NEW GENERATION JAIL DESIGN - A SHIFT AWAY FROM 200 YEARS OF THINKING

• Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In India
• Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In The World
• Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In The United States
• Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In The Philippines
• Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Area

1983 was a milepost that signaled a departure from nearly 200 years of jail design philosophy. In that year the concept of direct supervision was formally recognized by the National Institute of Corrections, NIC. Subsequently, the concept and its design implications were endorsed by the American Jail Association, AJA, the American Correctional Association, ACA, and the Committee on Architecture for Justice of the American Institute of Architects. Even though 'new generation' jail concepts have gained wide acceptance among informed professionals, there are many law enforcement, jail, and county officials who have not had the benefit of being in the communication channel on reforms in jail design.

11 PATRICK G. JACKSON, CINDY A. STEARNS, Gender Issues in the New Generation Jail, The Prison Journal, 1995, 75, 2, 203CrossRef; 12 JOHN D. WOOLDREDGE, L. THOMAS WINFREE, An Aggregate-Level Study of Inmate Suicides and Deaths Due to Natural Causes in U.S. Jails, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1992, 29, 4, 466CrossRef.

Third-generation jails Regional jails By improving problems jail officials began to design , with the remote control center for staff removed, and correctional officers placed in the housing unit in direct contact with inmates. Which type of facility is characterized as having a remote control center for removed staff, and correctional officers placed in housing units with direct contact to inmates? Evaluations (POE) in the evolution of jail design. Correction centers (MCCs) in Chicago and New York, built in the 1970s. Located in secure control rooms or on the other side of a wall of bars). “podular” layouts, was in complete contrast to the linear design of traditional jails. Start studying Test 2 chapter 6. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Two key features of jail management?? Supervision and Design of facility. Two key ingredients of new generation jails are? Architectural design and supervision.

Unfortunately, jail design becomes easily entangled in moral debates which push the issues of staff safety and rights of the confined to the background. As will be pointed out in this article, new generation jails are much safer than old style jails. In addition, decision makers must hold in mind that their jails will house unconvicted as well as convicted persons. About 60% of most jail populations consists of unconvicted defendants, many of whom are held on relatively low bonds and would be out on bail if they had the money.
Making a decision about the design of a new jail may be difficult for county commissioners because of the unfamiliarity of concepts about jail design and inmate supervision. The path to selecting a jail design is filled with the risk of embracing mistakes that will affect liability, safety of staff and inmates, efficiency in daily operations, and effectiveness in functioning. Long after the dollar savings obtained by selecting a less expensive, flawed design have been forgotten, the problems of a bad design will remain as painful and costly reminders of the shortsightedness of county commissioners' decisions. Counties in which this sore memory lingers are not difficult to find.
This article will investigate three strategies for inmate supervision and their impact on jail design. Graphically, jail designs will be displayed, how these designs are employed will be discussed, and various considerations in decision making about selecting designs will be examined.
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE OF JAIL DESIGN
Jail design should be based on direct or indirect supervision of inmates. Linear design should be absolutely avoided.
As will be explained in this article, this principle acknowledges that one of the basic tenets of new generation jail design is the need for continuous observation of inmates. The Standards of the American Correctional Association, ACA, for example, are very specific in this regard:
Written policy and procedure should require that all living areas be constructed to facilitatecontinuous staff observation, excluding electronic surveillance, of cell or detention room frontsand areas such as dayrooms and recreation spaces. Continuous observation of inmate livingareas is a fundamental requirement for maintaining safe, secure custody and control. Thephysical plant should facilitate the performance of this operational function. ⁽¹⁾
The reader should be aware that the ACA is not just a small interest group, but the largest organization of correctional professionals in the United States. Standards of thisorganization are based on substantial study by special ACA committees. Adherence to ACA standards is one of the best ways to insulate against legal challenges about jail conditions.
DIRECT SUPERVISION DESIGN
Continuous observation is provided in two types of design, direct and indirect supervision. Direct supervision places the correctional officer's station within the inmate living area, or 'pod' as it is often called. This is shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1. Direct Supervision in a Medium Custody Housing Unit

In this picture the officer is shown standing before an in-pod control station. By placing the officer in the pod he or she has immediate visual observation of inmates and unrestrained ability to receive information from and speak to inmates. During the day, inmates stay in the open area (dayroom) and are not usually permitted to go into their rooms except with permission and must quicklyreturn. The officer controls door locks to cells from the control panel. Functions of this panel can be switched to apanel at a remote location, usually known as 'central control,' when the officer leaves the station for an extended time. The officer also is wearing a small radio on his shirt-front that permits immediate communication with the jail's central control center if the need should arise. In addition, the dayroom area is covered by a video camera that is also monitored in the central control room.
By placing the officer in the pod, there is an increased awareness of the behaviors and needs of the inmates. This results in creating a safer environment for both staff and inmates. Since interaction between inmates is constantly and closely monitored, dissension can be quickly detected before it escalates. Inmates who show signs of becomingunruly also can be quickly identified and removed to a more secure living unit/pod. In addition, maintenance costs are lower in direct supervision pods because the close supervision reduces misuse and harm to equipment, furnishings, and walls.This style of inmate supervision performed by well-trained officers creates a more positive environment than other types of supervision methods. The stress on officers and inmates alike is greatly reduced. From a liability standpoint, the jail and county's liability will be reduced as a result of less litigation arising from unobserved behavior, e.g., suicide, fights, sexual assaults, accidents,and unexpected medical emergencies.
In summary, direct supervision involves three important aspects. First, the inmates are aware that they are being constantly supervised. Second,they are aware that if they create problems they will be quickly removed to a higher custody pod having fewer privileges, such as ability to come out of their cells. Third, they are aware that the officer is backed up by a personal radio alarm system and video monitoring.
Direct supervision design is most relevant to the housing of medium and minimum supervision inmates. These are inmates who are not considered to be violent or disruptive in the jail environment. This design is not usually employed for the supervision of maximum custody inmates.
INDIRECT SUPERVISION DESIGN
Indirect supervision, sometimes called 'remote surveillance,' also provides continuous observation ofinmates. The layout of the inmate living area is similar to that of direct supervision. The design is 'indirect' in that the officer's stationis separated from the inmate living area.

Exhibit 2. Indirect Supervision Housing Unit

The officer's station is inside a secure room. Observation is enabled through protective windows in front of theconsole/desk. A microphone, long black tube, is visible in front of the right portion of the console. Microphones and speakers inside the living unit permit the officer to hear and communicate with inmates.
An indirect supervision pod, when used for medium and minimum custody inmates, is similar in designand size to direct supervision pods. However, indirect supervision in a maximum supervision pod (shown in Exhibit 2, above) usually involves a smaller housing area. In a maximum pod, inmates are not permitted to congregate in an open dayroom, but must spend most of theirtime in their cells and are let out individually to exercise. For this reason maximum cells are usually larger andrequire more durable hardware, doors, and fixtures.
Sometimes the indirect design is arranged so that an officer can observe and control two or more adjacent pods. The adjacent pods are configured so that the officer can see into them but the inmates have novisual or auditory access between pods.
In indirect supervision, as in direct supervision, the officer does not leave his/her post and has anuninterrupted view of inmates at all times. As might be expected, the indirect design does not foster thesame immediate capability of controlling inmates that is achieved through direct supervision.
LINEAR DESIGN
Linear design, also known as 'intermittent surveillance design,' does not provide continuous observation. The design is similar in concept to that of a hospital in which long rows of rooms are placed along acorridor. A common variation is to situate housing units, instead of individual cells, along the corridor. Exhibit 3 shows such a linear design found in an older jail.

Exhibit 3. Linear Positioning of Housing Units

The jail officer, barely visible at the back of the corridor, must patrol the hall and look through windows toobserve each housing unit. A set of narrow observation windows for one of the housing units has been labeled with a '1' and the entry door, also containing a window, is marked with a '2.' While walking the corridor the officer may look into a unit or enter as part of the surveillance. Sounds from within the units are muffled by the closed doors and are not readily heard in the hallway.
This design introduces an element of high risk into the management of inmates because interpersonal problems between inmates is most likely to occur when staff are not present. Thus, inmate problems cannot be detected early and prevented from escalating. Video surveillance cannot make up for the problems arising from this type of design. Due to the intermittent nature of staff supervision, inmates are essentially in control of the living area. Studies show that the linear design is associated with an increased frequency of contraband, coercion of inmates by other inmates, assault, rape, suicide, and even homicide. ⁽²⁾A drawback of this design is that, in practice, the jail officer may not patrol constantly, perhaps only every 20 to 30 minutes andsometimes longer. As a result, officers may become involved in other activities such as escorting inmates,supervising cleanup in another area of the jail, and assisting in booking. Such involvement turns theirattention from supervision of inmates and extends the times between surveillance patrols of cell areas.
Electronic surveillance has been used to attempt to compensate for the weakness of the linear design. Experience with video surveillance cameras indicates that the officers monitoring banks of video screens are often unable to maintain effective constant watchfulness due to fatigue, preoccupation with other activities, and too many cameras to view. Furthermore, the effectiveness of video surveillance is compromised when inmates determine what is and is not being monitored. When this happens, trouble makers move their illicit activities to off-camera areas. The use of video surveillance in lieu of the presence of jail officers is commonly associated with efforts of decision makers to drastically reduce staffing costs. Such efforts often contribute to serious security problems because when problems arise, as they more often do in this type of jail, there may be an insufficient number of officers available to effectively respond.
Well-informed jail administrators avoid the linear design. Architects who advocate the linear designclaim that it is less expensive to build and staff than direct or indirect designs. However, the sameargument could be used for other problematic designs, such as tents.
HOW THE DESIGN OF HOUSING UNITS IS PROPERLY USED
The cornerstone of effective jail security lies in the classification of inmates according to their supervision needs. The most obvious classification-driven housing assignment is that of separating inmates according to gender. Similarly, hostile inmates should be separated from non-hostile inmates. The identification of who will be difficult to control is achieved through a system of jail classification that includes ongoing observation and reevaluation. Under such a system, classification screening begins when an inmate enters the jail. After the initial classification decision is made using an objective, i.e., written and validated, assessment instrument, the inmate is constantly observed so that staff can quickly remove him/her to a different, usually more restrictive, pod if disruptive behaviors are exhibited. In this manner, housing units (living areas) of a jail designed as minimum, medium, and maximum supervision can be filled with appropriately matched inmates. Without this system, the supervision of inmates will be marked by inconsistent and poorly justified inmate management practices.
THE INTERPLAY OF INMATE BEHAVIOR AND SUPERVISION STYLE
Within the inmate population will be persons having varying levels of social maturity and, thereby, differing abilities to control their behavior. Immaturity of social behavior has parallels in both adults and children. For example, placing ten small children in a room in which there is no parent or other adult, will usually result in the outbreak of problems. Even sporadic monitoring by an adult who occasionally opens the door is not as effective as a constant presence. This does not mean that all children are bad, but that the dynamics of interaction can be influenced by the whims and antisocial behavior of one or two persons. Similarly, groups of inmates often contain one or more socially immature individuals, who because of their physical size or manipulative capabilities, will contribute to dissension within the group if there is not a supervising staff member present. The presence of a jail officer combined with the ability to remove inmates to other housing areas, is much more effective in controlling fights and assaults on correctional officers than sporadic monitoring. Thus, direct supervision in combination with classification provides a safer environment for both staff and inmates. A safer jail is not only beneficial in light of reduced legal liability but contributes to a better work environment and lower staff absenteeism.
Indirect supervision does not afford the same level of control over inmate behavior as direct supervision. The correctional officer loses much of the immediate sensitivity about communication within the inmate group by being separated in a control room. Such separation, of course, is appropriate in the design of maximum custody housing units. To compensate for separation of the correctional officer, a 'rover' should be used. A rover moves in and out of several housing units in order to temporarily make personal contact with the inmates. This arrangement improves the performance of indirect supervision, but is still not equivalent to direct supervision in inmate management effectiveness.
WHICH TO CHOOSE?
Making the choice between direct and indirect supervision should be based upon several considerations. Of course, selecting a linear design is not an option considered by the astute decision maker.
Consideration One: Staff Preference -- For several reasons, staff preference should not be the deciding factor in selecting a jail design. First, experience has shown that administrators and staff who have worked only in old style linear jails, are usually unfamiliar with other designs and are unaware of how to supervise inmates in new generation jails. Generally, biases against direct and indirect supervision are based on minimal knowledge. Jail administrators who have been exposed to well-run direct and indirect supervision jails or have been through training/familiarization with those types of facilities will relinquish preference for linear design. Second, the experience of working in a linear design jail often results in the development of a 'negative correctional culture' that is marked by self-created fictions about how inmates should be treated and managed. Since fights among inmates and verbal and physical assaults on officers are more frequent in linear design jails, jail staff tend to develop a negative, fearful, and more punitive attitude about inmate management. In turn, this negative attitude is often expressed in ways that reinforce hostility among the inmates. Thus, ineffective behavior management often creates some of its own problems. Among trainers of jail staff, this phenomena has come to be recognized as the negative culture of linear jails. This culture, once established, is difficult to change, even when a new direct or indirect supervision jail is constructed. Not only will training be required to alter this culture, but staff changes may also be required.
Consideration Two: Size -- Size of the jail will affect the relevancy of direct and indirect designs. As the size of a jail's capacity moves beyond 180 to 200 inmates the applicability of indirect design diminishes. In a small jail, indirect supervision pods are often designed to house 8 to 16 inmates. In larger jails it is more practical to expand the capacity of pods to house about 40 to 50 inmates than it is to build more of the small pods. From an architectural standpoint, small pods are more readily configured around an enclosed observation station than are large pods. Also, from an inmate management standpoint, small groups are easier to control from an external officer's station than larger groups. As a rule of thumb, as the size of a jail's capacity increases, the relevancy of direct supervision design increases. For this reason, direct supervision pods generally range from about 24 to 50 beds.
Consideration Three: Cost

Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In India

-- Given the ability of indirect supervision to manage several small living units, it is not generally considered to be cost-effective to use direct supervision in small jails. However, the cost advantage diminishes as jail size increases.
DORMITORIES
A dormitory is different from the designs described previously. New jails will usually have fewer dormitories than medium and maximum pods. Cost-wise, dormitories are much less expensive to build. However, their applicability is limited to the housing of minimum custody inmates, such as trusties and persons on work release.
The term, 'dormitory,' usually implies a different style of housing than a pod. As might be expected a dormitory is a large room into which a number of single or bunk beds are placed. However, instances can be found in which the term, 'dormitory, ' is applied to rooms in a podular-design housing unit that have been configured to accommodate four to eight beds. Exhibit 4 shows a new, unfurnished dormitory that will contain 24 beds.

Exhibit 4. A Large Dormitory Before Being Furnished

Management of inmates in a dormitory can be accomplished by either direct or indirect supervision. In the dormitory shown above, the layout is a modified direct-indirect supervision design. Two dorms are situated across a hallway from each other. Observation into the dorms is through a window shown at the right rear of the picture. Next to the window is a doorway. An open officer's station (not enclosed as in an indirect supervision pod) is placed so that an officer can view both dorms and have immediate access through the doorways. In this particular layout the officer's station is located at the end of the hall so that no one will be approaching from the back of the station. This design is feasible because the lower custody level of inmates reduces the need to place an officer in the living area or to enclose the external observation station.
In a small jail, a small dormitory could be arranged around an indirect supervision station along with one or more medium and maximum custody pods. Although many old style jails use intermittent surveillance for dormitories, the same concerns about adequacy of supervision, previously discussed, would apply.
BE GUIDED BY BEST PRACTICES
The design should abide by ACA's Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities.⁽³⁾ These standards provide important guides for both minimum design features and operational practices in jails. Such standards are particularly important because a local detention facility must provide for the custody and care of persons accused but not convicted of a crime, as well as those who are sentenced. The standards are respected not only by correctional professionals but by the courts as well. The easy to read format of the standards will help county decision makers, as well as jail administrators, understand what should be included in a jail design, such as:

• Occupancy and space requirements for inmate sleeping areas
• Space requirements for dayrooms
• Furnishings
• Special management housing
• Housing for the handicapped
• Light levels (natural and artificial)
• Noise levels
• Indoor air quality
• Law library
• Food service

Using the standards as guidelines for investigation, a jail committee and/or county commission should challenge architects both during the selection process and during the process of designing their new jail. The committee should request that the architect(s) explain how the proposed design concepts will respond to ACA standards. By making a simple checklist of the standards, county decision makers can intelligently pursue this investigation. ⁽⁴⁾⁽⁵⁾ Such steps are merited because, most likely, the county will be party to a suit in instances of legal problems fostered by poor design.
FOOTNOTES

1. American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 3rd Edition. Lanham, MD. 1991, Standard 3-ALDF-2B-03, p. 32.

2. A critique of linear design is found in the Small Jail Design Guide, Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, March 1988, pp. 3-37 to 3-42.

3. American Correctional Association, Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities. 3rd Edition. Lanham, MD. 1991. Updates of the 3rd Edition are contained in the Standards Supplements for 1994 and 1998 which are companion publications. To obtain these publications call ACA at (800) 222-5646, ask for the Publications Department.

4. For detention facilities of 50 beds or less, ACA's Standards for Small Jail Facilities should be used.

5. Some counties have opted to hire a special project manager to ensure their concerns about ACAand other construction standards are followed.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Allen Beck has consulted in planning of jails, training of jail staff in new and older design jails, and staffing analysis of direct, indirect, and linear design jails. Dr. Beck is a principal of Justice Concepts Incorporated. He holds a Ph.D. in Criminal Justice and has been a full-time criminal justice consultant since 1983.

Copyright © 2006 by Allen R. Beck, 417 W. 87th Place, Kansas City, MO, 64114. Upon notification of the author, this article may be duplicated and disseminated to county decision makers and other officials, to the public for use in meetings, and to college classes. This article may not be published in a newsletter, organizational literature, magazine, textbook, or electronic media or as part of marketing literature without written consent of the author.
Return to JCI Homepage

Spore download code. Expert guest for PRI24th July 2014

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 forward-thinking 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 offender’s 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 facility’s 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 18^th 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 19^th 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 today’s 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 building’s 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 “one-size-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 offender’s 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 mixed-custody 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 officer’s 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.

Provide 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 home-like 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 rehabilitation-type 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 campus-like setting consisting of several stand-alone buildings (rather than a large imposing institution), organized to maximize use of shared resources.

Anniversary update adds a new dark mode to switch the interface and all store apps to a darker interface if you like to be in a dark room.Microsoft Windows 10 Crack continually adjusts the appearance of the task-bar. The design language feels exquisite the window border is smaller. The Windows button always exists you can still right-click the Advanced user menu for Windows 8 shortcuts and you can also narrow or hide the search box next to it.

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, well-trained staff.

Notes

Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In The World

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.

About the author

Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In The United States

Dr Marayca López is currently a Senior Corrections analyst and planner for CGL/RicciGreene Associates, a pre-eminent criminal justice planning and design firm based in New York specialising in providing secure and normative environments that promote positive behavioural change and successful re-entry. Having exclusively dedicated her academic and professional careers to the philosophy and practice of prison reform, Marayca is an authority on correctional matters with a deep understanding of correctional facility operations and management. She has participated in correctional projects, both domestically and abroad, contributing to the process of prison reform by providing State and local governments with sustainable, long-lasting criminal justice solutions and right-sized prison infrastructure. Ms. López’s ten years of academic pursuit and practical application in the field of corrections have nurtured and refined her analytical skills, which are critical for criminal justice strategic planning. Her areas of expertise include inmate population analysis, alternatives to incarceration, needs assessments and strategic master planning for criminal justice agencies, and programming of new institutions.

.

Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Are In The Philippines

About this blog series

To mark our 25th Anniversary and prepare for the Crime Congress in Qatar in April 2015, PRI is running a series of monthly expert guest blogs, addressing interesting current trends and pressing criminal justice challenges in criminal justice and penal reform.

Two Key Ingredients Incorporated Into New Generation Jails Area

Blogs will be available here on our website and as podcasts on the 25th of each month from May 2014 to April 2015. Read more about the blog series.