than other prison jobs in terms of labor and work ethic. It attracted people that wanted to work hard and that wanted to try and take a break from the normal prison life for a little while.
• The garden was mostly inmate run, but a prison staffer oversaw it. Classes were mostly taught by other inmates. Peter was in a low security prison that sounds quite similar to SCI-Pittsburgh, and many of the inmates were white-collar types that could teach various classes. They had classes about herbs and horticulture, to name a couple. The classes served to keep people interested in the garden and to keep them busy.
• There were some issues with the garden…people hiding things in it or stealing from it. As Peter put it, “that shit’s just gonna happen in prison.”
• There was no problem at all with gardening being seen as feminine. People were really excited about it, and Peter thinks that if we start one, there will be absolutely no problem finding people to work in it.

Questions we didn’t get to ask due to time constraints:

• Did any community members come work on the garden with you?
• Do you know if family members were allowed to work in the garden with inmates?
• Was there a greenhouse at the prison?
• Did he continue gardening after his release?
• Did any of the gardening prisoners get jobs in horticulture after being released?
• Was there any sort of post-release program?

Affinity Diagramming Our Research

In preparation for our visit to SCI-Pittsburgh, we decided to go back through some of our interviews and research to pull out trends. We created an affinity diagram and were able to gain some new insights into the way the different parts of our project fit together. This provides us with a succinct way to present our research to the staff at the prison and to get their feedback.

For those of you that aren’t familiar with affinity diagramming, it’s a way to organize data. Each white slip of paper is a single piece of information we gained from our interviews with Debbie and Bret or from James Jiler’s book. Those are organized under themes that are then described by blue post-its. It’s a bottom up process, so we create the blue labels after we group the white post-its. Then we look for similar themes between the blues and categorize those under pink post-its. Finally, the green post-its capture larger themes in the data.

Our big takeaway from this process was that the New Leaf project can be divided into three themes: benefits, programming, and logistics. We already have a solid understanding of the benefits of a garden program through our online research. We learned about programming from Bret. Now the prison visit will teach us more about logistics. One of our goals will be to learn what types of barriers exist in terms of logistics and how they can be overcome.

Intersection Drafts

The following document contains a few drafts of intersections which led to innovations/layout choices. The green circle represents something we saw/was told at Fair Winds Manor the blue circle represents something we saw/were told at Charles Morris. The purple circle represents ideas we’ve developed from the comparison of these two observations, which we plan to include in our layout.

Design_Diagrams

Osher Interview

Last Friday our group met with some Osher participants at their home. Although the participants did partake in our kits, we learned more from what they said verbally. Our participants were both 78 years old, a couple, and married for eight years. One was a social worker and the other was a computer engineer.

Some insights we took away were:

• The couple would like to live somewhere where they don’t have to move. They’re looking for a community where they can move up or down (in regards to the care needs) without having to switch facilities.
• Shirley spoke of the need for making residents more humanized in staff members eyes. She shared a story with us about her mother, who had been in a home and was referred to as “the woman in room 234”. Shirley said that staff need to recognize that their residents have a past life and they should talk about it with them to keep their memory going.
• Shirley also pointed out that women and men think differently about retirement. She claims that women expect the challenges of aging, while men think and plan less about it.
• Shirley also realized a gender difference in activities and amenities in homes. She stated that more activities and amenities need to be available for men. One idea she mentioned was installing pool tables.
• Both Shirley and her husband believed that access to technology in homes was a top priority. They believe that each room should have a Wi-Fi connection, that Skype centers should exist for residents, and that common computer clusters should be available.
• In regards to why community and amenities are so important, Shirley shared a story about a woman she met while volunteering in a home. The woman was reserving a table and seven chairs for lunch, although lunch was two hours away. Shirley made the connection that for this woman, this table and sitting with her friends, was the woman’s family and her only possession after giving up her home and life to enter the facility.
• Shirley also shared a story about when her mother died and she went to retrieve her possessions. Her mother’s possessions were in the basement and no longer in the room (even though it had only been hours since her death). Shirley used this an example of the lack of humanity in homes.
• Finally, Shirley and her husband made a few other suggestions: including a library with large print and audio books. She also suggested putting names on the door’s of residents.

Our group has started the designing layouts, brainstormed technological innovations, and determined how categories within the layout relate to our themes of dignity, health, and community.