Architectural Reform and Corrections
| Author | Richard M. Swanson,Dale E. Smith |
| Published date | 01 September 1979 |
| Date | 01 September 1979 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/009385487900600306 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
275
ARCHITECTURAL
REFORM
AND
CORRECTIONS
An
Attributional
Analysis
DALE
E.
SMITH
School
of Justice,
American
University
RICHARD
M.
SWANSON
Criminal
Justice
Program,
University
of
Florida
AUTHORS’
NOTE:
Requests
for
reprints
should
be
addressed
to
Dr.
Dale
E.
Smith,
School
of
Justice,
The
American
University,
Massachusetts
&
Nebraska
Aves.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D. C.
20016.
The
present
study
is
an
investigation
of
the
impact
of
moving
to
a
new
institution
upon
inmate
and
staff
attributions
of
causality.
Consistent
with
the
attribution
literature,
instruments
were
designed
to
measure
the
degree
to
which
attributions
were
made
to
the
environment,
others,
and
oneself.
These
instruments
were
in
turn
administered
to
samples
of
inmates
and
members
of
the
correctional
staff
during
three
phases
of
the
facility’s
construction
and
occupation.
As
indicated
by
the
results,
with
the
move
to
the
new
institution,
attributions
to
the
environment
became
more
positive
while
attribu-
tions
to
others
became
more
negative.
Such
an
effect
was
exhibited
by
both
inmates
and
staff.
ithin
the
past
decade,
there
has
been
increasing
concern
among
those
involved
in
corrections
over
the
importance
of
institutional
design.
As
discussed
by
Johnson
(1973),
this
concern
is
similar
to
those
which
characterized
prison
reform
in
early
America.
Beginning
with
the
Pennsylvania
system
and
continuing
until
the
latter
half
of
the
nineteenth
century,
prison
architecture
was
in
large
part
dictated
by
the
philosophies
of
276
those
advocating
reform.
The
prison
architect,
through
the
insti-
tution’s
design
and
structure,
was
expected
to
build
these
ideals
into
a
reality.
With
such
importance
being
attached
to
the
insti-
tution’s
design,
prison
architecture
attracted
many
of
the
better
architects
of
the
time
who
welcomed
the
opportunity
to
partici-
pate
in
these
reforms.
Due
to
a
repetition
of
design
and
a
series
of
inexperienced
and
mediocre
architects,
the
latter
half
of
the
nineteenth
century
brought
about
a
decline
in
the
enthusiasm
and
appeal
that
had
characterized
previous
years.
Only
in
the
last
few
years
has
correctional
architecture
again
become
an
area
of
interest,
encouraging
both
innovation
and
experimenta-
tion.
Reflecting
this
renewed
interest
in
correctional
architecture
is
the
recent
trend
in
the
planning,
design,
and
construction of
prisons
and
jails
in
which
concepts
such
as
personal
space
and
privacy
are
stressed.
Whereas
the
only
requirement
faced
by
correctional
architects
of
the
recent
past
was
that
of
designing
a
secure
facility,
those
who
design
present-day
facilities
must
allow
for
security
as
well
as
inmates’
physical
and
emotional
well-being;
current
correctional
architects
must
provide
for
the
institution’s
operational
needs
while
at
the
same
time
allowing
for
inmates’
needs
for
autonomy
and
individuality.
Among
recent
changes
in
correctional
architecture
is
the
move
toward
smaller
institutions
consisting
of
single-occupant
rooms
closed
off
by
materials
other
than
steel
bars
and
painted
in
colors
other
than
&dquo;institutional&dquo;
greys
and
greens.
Thus,
what
may
have
seemed
at
one
time
somewhat
paradoxical
is
becoming
more
of
a
reality:
New
prisons
are
being
designed
to
humanize,
not
de-
humanize.
Although
recent
developments
in
correctional
architecture
have
received
substantial
support,
documentation
of
the
impact
of
these
changes
has
been
rather
limited.
Regardless
of
the
reform-whether
it
be
the
remodeling
of
an
existing
facility
or
the
construction
of
a
new
one-it
has
largely
been
assumed
(and
correctly
so)
that
such
changes
have
a
positive
impact
upon
both
inmates
and
staff.
But
the
question
arises
as
to
what
impact
such
changes
have
upon
other
perceptions.
In
those
institutions
To continue reading
Request your trial