Rehabilitation: A Toolkit

In 2010, the members of the AIA Academy of

Architecture for Justice (AAJ) articulated a
holistic vision through Sustainable Justice
2030: Green Guide to Justice, a white paper
that recognized that a sustainable justice
system happens at three scales: community,
building, and personal experience. The vision
emphasized the importance of treatment
over punishment, focusing on positive
outcomes calling for smart resource use.
Green Guide contributors also advocated for
a justice system that incorporated holistic
notions of health, dignity, and human
potentialall of which sit at the center of
Architecture for Social Justice, the AAJ
conference in St. Louis on Nov. 58.
Social justice activists point to a wide gulf
between the status quo and more
progressive notions of rehabilitationbridged
only through policy, legislation, and a seismic
shift in lingering 19th-century attitudes about
crime and punishment.
We realize the system isnt working, and we
know we need alternatives, says Deanna
Van Buren, principal at Oakland, Calif.based
FOURM Design Studio and a pioneer of
therapeutic and restorative approaches to
justice. But in terms of building the
architecture that supports a new approach,
its just not happening.
Van Buren believes that a criminal justice
culture that has not shifted its focus from
punitive treatment to rehabilitation is a
significant obstacle. Van Buren is looking for
alternative architectural typologies to
support rehabilitation, such as peacemaking
centers, restorative justice centers, and reentry campuses. Her method involves
working directly with the people living and
working within justice facilities to explore the
idea of restorative justice as a process of
acknowledging crimes committed and
reacquainting oneself with normative
behavior.
Van Buren has been working with Barb
Toews, a Lancaster, Pa.based social worker
and restorative justice practitioner, to
explore how social justice concepts may play
out inside of jails. Specifically, the team has
looked at how design can draw rehabilitative
elements of therapy closer to the
incarcerated individuals daily life.
If folks inside these institutions are seen as
human, and as having the capacity to
change, we might stop being so committed
to the punitive point of view, says Van
Buren, who has been independently working
with the Center for Court Innovation (with
offices in London, New York City, and
Syracuse, N.Y.) on the development of a
peacemaking center in Syracuse. The project
aims to identify qualities of a space that can
facilitate group therapy among disputants,

family, friends, and community members to

talk openly about how a crime, crisis, or
event affected each person.
At the AAJ conference next month, Van Buren
and Toews will present the toolkit they have
developed for working with incarcerated
populations, which includes guidance on how
to gain access to facilities, what to expect,
and how to engage users and residents in
constructive dialogue.

Scaling Up
Erica Loynd, AIA, a presenter at this years
AAJ conference and senior associate with the
DLR Group in Seattle, recently led a research
program in coordination with the Oregon
Department of Corrections (ODC) on
sustainable justice at the scale of individual
buildings. Her research, based on a prototype
that had already been built for ODC at the
Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in
Sherwood and Deer Ridge Correctional
Institution in Madras, aims to draw in energyefficient building features.
The main goal was to figure out a financially
feasible way to get to a net-zero prison,
says Loynd, who looked at three areas:
architectural detailing, electrical systems,
and mechanical systems. Under architectural
detailing, her research team, which included
Oana Stephens, an electrical engineer at
DLR, and Surrander Meganathan, a
mechanical engineer, focused on site
orientation and solar gain, controlling
infiltration, and over-insulating the buildings
envelope. Under electrical systems, Loynds
team focused on lowering energy usage in
facilities that operate 24/7 and can never be
completely dark. Under mechanical systems,
the team focused on maximizing heat
recovery and the benefits of geothermal
systems for Coffee Creek and Deer Ridge.
But the project wasnt merely an exercise in
engineering optimization. With growing
recognition that human well-being is
essential to the long-term viability of the
justice system, Loynd and justice architects
often point out the immediate impact of
energy-efficient features on people. Light
fixtures are a prime example. Many prisons
use fluorescent lights, which flash and
pulsate as they burn outand that visual
effect causes stress and, according to
researchers, creates hostility. By contrast,
LEDs fade over time, creating a more even
effect rather than the jarring, spasmodic light
show of fluorescents.
More importantly, says Loynd, LEDs are
operationally more efficient and longerlasting than fluorescentsa fact thats been
widely absorbed by architects of other
building types in the past decade.

Energy efficient prisons that can optimize air

filtration and regulate heat gain will also use
fewer fans, greatly reducing ambient noise
levelsanother common stressor for
incarcerated men and women. Predictable
environments, in other words, facilitate
rehabilitation in the same way that they
facilitate learning, working, or just about any
activity that requires psychological
adjustments.
Loynd believes that energy-efficiency goals
can also promote more productive
connections between justice-system facilities
and the communities that host them. She
uses the example of cogeneration plants,
which use garbage, composting, and sewage
to create power and hot water in a carbonneutral way. Considering how substantial the
byproducts of prison operations can be,
through a cogeneration plant a prison could
essentially double as an energy plant to
satisfy at least its own energy needs.
Along the Washington-Oregon corridor,
where Loynd works most often, she says that
more often than not community members
there expect public facilities to be
sustainable. Here you dont need to sell the
idea to taxpayers, she says. They demand
it.
Supporting a Better Experience
In 2007, Betsy Gillespie, the newly appointed
director of Kansas Johnson County
Department of Corrections overseeing
juvenile detention, began investigating a
therapeutic approach for a new facility in
Olathe. She believed that creating a resource
center for families would do more to address
recidivism than the cycle of arrest,
conviction, sentencing, and release that
defines juvenile crime. All she had to do was
test it.
Dan Rowe, AIA, president and head of justice
architecture at Treanor Architects, with
offices in Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and
Texas, says Gillespie approached him with an
interest in a restorative justice model that
could improve the situation.
Its justice administered beyond someone
being thrown into a cell, he says, and the
architectural response has been to create a
building that doesn't look like a detention
facilityto create spaces that are welcoming,
so when families come in theyre not
immediately defensive.
Less defensiveness, reckons Gillespie and
Rowe, means more openness to seeing
justice as a rehabilitative process in which
offenders will need support from family and
friends if theyre going to rejoin society one
day
A light-refracting glass mobile hanging from
the middle of a cylindrical glass lobby greets
visitors as they enter the Johnson County

Youth & Family Services Center, a 33-bed,

minimum-security detention facility designed
by Treanor and Mark Ryan, AIA, founder of
Phoenix-based Mark Ryan Studio. The mobile
and two other art installations in the center
were collaborative projects, created by New
Yorkbased artist Zhao Suikang as well as
youth and family services students.
Programmatically, its a detention center
but with a twist: Its designed to host a 90day rehabilitation program focusing on family
counseling. Featured in the 2010 Justice
Facilities Review and recipient of an award
from the AAJ, the center includes private and
semi-private spaces for counseling and
generously admits natural light into 94
percent of the spaces within. A central
outdoor courtyard and peripheral classrooms
guide residents through their daily education
and therapy sessions.
Although Johnson County targets USGBCs
LEED Gold certification for each of its
facilities, the Johnson County Youth & Family
Services Center received LEED Platinum
certificationnot an explicit goal, reports
Rowe, but rather the unexpected outcome of
many design responses to the unique
program. Taking the needs of the buildings
users into account resulted in spaces that
support a better experienceand ideally a
lower recidivism ratebut also in a facility
that is energy-efficient.
Naturally, changes in the justice system
demand changes to its infrastructure, and
the justice architecture community is poised
to meet the challenge. Today, with shifting
attitudes about justice pointing to a different
architectural approach, practitioners in the
justice field continue to articulate responses
at every scalefrom new ways of designing
buildings and new ways of shaping personal
experience, to new ways of envisioning the
role of justice facilities within their
communities.
In the third blog of our anniversary series,
Marayca Lopez i Ferrer, Senior Corrections
Analyst and Planner at US firm CGL/Ricci
Greene Associates, explores how forwardthinking architects are moving away from
classical models of prison architecture high
perimeter razor-wire topped fences, gloomy
undersized concrete cells along narrow
corridors to experiment with innovative
spatial concepts which better align the
physical plant of correctional facilities with
the concept of humane treatment and
contemporary priorities of inmate
rehabilitation and successful reintegration.
As a penologist and criminologist by
education, I have been always committed to
the mission of offenders treatment and
rehabilitation. After spending a significant
amount of time touring and surveying
correctional facilities all over the world, I

came to the realization that while it is

questionable that the world needs more
prisons, it is undeniable that what the world
needs are better ones to keep pace with the
progress in correctional philosophy and
practices. Eight years ago, I left academia
and joined a planning and architectural firm
specializing in justice facilities, discovering
the social dimension of architecture and the
power of correctional buildings as an
alternative solution to moving current
penitentiary systems forward (see note 1).
The importance of any correctional facilitys
physical plant to the fulfillment of particular
objectives has been long recognized.
Historically, correctional facilities have been
the architectural expression of competing
philosophies of incarceration of the time. In
the 18th century, when incarceration was
instituted as the primary form of punishment
in western societies, the prison itself became
the means of punishment. As the prevailing
punishment method, early purpose-built
correctional design reflected punitive
patterns reproducing ideals of enforced
solitude and intimidation. Prison reform
movements at the end of the century and
beginning of the 19th century were also
followed by reform-oriented design concepts,
with the separate and silent systems
(Pennsylvania and Auburn models
respectively), being two of the first
architectural manifestations in which the
design of the prison building and the
availability of space became a factor
impacting the reformative potential of the
offenders through isolation and labor,
therefore including separate cells and larger
spatial configurations where prisoners could
work together. Although todays goals of
incarceration have little in common with
those of centuries ago, with few exceptions,
the architecture of incarceration has
remained largely standardized throughout
the world: large institutions often located in
remote rural areas; stark in appearance, with
abundant provision of external symbols
announcing the buildings function as a place
of confinement, and heavy security features
asserting absolute control (i.e. tall perimeters
topped with razor wire, visible towers and
heavy gates). These are characterized inside
by bland uniformity in color and textures,
and massive cellblocks holding a large
number of individuals in gloomy and
undersized concrete cells with steel-barred
windows and sliding doors, organized along
long, narrow corridors. And needless to say,
this model of imprisonment has not only
constrained the introduction of rehabilitative
ideals but has resulted in negative individual,
societal and economic impact.
For the last two decades, in the midst of a
world-wide prison population growth, the
value of correctional architecture as a
catalyst for positive outcomes has pushed

forward-thinking architects to reassess

classical models, rethink prison designs and
experiment with innovative spatial concepts
embedded with theories from sociology,
psychology, and even ecology. These better
align the physical plant of correctional
facilities with the concept of humane
treatment and contemporary priorities of
inmate rehabilitation and successful
reintegration.
The purpose of this blog is to contribute to
the discussion about the role that modern
facility design can achieve in the topic of
correctional reform from the perspective of
architects and planners, such as myself. To
that end, I reached out to experts in the field,
including an environmental psychologist,
leading justice planners and several
architectural firms internationally known for
their sensitive and humane approach to
prison design, and asked them to describe in
a few paragraphs, the optimal spatial
attributes of a prison in which architecture
and rehabilitative ideals could operate in
harmony (see note 2).
It is not practical or viable to design a onesize-fits-all correctional facility, since the
type of facility ultimately needed will be
influenced by variables such as economic
and human resources, political climate,
location and the biological, emotional and
criminogenic characteristics of those who will
reside in the center (e.g., gender, age, risk
and needs, and legal status). However,
presented below are the features that, drawn
from culturally diverse viewpoints, were
commonly identified as vital in meeting the
basic requirements of inmate rehabilitation
(see note 3)
In order for a correctional building to function
as a tool for rehabilitation, the design of a
correctional facility should:
Be based on the premise that people are
capable of change and improvement, with
the built environment conveying the
message that incarcerated people are worth
something, and that they can be trusted to
transform their lives from a criminal past to a
more constructive future if provided with the
social skills and cognitive tools necessary to
succeed.
Be based on evidence-based practices and
consider the results from scientific research
conducted in similar institutional settings like
hospitals and long-term healthcare centers,
which demonstrate the influence of healthy
environments in reducing the frequency and
severity of anti-social behaviors and
violence, and in mitigating stress and
anxiety. More specifically, evidence shows
the beneficial mental and social aspects in a
treatment-oriented environment of access to
natural light and fresh air, connectedness to
nature, thermal and acoustic comfort, and

variety of outdoor spaces and views to

experience the changing of seasons.
Make a good neighbor: eliminating the
stereotypical intimidating image of prisons
and the stigma of incarceration is vital to
avoid alienation, and for success in
rehabilitation. As a public, social institution,
where possible, a correctional facility should
be integrated in the community to which the
prisoner will be released, and blend with the
surrounding area. Although a barrier to the
outside world is necessary to maintain
security, the aesthetic and environmental
aim of the facility should deinstitutionalize
the building and integrate it into the broader
community by presenting a normalized,
modern, citizen-oriented appearance and an
appropriate scale.
Be right-sized: to carry out a really effective
program of rehabilitation, the operational
capacity of any correctional facility should
never exceed one thousand offenders. The
smaller the facility size, the greater the
chances for program administrators and
facility personnel to get to know many of the
inmates personally, their stories, needs,
deficits and strengths, and thus better
identify effective ways of dealing with them.
When held in small enough facilities, inmates
may receive more focused attention,
programming and individualized treatment.
Additionally, evidence-based research shows
that large, crowded spaces increase an
offenders sense of isolation and anxiety.
Accordingly, to aid in rehabilitation, facilities
should be broken down into small units
appropriately sized in accordance with
security risk and needs. The provision of a
variety of housing options (through mixedcustody construction) to satisfy varying
degrees of custody as determined by
classification requirements, enhances the
operation of rehabilitative programs. And to
avoid the mixing of inmate groups, each unit
should be discrete and self-sufficient, and
include both individual as well as a variety of
collective spaces where groups of people can
congregate to replicate some of the activities
they would be engaging in on the outside:
cooking, dining, studying, watching
television, reading, playing games, and
exercising.
Promote safety, security, ease of supervision,
and circulation: the demands of security
dictate the use of straight-line designs that
provide clear sightlines throughout the
facility while enhancing way-finding and
orientation. At the housing unit level,
security through proper supervision is
accomplished by organizing the spaces for
direct supervision, with the officers open
desk strategically located inside the living
area with clear, direct line of sight into the
bedrooms (rather than cells). Allowing
adequate floor space is essential to improve
visual openness and make it easier for the

officer to see, hear, and supervise inmates.

Direct supervision not only aids informal
surveillance but also promotes constant,
direct interaction and normalized
communication between staff and inmates,
proactively identifying and addressing
potential problems before they escalate. A
foundational premise of this approach is that
inmates are not confined in their rooms all
day, but rather participate in scheduled
activities and programming, and are free to
move about and use the resources available
to them within the housing unit, under less
obtrusive security. Allowing inmates a
measure of control over their environment
results in an environment conducive to
change and self-awareness, by encouraging
them to manage their own behavior and
make responsible choices regarding their
participation in daily activities.
Marayca blog image - smallProvide a healthy,
safe environment: organizations that uplift
the morale of those deprived of liberty
benefit not only the residents but also staff
(who often spend more time in these
facilities than the inmates themselves), and
the community partners. Spaces that are
filled with sunlight, outside views,
therapeutic color schemes and normalized
materials, encourage inmates participation,
reduce stress, incidents and assaults and
decrease staff absenteeism. The provision of
a healthy, safe environment throughout the
facility is also essential to encourage
community engagement and participation,
essential in the success of the rehabilitative
mission. Visitors, volunteers and community
providers will feel safe if the areas they
frequent (eg. public lobby, waiting and
visitors areas) are welcoming, user-friendly,
there is access to daylight, proper
ventilation, odors and temperature are
controlled and acoustics managed. The same
principles apply when designing the
administration and staff support spaces,
program and service areas, circulation
corridors, etc.
Provide a normative (less institutional, more
residential-like) and spatially stimulating
living environment for occupants: The most
effective types of living environments in
aiding rehabilitation are those that are
domestic in feel and enhance the quality of
life. In housing units, a normative,
intellectually stimulating environment
features abundant sunlight, openness,
unobstructed views, landscaping, access to
nature, bar-less wood doors and large
windows, human scale, movable furniture,
normalized materials such as carpet, wood,
tempered/shatter-proof glass, commercial
grade acoustic lay-in tile low ceiling and
acoustic wall panels, functional and homelike furniture, and soft textures and colors:
these express calmness, help to ward off
monotony and motivate the senses.

Additionally, allowing some degree of privacy

and personalization are key aspects of the
transformation process. Inmates should be
entitled to privacy for sleeping, maintenance
and personal hygiene, and the safe-keeping
of personal items. In turn, personalization of
the space should be promoted by, for
example, letting inmates personalize their
rooms, re-arrange the living area furniture or
adjust light fixtures. This promotes a sense
of personal dignity and control over the
environment, promoting respect for
themselves and, in turn, respect for each
other.
Be program and services-oriented and
provide a variety of spaces: as important as
offering inmates a variety of rehabilitationtype programs and services, is the provision
of multi-purpose spaces to be used for
rehabilitation, such as academic and
vocational classrooms, activity and workshop
areas, multi-faith space and counseling
rooms for both individual and group therapy.
Any rehabilitative design should maximize
program space, to avoid activities and
treatment programs having to compete for
the space, therefore compromising inmates
participation and regular access to programs
and services. To encourage positive
socialization, movement and the experience
of seasonal change, multi-purpose spaces
should be spatially organized in a campuslike setting consisting of several stand-alone
buildings (rather than a large imposing
institution), organized to maximize use of
shared resources.
A correctional facility requires a humanizing
approach to design that few other kinds of
public architecture demand. A new
generation of rehabilitation centers should
provide spaces that reduce stress, fear and
trauma; spaces that stimulate motivation for
participation in positive activities that reduce
idleness and negative behavior and that,
rather than warehouse or isolate inmates,

work with them to encourage reformation

and reintegration into society as law-abiding
citizens. Life inside the secure perimeter of a
rehabilitative correctional facility should
allow for as much normalcy as possible,
providing inmates with a level of
responsibility and autonomy that will prepare
them for life on the outside, and imposing as
few restrictive conditions in spaces,
circulation pathways and access to indoor
and outdoor spaces as possible. However, for
those spatial and environmental
considerations and their positive attributes to
be of value, they need to go hand- in-hand
with positive and constructive inmate
management policies, practices and
procedures as well as committed, welltrained staff.
Notes
The broad and generic term of
corrections/correctional facility includes all
types of institutions tasked with housing
offenders (eg. jails, prisons, detention
centers and juvenile facilities) in this article.
The author would like to thank the following
people and architectural firms for their
contribution to this blog: Dr. Richard Wener
(Professor of Environmental Psychology at
the Polytechnic Institute of New York
University), Marjatta Kaijalainen (Finland),
Helena Pombares (Angola/UK), Hohensinn
Architektur (Austria), Fabre i Torres
(Catalonia), PRECOOR SC (Mexico), Parkin
Architects Limited (Canada), Jones Studio,
Inc. (USA), Jay Farbstein & Associates, Inc.
(USA), and CGL/RicciGreene Associates
(USA).
When discussing correctional facilities
design, in the interest of brevity, no attempt
has been made to differentiate between jails
and prisons and juvenile facilities, or
institutions of different custody and security
levels.