Architecture and Correctional Services: A Facilities Approach to Treatment
| Author | Samantha Allard,Victor J. St. John,Douglas Evans,Dave Ayers,Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885519877402 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
The Prison Journal
2019, Vol. 99(6) 748 –770
Architecture and
© 2019 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Correctional Services:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519877402
DOI: 10.1177/0032885519877402
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
A Facilities Approach to
Treatment
Victor J. St. John1, Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill1,
Douglas Evans1, Dave Ayers2,
and Samantha Allard1
Abstract
Facilities are important aspects of rehabilitative treatment. To fully
understand the impact of a facility on the effectiveness of treatment, the
direct perspectives of service providers are critical. We examine four
autoethnographic accounts from correctional service providers to determine
the role of the facility in their provision of care and organize these into
considerations of three central aspects of correctional architecture—space,
layout, and setting (SLS)—which play an important role in the efficacy of
rehabilitative services. We conclude by proposing how research may
advance in this area, especially through the use of practitioner accounts.
Keywords
treatment, architecture, corrections, autoethnography, prisons, jails
Introduction
Mass incarceration in the United States has led to a litany of undesirable
effects for people during their incarceration and post-release (St. John,
1John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
2University of West Georgia, Carrollton, USA
Corresponding Author:
Victor J. St. John, John Jay College, Graduate Center, CUNY, 524 W. 59th St., Haaren Hall,
New York, NY 10019, USA.
Email: vstjohn@jjay.cuny.edu
St. John et al.
749
2019), including economic hardship (Western & Pettit, 2010), psychologi-
cal maladjustment (Haney, 2003), difficulty in socialization (Rose & Clear,
1998), limited access to education (Evans, Szkola, & St. John), and petri-
faction of criminal tendencies (Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009; Travis,
2005). Especially concentrated in minority communities (Lopez-Aguado,
2016; Sorensen, Hope, & Stemen, 2003), carceral effects are not confined
to the offender, but ripple out to other members of society, exponentializ-
ing their impact (Dallaire, 2007; Western & Wildeman, 2009). Nevertheless,
although many question the efficacy of incarceration, the United States
continues to respond to crime, in great part, through imprisonment.
Applegate, Suriette, and McCarthy (1999) remind that, should Americans
choose to continue the imprisonment of their fellow citizens, the society
must consider better ways of housing them and preparing them for even-
tual release. Johnston (2000) often criticized the lack of architectural
design supported by cohesive theory and evidentiary research. We seek to
address both Johnston’s and Applegate’s concerns, contributing to the inte-
gration of correctional architectural theory and facility design and, going
still further, to advocate and demonstrate practice-informed theory. We do
this through an examination of an often-overlooked topic—the role of cor-
rectional architecture in rehabilitative treatment.
Researchers have acknowledged the incongruence between a professed
goal of rehabilitation and the ways in which correctional environments allow
for, and perhaps facilitate, counter-rehabilitative behaviors, such as coercion
and abuse (de Valk, Kuiper, van der Helm, Maas, & Stams, 2016). In recog-
nizing the limits of rehabilitative efforts in debilitative settings, one cannot
divorce counterproductive behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions from the
counterproductive physical spaces in which those behaviors, attitudes, and
perceptions occur. Spaces influence psychological and emotional states—
“the built environment can channel the possibilities of affect” and can be
brought to bear to “engineer feeling and emotions” (Adey, 2008, p. 441).
Environments that cultivate negative emotions, disruptive attitudes, and anti-
social behavior in incarcerated persons engender detrimental impacts, espe-
cially on rehabilitative services, impeding the counselor’s ability to provide
therapeutic services and the instructor’s ability to teach, and on and on.
Correctional facility design has progressed in recent decades to better
address the issues that come from flaws in previous designs. New-generation,
or pod-style, designs are exemplars of this improvement, constructed to
address safety concerns, encourage relationship-building, and relieve crowd-
ing (Applegate & Paoline, 2007). Nonetheless, Williams, Rodeheaver, and
Huggins (1999) stress the need for a more cohesive body of literature on
effective facility design. In reviewing the literature, there appear to be three
750
The Prison Journal 99(6)
key elements to a facility’s support of, or disruption of, treatment—its space,
layout, and setting (SLS). These all contribute to the behavioral and psycho-
logical outcomes of people in custody and the effectiveness of services meant
to improve those metrics.
Sommer (1971) pinpoints space, overcrowding, privacy, and the lack of sen-
sory stimulation specifically as the major architectural components that harm
incarcerated individuals, calling for research exploring facility location, size,
and layout. He further argues that these elements should not be perceived as
optimal conditions of confinement, but rather viewed as the minimum condi-
tions taken under consideration when incarcerating persons. Prior to Sommer,
Johnston (1961) cautioned against the building of poorly designed prisons and,
instead, argued for the creation of facilities incorporating rehabilitative charac-
teristics. He highlighted a shift in how the United States and Europe were
designing correctional facilities, a transformation in thinking about penal archi-
tecture that included changes in facility size, locations closer to communities,
and improvements in facility aesthetics, all while maintaining security. Building
from this body of work, we propose a framework of correctional design focused
on spatial characteristics, spatial layout, and sensory stimulation—SLS—and
explore this framework empirically through practitioner autoethnography. We
conclude by putting forward ways that our proposed framework can be utilized
to inform current correctional architecture.
Foundations: Empirical Support for an SLS
Framework
A review of the literature reveals significant support for the notion that the
architectural space in which service provision occurs is crucial to rehabilita-
tion during incarceration. Architecture may be either a tool for service provi-
sion or a distraction from it. In conducting a comprehensive review, three
broad classes of architectural features appear to be most salient.
Facility Space
Space is defined as “a limited extent in one, two or three dimensions,” that
extent being “set apart,” and determined, in part, by how “objects and events
occur and have relative position and direction” (see Space, 2016). This
includes “the distance from other people or things that a person needs to
remain comfortable.” As a concept, space influences an incarcerated person’s
rehabilitation through determinations of capacity and location.
Capacity refers to the maximum number of individuals that can be accom-
modated without compromising facility performance. Legal standards can
St. John et al.
751
inform occupational limitations, though these should not be seen as singu-
larly determinative. Baldursson (2000) and Johnsen, Granheim, and Helgesen
(2011) suggest that facilities with lower levels of occupancy are safer envi-
ronments because they allow officers to more efficiently surveil and to form
better relationships with incarceated persons, both of which help in perceiv-
ing safety risks quickly and de-escalating disputes earlier and more effec-
tively. Facilities at lower capacity should allow for easier logistics around
socially stimulating functions such as recreation or visitations. These condi-
tions lessen fear of harm and increase the ability to maintain social ties, both
important aspects of rehabilitation.
Research has linked the health and mental well-being of individual per-
sons in custody with an institution’s capacity for personal space—the three-
dimensional extent needed for a person to feel comfortable (Lawrence &
Andrews, 2004; Sibley & van Hoven, 2009). Architectural features have bio-
physical impacts on incarcerated persons: Schaeffer et al. (1998) found that
catecholamine, a hormone that can cause hypertension, increased in inmates
removed from private cells and placed in more open housing due to their fear
of incursions on privacy. He further posits that social and spatial density
within inmate sleeping quarters may explain high levels of stress and blood
pressure for similar reasons.
Just as a space is defined, in part, by the capacity of its boundaries, it is
equally defined by its relationship to other places and things. History has
shown the great import of distance on human behavior. Location is best
understood as the physical placement of a correctional facility and its prox-
imity to other important objects. Being housed within the confines of a cor-
rectional facility creates social distance between the “criminal” and
“innocent,” secluding them in a sort of parallel universe (Goffman, 1968).
This can be incredibly detrimental to treatment. Harer and Steffensmeier
(1996) studied nearly 60 federal prisons and showed that incarcerated people
who were able to...
To continue reading
Request your trial