Although corrections has moved steadily toward a rehabilitation focus, some think the transition isn't happening fast enough. Recently, a group of architects decided to protest the creation of corrections facilities unless they start to focus on fostering rehabilitation.

Known as the Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR), the group has resolved not to participate in the design or construction of any corrections facilities until officials agree to change their views on inmate rehabilitation. Many of the architects in the ADPSR do not believe that corrections facilities, in general, have been designed to promote rehabilitation and have instead fostered the “warehousing” of inmates.

But Frank Greene, a partner in the architecture firm Ricci/Green and a member of the American Institute of Architects and the Academy of Architecture for Justice, disagrees with the group. Greene says that the relationship between architecture and corrections continues to change as philosophies evolve – and that refusing to work on corrections facilities does nothing to address the problem.

“[The ADPSR] are criticizing a system,” says Greene. “In many ways, most of their critique of corrections facilities has already been addressed by state-of-the-art practices. Philosophy drives design and when you have a direct supervision philosophy, you are creating a direct supervision kind of jail – and it's completely different. There has been a marked change in corrections.”

While old-time, linear facilities were effective when they were constructed, architects and officials are now faced with many outdated facilities across the country. Rather than boycotting corrections entirely, Greene would rather look at future opportunities for change.

“From an architect's standpoint, the change in corrections is fascinating,” Greene says. “We have a new-generation jail design now. With the shift towards the direct supervision philosophy, we're creating jails completely different from old-time slammers. [The ADPSR] are right in that there are still many facilities that need to be updated and replaced. I think we need to look at the progressive trends we've seen in corrections, and realize there is more happening in the philosophy, design and construction [of these facilities].”

Renovating Corrections: A New Look at Old Facilities

Greene would like the architecture field to focus on the change in corrections philosophy – and how to reflect that change in facilities that have already been created, rather than becoming discouraged at the prospect of tearing down older facilities and replacing them. Greene suggests that architects and corrections officials alike pay attention to new possibilities.

“Some facilities are possible to renovate and adapt so they can absorb the direct supervision mode,” Greene explains. “You want to add program space, which outdated facilities generally do not have. You want to use the older parts of the facilities for disruptive inmates who need to be in close confinement, or special types of sex offenders that cannot be in the general population. There is a possibility of re-using the old housing units for prisoners that aren't appropriate for a general population environment.”

Although it will take time and money to enact these remodeling procedures and philosophies, Greene maintains that the changes are necessary for offenders and keep staff safer in the long run. Citing that old-time lock-ups lend themselves to be run by inmates, rather than officers, Greene says that newer facilities promote healthy relationships between officers and inmates.

“In these older facilities, inmates do not even know the officers,” says Greene. “In direct supervision, the officers and inmates have much more interaction – they get to know each other.

Greene also believes that inmates need to be housed in “normative” environments, which will encourage them to focus on their rehabilitation – and direct supervision facilities also support that concept. By promoting positive environments in corrections, Greene says officials can also promote positive behavior in inmates.

“If you treat people like human beings, including the construction of their environment, they act more like human beings. If you treat them like animals in a zoo, you tend to see them act like animals,” he said.

In order to ensure that inmates are residing in positive environments, architects need to look at facilities in a new way. Greene says environments that promote humane supervision have been proven to enforce a sense of responsibility and rehabilitation in inmates – and justice architecture should adjust to that.

“Direct supervision facilities are pods; they have a square floor plan that is less long and deep, and therefore you have more visibility within the facility,” Greene explains. “With linear floor plans, you have long corridors of cells, and officers would simply watch inmates – they wouldn't interact. Now, with the direct supervision facilities, it is essential that they interact with the offenders.”

A Shift in Construction; A Shift in Corrections

With a change in philosophy and renovations to older facilities, some architects believe that the structure of a facility can change everyone that resides and works within it. Greene says that the shift towards direct supervision in corrections has done more than change blueprints; it has also changed the way officers view inmates -- and it has changed the way inmates view their rehabilitation. 

Greene says that facilities that encourage interaction between officers and inmates are safer; but he also understands why corrections officials and employees might be wary of the new philosophy. During his work with one skeptical warden, Greene took the official to one direct supervision facility in Pennsylvania.

“We took him on a tour at a facility in Eastern Pennsylvania. We took him into a male housing unit and there was a female officer in charge. All of the men in the unit were being very well-behaved. The warden said to me ‘Those weren't real prisoners, those were actors! You hired these guys!' And the head of the Pennsylvania facility just cracked up. He said ‘Our guys are just as bad as any others – but environment just cues behavior'.”

Greene says this kind of resistance to change in corrections is to be expected, but he still believes that direct supervision is a welcome change from the old “warehouse” mentality of corrections. He adds that direct supervision facilities are important because they provide a new type of security for inmates and officers alike.

“I have gone into linear facilities and helped to humanize them,” Greene says. “We went into one old-time facility, and it was the scariest place I've ever been. It was an out of control facility – the prisoners had strong attitudes and things felt very dangerous and on the edge at all times. [Officers] didn't really know what to do with these inmates if they weren't locked in their cells – they couldn't handle them. There were lots of catcalls and smart remarks. In direct supervision facilities, you never get those catcalls and remarks.”

The difference between linear and direct supervision facilities is helping officials become more open to innovative ways of rehabilitating prisoners – and at the same time, it is promoting adjustments to facilities to match those new philosophies. While the divide still exists between architects who favor new designs and corrections officials resistant to change, Greene believes the two will eventually meet in the middle.

“The tough-on-crime folks think you should just lock inmates up and throw away the key,” Greene says. “They believe the issues of confinement should be harsh – no TV, no air conditioning, hard labor, all of these silly stereotypes of the way correctional facilities might work.”

Stereotypes and architect arguments aside, Greene is hopeful that new designs for corrections facilities can help.

“From a professional standpoint, this is about management of a population of people who are there for a period of time,” Greene says. “It's not about punishing them further. Having your freedom taken away, being deprived of freedom, is punishment enough. There should always be hope and options for these offenders – during incarceration and upon release.”
 

Resources:

The American Institute of Architects: http://www.aia.org/

The Academy of Architects for Justice: http://www.aia.org/caj_about

The Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Responsibility: http://www.adpsr.org/