Coping on the inside: Design for therapeutic incarceration interventions - A case study

1. Introduction

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world [1, 2] (see Fig. 1). Adjusting to life behind bars is traumatic; offenders must endure stressors including lack of privacy, violence, sexual assault, limited emotional and medical support, and loud and constant noise [3]. An under-utilized strategy understood to buffer and counteract the negative and corrosive impact of incarceration is through nature interventions. In fact, the stress reduction the-ory premises that interaction with nature is restorative, calming, and fosters enhanced positivity [4].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1

Rate of incarceration.

Research increasingly supports the physical and mental health benefits of being in or viewing nature. What began with a seminal study in the mid-1980’s in which it was found that hospitalized patients recovering from surgery did so faster, and with less pain medication and attention from nursing staff if their rooms overlooked a view of trees as compared to a brick wall [5], has expanded exponentially. For instance, in looking at what constitutes the optimal ‘dose’ of being in nature, findings show that 120 minutes a week, in any combination leads to self-reported good health and wellbeing as compared to having no contact with nature [6]. Research also posits long-term reduction of depression and increased attention for individuals with major depression, dysthymia, and the depressive phase of bipolar disorder after participating in garden programs [7]. Shinrin yoku, a Japanese term that translates to forest bathing; deeply immersive experiences in wooded areas, has repeatedly been shown to lower heart rate, blood pressure, and cortisol levels as well as to increase parasympathetic nerve activity [8]. Nature interaction also improves the capacity to learn [9] and demonstrate prosocial behavior [10]. To experience these benefits, a successful healing garden is one that contains opportunities for movement and exercise, social support, control, and natural distractions [11]. Being in nature is important and health promoting, for all people no matter their situation or circumstance, but is especially effective for those experiencing high levels of stress.

Prison garden programs have a long-standing history of being punitive. Offenders spent long hours under inhospitable working conditions tending fields of cotton or other crops, reaping little to no personal benefits for their work. Little consideration was made for the therapeutic benefits of being in nature and looking at gardening as a means to reduce stress with a few exceptions such as at Alcatraz and San Quentin prisons. Often, these early examples of gardening pr-ograms were intended for use by administrators but were tended by offenders. An early adopter of therapeutic gardens, San Quentin had an elaborate garden in front of the hospital pavilion. Today many prison garden programs are intended to elicit therapeutic benefits, including the iconic prison garden programs at Rikers Island and San Quentin, and environmental sustainability programs that are promoted by the Sustainability in Prisons Program are becoming increasingly present on prison campuses [12, 13]. There is limited literature on the impact of these sp-aces and programs for incarcerated individuals. What is available aligns with general findings associated with access to nature; reduced stress, improved prosocial behavior, and improved physical and mental health. As an example, in a recent study it was determined that female offenders who participated in a one-time indoor group planting activity were calmer, more peaceful, and happier at the conclusion of the event as compared to the beginning [14]. Also noted in the literature is a reduction in offender disciplinary infractions [15], a positive indicator of the value of prison garden programs.

Designing gardens and garden programming for individuals in any type of locked facility, be it a pr-ison, jail, inpatient, or residential treatment facility is complex, as the process must first and foremost consider the safety for the offenders and staff. Consideration must also be made for offenders’ or patients’ limited autonomy and their varied mental and physical health and cognitive status. To maximize their benefits, it is imperative that any outdoor environment/programming be designed to be therapeutic and offer opportunities to experience decreased stress and improved attentional capacity. Often, therapeutic environmental design outcomes are best achieved through an academic-practitioner interdisciplinary model involving landscape architecture, architecture, occupational therapy, and other disciplines as knowledge sharing between disciplines and practice models promote innovation and problem solving [16]. In this case study, we review the process of facilitating such an interdisciplinary design studio class to create a masterplan for the outdoor spaces at a women’s prison in Washington.

3. Role of a correctional environmental design studio world renowned

Students applying to landscape architecture programs have expressed in their applications, and later confirm, in seminars, a strong desire to address in-equities and social justice through their studies and upon completion, in professional practice. The Uni-versity of Washington landscape architecture program is renowned for courses that address these topics, for example, incarceration. This particular studio course was developed to meet student preferences and offer faculty the opportunity to pursue their personal and academic interests. While coming from different professions, landscape architecture, occupational therapy, and architecture, all of the faculty have experience in designing prison landscapes, researching the benefits of prison gardens, and have presented and published on the subject. The students enrolled in this elective course shared a strong motivation to use the environment in a positive way to mediate the damaging effects of incarceration. To understand what it is like to live behind the wall, students also wanted to collaborate with offenders through a participatory design process.

Planning for and trying to secure this project has been ongoing for years. Gaining access to appropriate decision makers at the Washington State Department of Corrections (WDOC) was a long and arduous process. Initially supported by the Sustainability in Prison Project, access could have been easier, but the changing administrative personnel became a significant obstacle. As with many projects in correctional facilities, opportunity depends on timing. There are many mitigating factors such as, is a sympathetic and interested warden in place? Is there an opportunity within the academic curriculum corresponding to favorable conditions at the facility? Does this all dovetail with the availability of a qualified interdisciplinary instructional team, and others?

All these factors finally coalesced in 2019. The project was funded through a modest grant that supports interdisciplinary studios within the University of Washington College of Built Environments (UW-CBE). During formative discussions with the WDOC, several correctional facilities were proposed as potential sites. Ultimately the Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW) in Gig Harbor, Washington was selected. The WDOC had a preferred site within the prison that they proposed we use as the focus of the studio, but we convinced them that focusing on a masterplan of the entire campus would offer a more comprehensive pallet of outdoor opportunities within the facility. In agreement with the WDOC, the studio would begin with a site visit/orientation, followed by an interim presentation at the WCCW, and conclude with a final presentation at the WCCW for staff and offenders.

The broad learning objectives for the studio were, to continue building fundamental skills and thinking as designers, and to continue finding one’s own design voice, values, and process. On a micro-level the goals included:

Understanding and applying the principles of therapeutic and culturally expressive design.

Based on the course objectives, the intended outcomes were for students to:

Gain basic competencies and comfort with community participatory design.

For unknown reasons, just before the studio began the site visit was postponed. This was a challenge to the schedule since design could not commence until the students understood the sites on the prison campus. To keep momentum moving forward, the planned student research phase was extended from two to three weeks with a focus on understanding prison outdoor environmental program precedents throughout the world. Working in groups of three or four students, each researched and documented examples of correctional gardens in Scandinavia, Northern Europe, Southern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Southern US, and the Northern US that they felt were exemplary in: (i) their aspirational intent, (ii) the therapeutic principles used and the resulting benefits, (iii) educational opportunities, and (iv) evidence of recidivism reduction the programs provided. See Fig. 2.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 2

A prison garden program in the Northern US.

These precedents provided students with an extensive database to be drawn upon for design inspiration over the course of the class. Complementing the research process, a series of relevant films were viewed, and weekly readings assigned and discussed in class. At this point in the 10-week quarter, the students were reassigned to six groups to work together to develop a therapeutic masterplan design concept for the WCCW. The limited onsite access was further restricted by lack of available design plans for the existing prison. Students relied on Google Earth to gain much of their understanding of the facility and topography. To enhance the learning experience and address limitations posed by lack of onsite access, a rotating staff of architects and justice specialists from the Justice Group of the design firm, DLR Group (Seattle office) began to regularly attend studio and work closely with the students on the design process, staying with the class through mid and final reviews.

As we entered week three of the quarter, and despite intense advance planning, it became apparent that access to the WCCW was going to be a significant challenge, and collaboration with the offenders, doubtful. In lieu of this, the director of Pioneer Industries, a work-based program in Seattle that provides support, counseling, and training for ex-offenders was contacted. The class met with clients at Pioneer Industries to hear about and discuss their thoughts on the environments of incarceration they had experienced and how they could be improved. This visit proved instrumental and several of the clients continued their participation with the class by attending mid and final design reviews. The Pioneer client’s insights and critique at the reviews were invaluable and provided students insights from a reality- based perspective.

One month later than originally scheduled the site visit finally materialized, but with an unexpected restriction placed on the number of students who could enter. Thus, a majority of the 16 students were not permitted to visit the WCCW. A representative of each design team was selected who would document the sites, interact with the staff and offenders, and report back to their teams. This, though not optimal, seemed to work well enough, and photos and notes were shared with those unable to attend.

With these delays the students now had six weeks to develop their design concepts and a schematic landscape masterplan. As noted above, the WCCW administration had a preferred site that the design teams needed to include in their plans; a large open space near the dining hall, education classrooms, and substance abuse support facility. We encouraged the students to include as many other open spaces as they wished.

The prison is divided into three primary housing areas based on security levels: maximum, medium, and minimum. The minimum area has extensive landscaping and working gardens, while the medium and maximum areas are devoid of landscaping, containing only a mixture of grass and pavement. See Figs. 3, 4. All of the teams included the areas adjacent to the three housing areas and the main courtyard in their masterplans, as required by the administration. Further, the teams designed gardens for correctional officers, for a locked unit psychiatric ward outside the mental health unit, and for the visitor’s room. Many teams also included storm water mitigation to address ecological and sustainability concerns.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 3

A view of the minimum security area at WCCW.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 4

A view of the main quad at WCCW.

The student proposals varied in their foci, approach, and resolution. Several strove to conceptually unify maximum and medium security with the minimum security through flows of plantings and circulation. One proposal, “Nature Adhesive,” used a continuity of tree and shrub plantings that flow through the primary courtyard spaces as a “river” of healing. In reality the spaces are separate, a gate and fencing divides them, but equity in access to nature was pursued through this concept. See Fig. 5. Three of the proposals focused on a strong ecological approach, primarily around storm water and native plantings. In proposals “Ebb and Flow,” “Healing with Systems,” and “Harbor to Summit,” storm water links across the campus, providing an ecological corrode. Water originates in the medium security courtyard, the highest site within the campus. As the stream passes through the other spaces it gathers water along the route, bringing most of the storm water within the campus to its final destination in the minimum-security courtyard, the lowest point, to be cleansed in treatment ponds/gardens. The native plantings and water also provide therapeutic outcomes and one team proposed separate vegetated courtyards, one for staff and one in a mental health unit to offer respite in these more private settings. See Figs. 6, 8. In proposal “Recovery and Discovery,” the focus is on education, programmatic therapeutic gardens, substance recovery, and includes animals (goats and chickens), and physical exercise elements to increase well-being. See Figs. 9, 10. Proposal “Intertwining Ecotones” centers on a verdant planting approach that features micro eco zones planted to correlate to those found in Washington State and integrated with a strong secondary agricultural and food theme. Social spaces were placed within forest and meadow gardens to offer a sense of focus and calming. See Fig. 11. All six of the project proposals had many additional components, including sensory enrichment, demonstration/learning, and pollinator gardens. Many groups struggled with the maximum-security quad and the challenge of creating a secure garden for staff and offenders that offers the same therapeutic outcomes that a lush, green place provides.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 5

The Nature Adhesive design concept.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 6

The Ebb and Flow design concept.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 7

The Healing with Systems design concept.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 8

The Harbor to Summit design concept.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 9

The Recovery and Discovery design concept.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 10

The Recovery and Discovery design concept.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 11

The Intertwining Ecotones design concept.

The student’s final masterplans were presented to three audiences. The first was a final presentation at the UW-CBE to a group of design professionals, academics, and several ex-offenders, all of whom provided feedback from their varying perspectives. Second, a smaller cadre of students from each design group led a class of 75 offenders (participants) at the WCCW on designing therapeutic gardens and also presented their masterplans. This was an invaluable opportunity for participants to ask questions, to discuss aspects of each of the masterplans, and most importantly, to have an authentic dialogue with students as prior to this studio course few students had had any direct or indirect experience with the correctional system. This was very rewarding for both students and participants who were equally en-gaged and asked each other thoughtful questions, particularly about when these design ideas would be implemented at the WCCW. The third and most formal of the presentations, which was attended by all of the students, was held at the WCCW for a total of eight administrative personnel and staff. The WCCW administrators attending the presentations expressed unanimous support for the project. Reactions amongst the staff was mixed. The head correctional officer and horticultural instructor both voiced support for the project, but other correctional officers seemed more reserved about the designs, about partnering with a design-build project, and about the possibility of offenders using gardens anywhere within the facility. This sentiment may emanate from a reluctance to accept a paradigm shift to making the campus more therapeutic as opposed to utilitarian, and/or from fear that a redesigned greened campus would require additional staff surveillance to monitor, thus increasing their workload burden. This was never explicitly stated but was alluded to in several conversations with correctional officers.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 12

The final design review at the UW-CBE.

Unfortunately, the post-studio follow-up has not been as successful as the design process was. The stated intent of the agreement with the WCCW was to reconvene after the designs were completed and discuss the first phase of implementing the transformation to a therapeutic campus through a design-bu-ild studio. Outreach to personnel at the facility have been unanswered. As during the design process, delayed communication and changes of plans/di-rection continue, hence follow up has been difficult. Correctional facilities are enmeshed in regulations and by nature are subject to unique sensitivities, however given the enthusiasm of the administration’s responses to the student design projects, the unexpected lack of communication is disappointing. We continue to reach out to the WCCW in hopes of moving the project to the design-build stage.

The studio was complicated on many levels, in-cluding ongoing schedule changes, canceled visits, and limited access into the facility. Despite the challenge, it did not seem to dissuade the students’ mot-ivation, commitment, or level of participation. In fact, while on a much lesser scale, in some ways it paralleled what offenders endure, often on a daily basis; uncertainty and disappointment. Successful management requires adaptation, resilience, and flexibility, which our students demonstrated by persevering and producing powerful end projects. In post-studio interviews, students responded that the class was very illuminating and participating in something so meaningful was highly valued. As most had never been in a correctional facility or known an ex-offender, they were motivated by social justice issues such as: how incarceration could be less oppressive? Or, can environmental change and opportunities to garden reduce recidivism, improve well-being, and reduce the corrosive mental health outcomes of incarceration?

The students who visited the facility described it as a powerful experience, one illuminating a world they knew little about. It is unfortunate that not all students were able to share that experience. The research exercises and discussions were highly valued. Students sought out and shared examples of both what could be and what the current state of corrections is in the US. This was both exciting and shocking; to see what was possible in the precedents and to see what the US system is, punitive, harsh, and depressing [17, 18]. In their work groups, many students explored the intersection of ecological and therapeutic design. They felt that improving the environment offered appropriate opportunities to create nature immersion experiences that offenders would benefit from, thus reaping the therapeutic benefits.

5. Conclusion

Students’ belief that their design proposals addressed inequities perpetrated by the correctional system was profound for them. All were gratified to hear the WCCW administration express their appreciation for, and understanding of, the innovative concepts they had explored. Receiving feedback from guest ex-offenders from Pioneer Industries, working closely with justice design expert practitioners in the field, and presenting to the 75 WCCW offenders was powerful and meaningful. It is hoped that participation in the studio will in some way shape the students’ future practice in their respective design professions. Despite the logistical challenges that both faculty and students experienced, there was consensus that this experience was clearly a watershed moment in terms of learning, adaptability, and in essence, a reality check for how professional life may happen.

Conflict of interest

None to report.