Correctional facility design: Past, present and future

Editor's note: A previous version of this article was presented at the 1999 American Society of Criminology Conference in Toronto, Nov. 17-20.

The correctional facility serves as a central feature in the complex criminal justice system. Throughout history, prisons and jails have functioned

to incapacitate and reform offenders (Johnson, 1996). The architectural design of correctional facilities has been documented and studied since the inception of the earliest forms of criminal sanctions. Nevertheless, relatively few criminal justice scholars have pursued this topic as a research interest. Therefore, the field of corrections lacks empirical research, as well as the development of a robust body of theory, to accompany this crucial component of correctional policy.

Architectural design is an integral part of policy-making because a correctional facility's construction should reflect and aid the implementation of current correctional philosophies and goals (Dunbar and Fairweather, 1998). However, inconsistencies in incarceration goals provide correctional practitioners with diverse designs (Clements, 1998), many of which are models virtually untested in the criminal justice system. Because of such wide variation, it is important to examine designs that have worked in the past, as well as current designs that promote positive outcomes such as reduced violence and crowding. From this analysis, a framework can be devised to guide the design of future correctional facilities. Thus, this article has three purposes: to examine the rationale and patterns of historical designs, to assess the features of current prison and jail designs, and to evaluate issues and future directions in the design of correctional facilities

A History of Design: Early Structures

It would be impossible to date the earliest use of prisons as a means to detain, punish and rehabilitate offenders (Johnston, 1973), "as we have been confining [inmates] almost as long as we have laid claim to being civilized" (Johnson, 1996). Early examples of places of confinement, such as cages within fortresses, subterranean portions of buildings and abandoned castles (Johnston, 1973), tended to be crude because the structures served other purposes prior to their use for incarceration. Early structures in Greece and Rome were stone quarries, and a large system of dungeons was built below the main sewer of the Roman Empire, which became known as the Mamertine Prison (Johnston, 1973; Travisono, 1978).

Structures previously constructed for purposes other than imprisonment continued to be used as places of confinement into the late medieval period. A high level of security was used in these structures to contain a growing inmate population; thus, lower rooms of castles tended to frequently be used as places of confinement (Johnson, 1996). From 1370 until the French Revolution, the Bastille, a fortress-like castle in Paris, was used to hold a large number of inmates. Its high wall and drawbridge reinforced the era's punishment philosophy, as well as distracted people who protested offender confinement (George, 1999).

It was not until the 12th century, when the Christian church began to use prisons as a punitive substitute for death and mutilation, that buildings specifically constructed for imprisoning offenders came into existence. It was at this point in penal history that solitary cellular confinement burgeoned. The church thought that by process of confinement, offenders would achieve penitence. Although the church felt this system ameliorated prior atrocities of imprisonment, conditions in solitary cells provided virtually no physical comforts to inmates (Johnson, 1996). European Prisons

Prior to 1780

Throughout Europe, the years following the medieval period were characterized by social disorder and civil unrest. As a result, crime rose and with this increase came penal reform. The bridewell, or prison - the first of which was opened in London in 1557 - aimed to rehabilitate offenders. By 1576, nearly every county in England had its own bridewell (Travisono, 1978; Johnston, 1973).

Influenced by the success of the English bridewell, Amsterdam opened its first house of correction in 1596, and most European countries followed suit. Although the philosophies and goals of these institutions differed greatly from those of medieval times, the architectural design of these facilities failed to advance. Because houses of correction and detention often were found in structures previously used for other purposes, very few prisons built in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries contained the cellular units that had been popularized by the Christian church. The first structure built with modern cells was the Juvenile House of Correction in San Michele, Rome, in 1704. About 50 years later, a larger, yet similar, structure, the Milan House of Correction, was erected in Italy (Johnston, 1973). It also was during this time that problems such as crowding began to plague the penal system, after which dilapidated war vessels and abandoned transport ships in bays near England were used to house offenders Travisono, 1978).

In 1772, Belgium began constructing the first correctional facility in which architecture was used to help facilitate offender rehabilitation. The institution, located in Ghent, was shaped like an octagon, with eight separate units. Each unit had its own cells, which opened to the outside and to the work area (George, 1999). Service facilities were in the center of the structure. Separate units, which allowed for the housing of offenders based on the classification of sex, age or degree of treatment required, enabled the facility to be built in stages (Johnston, 1973).

Throughout the late 1700s, prison populations continued to grow in Europe. Most structures, with the exception of Ghent, lacked architectural form. Classification and treatment of offenders were virtually nonexistent since inmates were housed in large rooms under little supervision. At times, wooden ships, known as convict hulks, housed offenders when prisons and jails became crowded (George, 1999). During this period of crowded and disease-ridden prisons, jails, and .prison ships," no one model for architectural design was uniformly accepted (Johnston, 1973). This haphazard approach, coupled with dissatisfaction concerning lack of offender management, led to many of the architectural reforms of the late 1700s and 1800s.

American and European Prisons After 1780

As North America became more populated after the American Revolution, crime and deviance became more prevalent in the larger, more established cities of the New World. Understandably, there was no organized penal system: Methods for containing inmates often were crude and outdated. In response to the lack of organization and systematic approaches to incarceration, the Pennsylvania Quakers crusaded for the decent and humane punishment of offenders (Johnston, 1973, 1994). As a result, the Walnut Street Jail was established in 1790 in Philadelphia (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1949).

The Walnut Street Jail is considered the first penitentiary in the United States, if not the first one in the world (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1949). Although the architectural design was not elaborate, the facility was the first attempt in the United States to provide organized penal regimes such as manual labor. Certain areas of the jail housed specific groups of offenders: Inmates were segregated based on sex, age and offense. General population inmates were housed in congregate cells, while dangerous offenders were housed separately from the general population, as well as from one another, in solitary confinement. These program characteristics and the architectural form used to facilitate and implement them served as a basic model for future prison designs in the United States (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1949; Johnston, 1973, 1994).

In response to escalating penal problems throughout Europe, such as crowding and squalid conditions, prison administrator John Howard published The State of the Prisons in England and Wales in 1777 in an effort to educate people about the stark and harsh realities of a quickly decaying correctional system (Travisono, 1978; Johnston, 1973). Howard's research led him to propose four penal reforms, including secure and sanitary structures, systematic inspection, abolition of fees for basic services and a reformatory regime (Travisono, 1978). This proposal led designers to develop three main layouts that were used as the basic blueprints to build prisons throughout the world for many years to come. While some corrections and elected officials favored a rectangular or circular shape, the most prevalent development in 19th century England was the radial design. By contrast, the Auburn plan was popular with planners and architects in the United States (Johnston, 1973).

The circular design/Panopticon plan. Although the circular design was never used in England, Jeremy Bentham, an English criminal law reformer, used the circular design as the basis for his Panopticon (presenting a panoramic view) plan, which included a circular guard unit that had wings of cells protruding from it to allow correctional officers to maintain watch over all the corridors from a central location (Brown, Esbensen and Geis, 1998). Bentham maintained that any institution requiring tight surveillance, such as schools, factories and hospitals, also could use this design (Spens, 1994). While the Panopticon design included a glass roof to allow natural light to filter in to increase the visibility in each cell (Travisono, 1978), the central control room was to be darkened to create the impression that inmates were constantly being watched by staff (Markus, 1994). It is important to note that Bentham believed offenders rationally chose to commit crimes; therefore, he believed the pains of imprisonment, such as loss of social interaction and manual labor, should be severe enough to deter potential offenders. This idea influenced potential internal programs such as inmate labor within cells. Further, a highly restrictive noninteractionist approach to communication was proposed, with correctional officers and inmates communicating through tubes connecting individual cells to the central chamber (Evans, 1982).

Although the Panopticon plan was never used as a blueprint for British prisons, it has served as the architectural design for a few American facilities, such as the Illinois State Penitentiary. In some cases, facilities have used alternative forms of the Panopticon plan, as designed by architect Benjamin Henry Latrobe, including the horseshoe-shaped Virginia State Penitentiary, which is a half-circle of tiered cells with a central watch house. Another version of Bentham's original model, the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania, was erected in 1818 (Johnston, 1973, 1994). Unfortunately, the architect "built a ring-like structure with cells back-to-back opening onto covered arcades. The inner yard of the prison was not roofed over and was cut up by walls into smaller areas in such a way that neither range of cells could be properly observed" (Johnston, 1973). Moreover, the cell walls were so thick and the cells themselves were so dark that this design defeated Bentham's notion of ease of inspection from the central inspection point (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 1949). These problems led to the renovation of the entire facility several years after it opened (Johnston, 1973, 1994; Travisono, 1978 ).

Originally, the Illinois State Penitentiary at Stateville was built with three circular cell houses. Today, one of those cell houses is still in use. The limitations of this design include long traveling distances from the watch house to cells by officers, especially to cells on tiers closest to the ceiling, as well as noise control problems created by the poor acoustics that are inherent in this design (George, 1999).

The radial design. While experimentation with octagonal shapes continued in the United States, Europe used radial and star-shaped designs in the construction of its new prisons (Johnston, 1973, 1994). The radial design was especially prevalent in England and Ireland (Fairweather, 1994; Johnston, 1994). The chief architect of this design, William Blackburn, called for a central building for correctional officers and the warden with individual cell blocks situated in an array that created the shape of a fan or spokes of a wheel (Johnston, 1973). This format, like the design used at Ghent, allowed staff to classify inmates into specific groups by cell block (Johnston, 1973).

The exterior of many radial design prisons was foreboding, and often resembled the Bastille of Paris and medieval castles (Atlas, 1982). This design was thought to be a deterrent to potential offenders (Johnston, 1994), but also has been viewed as a form of containment for the poorer classes (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939). This view of imprisonment has dominated much critical scholarship in criminology, which continues today.

Use of the radial design in the United States began with construction of the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia in 1829 (Johnston, 1994). Because of the locale of the initial construction, the architectural model and the characteristic regimes of solitary confinement and silence within became known as the Pennsylvania System (Travisono, 1978). The outside followed the form of its European predecessors with its Bastille-like quality. Individual cells, large enough for inmates to perform labor, opened to the outside. Outside areas, often used by inmates for exercise, were separated by walls so inmates could not see or speak to one another. Cells on the second floor were larger and subdivided into two rooms, one of which served as the primary cell and the other was used for recreation and individual labor, e.g., inmates worked alone making furniture (Johnston, 1994).

The use of radial designs prevailed throughout much of the early 19th century in countries outside the United States such as Japan (Johnston, 1973). Although the radial prototype never gained popularity and momentum with planners and architects in the United States, Pennsylvania's Eastern State Penitentiary was considered the first successful large-scale radial design prison (Johnston, 1973). All cell arrays and corridors were visible from a central watch tower and communication among inmates was minimized. However, the design was criticized for its lack of supervision and for congestion during times of high inmate traffic (Mays and Winfree, 1998). Further criticism includes the plan being too large and, therefore, too expensive to operate (Johnston, 1973, 1994). Growing offender populations would have rendered it unsuitable in the context of the onset of the industrial age (Atlas, 1982).

The Auburn design. Another reason the radial design was never fully accepted in the United States was the birth of the Auburn system (named after Auburn Correctional Facility in New York) of punishment. This system was developed as a response to the frustration Pennsylvania system administrators felt when mental and physical illnesses developed among inmates while segregated and idle in their cells (Travisono, 1978). Inmates were to work and dine silently in common areas and sleep in individual cells because it was believed "that a regimen of silence and penitence would prevent cross-infection and encourage behavior improvement in [inmates]" (Travisono, 1978). The first two prisons built in accordance with this philosophy were New York's Auburn and Sing Sing correctional facilities, constructed in the early 1800s. The architectural design of these facilities influenced prison construction in the United States throughout the remainder of the 1800s and into the 1900s (Johnston, 1973; Travisono, 1978). The cells in these facilities were built back-to-- back in tiers within a hollow building and the cell doors opened onto galleries 8 to 10 feet from the outer wall, giving rise to the interior cell block, which has become a unique characteristic of American prisons (Travisono, 1978). Thus, a large number of inmates could be contained in a relatively small space, which was more economical and conducive to security and surveillance (Johnston, 1973; Travisono, 1978). Also important to note, the institutions based on the Auburn plan tended to be very large and ominous, and many found it oppressive and providing scant space for rehabilitative endeavors. Additionally, the warehousing effect of this design left few opportunities for staff-- inmate interaction (Farbstein, 1986).

Facilities built according to the Auburn plan during the Victorian era also tended to have a Gothic and foreboding appearance (Johnston, 1973; Wayne, 1994). The exterior further symbolized state control over the inmates held within. Penal reformers and the public found this image of custody, as well as the economic advantage of building this type of institution, appealing (George, 1999; Travisono, 1978). As a result, the Auburn plan flourished throughout the United States in the latter part of the 1800s and continued to be the dominant architectural design into the 20th century.

Modifications of the Auburn design have evolved during the 20th century. Many cell blocks generally are subdivided into pairs, connected by a corridor in which showers and officer stations often are located. Some prisons, such as the U.S. Penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., combine the architecture of both the radial and Auburn plans, with inside cell houses radiating in an array from the central administration building (Atlas, 1982; Earley, 1992, George, 1999).

20th Century Design

Early 20th century. The increase in prison construction at the end of the 19th century was followed by a period of inactivity during the first part of the 20th century (Johnston, 1973). Two standard architectural designs - the radial plan and the Auburn system - were developed to handle large numbers of high-security inmates (Johnston, 1973). The high walls, internal security, isolated cells and industrial labor sought to promote custody and security (Atlas, 1982). Although the Auburn design was the institutional prototype in the United States at the time, its use was concentrated in the Northeast, as many Southern states used portable jail wagons to lease inmates for labor and relieve crowding. These traveling jails served as a basic model for the industrial prison camps that were popularized in the 1920s (Travisono, 1978).

As rehabilitative philosophies and goals became more diversified, a design to complement these aims came in the form of the telephone-- pole layout in the late 1900s (Johnston, 1973). The facility plan resembled a telephone pole with the central post acting as the corridor and the crossbars as the cell blocks (Fairweather, 1994). In addition to cell blocks, the dining halls, work areas and administrative buildings extended in a perpendicular fashion off the main corridor (Travisono, 1978). Separate cell blocks arranged in such a geographic configuration allowed for ease in the classification of inmates and the administration of rehabilitative programs for specific offender populations. The difference between the radial and telephone-pole designs was that the radial layout had one central control area, whereas the telephone-pole designs called for each cell block to have its own control center, coupled with general supervision of the central corridor (Atlas, 1982; Fairweather, 1994).

The first institution to be constructed based on the telephone-pole archetype was in Fresnes, France, in 1898. Although the first facility built according to this pattern was located in Europe, the design never gained the momentum there that it did in the United States (Fairweather, 1994). In fact, all prisons erected in the United States during the early 1900s followed the telephone-pole plan. One of the first, Kilby State Prison in Montgomery, Ala., was opened in 1922. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), established in 1930, favored the design because of its utility in the classification of inmates and the implementation of programs (Atlas, 1982; Johnston, 1973).

The mid-20th century. With the advent of the telephone-pole concept, classification of inmates based on age, offense and mental state emerged as a priority in correctional policy. This strategy allowed organized implementation of multiple treatment regimes and security levels within single prisons. Thus, the telephone-pole design, with the help of architect Alfred Hopkins, served as a blueprint for many of the institutions built in the mid-20th century (Johnston, 1973; Travisono, 1978).

Despite the popularity and utility of the telephone-pole design, problems with the model surfaced as larger facilities were built in accordance with the plan. Central corridors were so long that officials relied on bicycles to move from one end of the facility to another (Johnston, 1973) and inmates easily blocked the central hallway during riots and disturbances (Mays and Winfree, 1998). In response, architects developed design modifications. One example is the Louisiana State Penitentiary, built in 1955: Instead of one long corridor, three corridors branch out from a single point. An advantage to this design was the ability to house multiple security levels with relative ease at one site. The typology of the units branching off each corridor reflected the regime of the respective security levels (Johnston, 1973).

In addition to the development and modification of the telephone-pole design during the mid-20th century, other forms of correctional facility architecture began to evolve. Smaller institutions were built in a self-- enclosing style, with buildings themselves forming rectangles or squares. This style eliminated the need for an outside wall or fence. Also, as community-based and alternative corrections were developed, more open layouts were designed to accommodate low-risk offenders and the increasing number of rehabilitation and reintegration programs. With the exception of these facilities, virtually all correctional institutions were architecturally designed to maintain security and implement programs for inmate populations atlarge (Johnston, 1973, Travisono, 1978). Relatively little individual attention was given to inmate interaction and how it could be properly facilitated, rather than discouraged through new architectural devices (Johnston, 1973).

The late 20th century. During the 1970s, crowding and riots began to plague correctional facilities in the United States as offender populations grew at an alarming rate. Federal, state and local governments responded by constructing more correctional facilities. Correctional researchers and policy-makers linked the problems to old, large institutions. Consequently, prisons and jails built in the 1970s and 1980s were considerably smaller than older facilities. Windows replaced bars, large dormitory rooms replaced cells and closed-circuit supervision reduced the number of correctional staff needed (Travisono, 1978). Architectural innovations departed from the traditional designs of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. An example is the skyscraper prison. This format was experimented with in the United States in the 1970s (Fairweather, 1994), although the benefits and limitations of this model have not clearly been assessed.

While outcome evaluations of specific designs were limited during this period, studies assessing the problems regarding architectural design were on the rise. As a result of crowding, the goal of rational offender classification often was thwarted. Decisions about housing and treatment needs were addressed on a space-available basis (Clements, 1979, 1982).

In a series of studies, Paulus, McCain and Cox (1985) found that large, overpopulated prisons tended to experience an increase in overall inmate maladjustment. From the various findings, it was theorized that large, open dormitories reduced inmate social space. This reduction was directly related to inmate stress and maladaptive behavior. Policy recommendations included subdividing dormitories into smaller subunits for 10 to 20 inmates, or providing privacy cubicles (Paulus et al., 1985). Although crowding still may be a problem, inmates typically are afforded more personal space and privacy.

In addition to prison crowding, American correctional institutions saw an increase in riots during the 1970s and 1980s. After the New Mexico State Penitentiary, which was operating well above capacity in the late 1970s, experienced the bloodiest riot in American prison history in February 1980, design failures and crowding were blamed as potential causes. As a result, the prison built three new facilities, two of which were within the prison yard, to accommodate excess inmates. Also, outside security was increased, recreation areas were improved and expanded, and dormitory housing was replaced by individual cell blocks (Sutton and Ellis, 1990).

With the rise of crowding and inmate disturbances, programming attempts within facilities failed. In addition, older prisons were becoming structurally dilapidated (Fairweather, 1994). As of the early 1970s, six of the 113 maximum-security state prisons in operation were constructed prior to 1900 (Travisono, 1978). Federal, state and local governments devised plans to renovate and append older facilities (Fairweather, 1994; Travisono, 1978).

During the 1980s, escalating penal problems, such as those mentioned above, posed difficulties for correctional facility architects. In addition, the older designs no longer matched the varied and diverse philosophies and goals of the American correctional system. Current designs have attempted to address some of these concerns.

Current Facility Designs

Contemporary architectural designs of correctional facilities seek to incorporate innovations in programming and technology that is reflective of current penal philosophies and goals (Travisono, 1978). The building of large, ominous structures has ceased as smaller facilities have grown in popularity and number (Fairweather, 1994; Travisono, 1978). Open campus layouts with perimeters of double fences and razor wire are common (Higgins, 1996). Classification and assessment activities continue to grow within the penal system. These approaches reflect and, in turn, shape current designs. Also, the location of correctional facilities and the costs of building and maintaining them are becoming central issues in planning and design (Kessler, 1998). With these issues at the forefront, current architectural designs center on the correctional management concept of direct supervision (Fairweather, 1994; Wener, Frazier and Farbstein, 1987).

Direct-supervision facilities. The central concept of direct supervision involves deploying officers within housing units so that personal contact is maintained with inmates at all times (Wener et al., 1987). "No trend better illustrates how correctional philosophy ties together officer-inmate behavior and architectural design than the direct-supervision jail" (Linn, 1993). The first facilities to be built according to this plan were BOP's Metropolitan Correctional Centers in Chicago, New York and San Diego in 1974 (Kerle, 1998). Shortly thereafter, direct-supervision philosophy was implemented in prisons and jails at the state and local levels.

Direct supervision is one way of managing correctional facilities; however, design must respond to this goal (Fairweather, 1994). In direct-- supervision facilities, correctional officers oversee inmate activities occurring within the dayroom, generally from an open workstation in which there are cell and other door controls, but no physical barriers between inmates and staff (Krasnow, 1997). On a grand level, the direct-- supervision design considers the physical, psychological and social purposes of a structure and those who use the facility (Bayens, 1995). This proactive approach allows inmates to develop a rapport with correctional officers, thereby reducing tension and providing an environment in which problems can be addressed before they escalate (Krasnow, 1997; Linn, 1993; Wener et al., 1987; Zupan, 1991).

The architectural design of these facilities calls for small, separate housing units based on specific offender classifications (Fairweather, 1994). One- or two-tiered cell blocks usually surround dayrooms and work areas. Typically, these units are triangular in shape; however, some facilities have been constructed in the shapes of squares, rectangles, stars and semicircles. Units typically average between 24 and 36 inmates (Dunbar and Fairweather, 1998; Fairweather, 1994), which is in stark contrast to the many hundreds herded together in the older galleried prisons. The houses or cell blocks are not generally linked by corridor to the other facilities or to one another; instead, each housing group is dispersed out from a central, wide pathway by open paths across a landscaped green (Fairweather, 1994).

Preliminary evaluations of direct-- supervision jails and prisons have provided positive feedback for corrections personnel. On average, these facilities have fewer incidents of violence than traditional institutions, and sexual assaults are virtually nonexistent (Bayens, 1995). Direct officer contact also tends to curb vandalism. Since vandalism is reduced by constant surveillance, construction costs are cheaper because vandal-proof versions of plumbing and lighting fixtures are not necessary (Wener et al., 1987).

Although direct-supervision facilities provide many benefits, they are costly to operate, requiring more correctional officers than traditional jails and prisons (Wener et al., 1987). However, it is possible that these increased costs can be negated with the incorporation of porcelain plumbing and regular lighting fixtures, which not only reduce building and maintenance costs (Inn, 1993), but also may provide a more humane atmosphere for inmates (George, 1999). Further, building costs can be reduced by using premanufactured components. In conventional construction, building occurs entirely on the facility site. Premanufactured components are constructed at the manufacturing plant and delivered to the site for fast, cost-effective installation (Sechrest, Pappas and Price, 1987).

Issues such as increased costs and the need for new facilities shape the architectural designs of presentday correctional facilities. In addition, more attention is being focused on the quality of these designs, as well as the geographic location of construction sites (Kessler, 1998).

Quality and Setting

Quality correctional facilities should provide security and safety. Even so, every effort should be made to minimize unnecessarily harsh and punitive conditions. In addition, accessible, on-site medical care, space for rehabilitative programs, outdoor recreation and current technology can be used to its fullest advantage to minimize staff stress and to replace outdated equipment (Kessler, 1998). Unfortunately, in the face of continued prison crowding, space initially allocated for programming often is used to house overflow offender populations.

Historically, many prisons have been located in rural, isolated areas. More recently, urban and suburban facilities require that the public understand that "these facilities, like it or not, are an integral part of our community" (Kessler, 1998). Site selection requires the consideration of multiple factors, e.g., a detention facility requires easy access to community services, courts, law enforcement agencies and emergency services. In addition, the facility must be accessible to family and friends of those in custody, as well as institution employees. Nevertheless, possibly the most important factor in site selection is community acceptance (Kessler, 1998; Krasnow; 1997). Every effort should be made to "provide information in answering [the public's] questions and/or dispelling misconceptions" (Krasnow, 1997). Presentation of the facility's architectural designs to the community can aid in its acceptance and timely construction (Krasnow, 1997).

Problems With Current Facilities

Despite the many advances in correctional facility design, problems continue to plague the penal system. The absence of methods to empirically test the effectiveness of facilities prior to occupancy allows for potential design failures. Examples of design problems include:

Blind spots,

Living units built in such a way that correctional officers cannot directly observe inmate activities; Officer stations placed at one end of the unit, with showers and dayrooms at the other end; Segregation units with vanity mirrors or medical cabinets that, when removed, allow inmates to crawl between the most secure housing cells and open stairwells; and Unsecured roofing vents (Rison and Wittenberg, 1994).

Such oversights only are realized after major problems occur within the facility, such as collective or noncollective violence. However, problematic areas can be remedied quickly if a post-occupancy evaluation is conducted using data obtained from the institution's primary users - inmates, correctional officers and maintenance staff (Wener, Farbstein and Knapel, 1993).

A post-occupancy evaluation, which can be a brief, one-day walk-- through or a more detailed, longterm investigation, gathers data on facility policy and design. Either way, data are collected in a systematic, objective manner and organized so they can be easily interpreted and presented. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) recognize the value of these natural experiments and are seeking ways to improve the validity of such investigations. New concepts in facility architecture, as well as a commitment to test the effectiveness of innovations, should yield positive benefits for the American penal system.

Future Directions

Evolution and change have been reflected in America's correctional system through wide design diversity; however, many outdated designs still in use today have experienced a wide array of intractable problems, most of which have never formally been addressed by architects and criminal justice practitioners. Recent advances in testing and technology, as well as preliminary studies by researchers, lend support to an emphasis on direct supervision. These advances provide a basis for a shift of emphasis in the architectural design of correctional facilities.

Future correctional facilities should accommodate concepts of the direct-supervision philosophy. In addition, rectangular- and square-- shaped layouts should be phased out, as they may account for problematic blind spots, such as dark corners and rooms located outside staffs view. Circular shapes may provide better visibility of individual cells and eliminate dark, unsupervised corners. In addition, one-tiered cells, each averaging 25 inmates, will reduce correctional and maintenance staff stress. However, it is important to note that institutions comprised of one-tiered cell blocks require large amounts of space for building, and thus, can be quite costly.

Institutional designs impact staffing costs for facilities. Direct supervision maintains a more personal approach, therefore, it requires more staff. On average, staffing constitutes 75 percent of a correctional facility's operating costs during a 25-- year life cycle. Architects have maintained that costs can be reduced by making housing units larger; however, at a certain point, even with the aid of technology, correctional officers become ineffective. Some will defend expenditures because the quality of custody, care and control is most important, hence, the safety and security of staff and inmates are not directly quantifiable (J. Kessler, personal communication, Oct. 3). Others point out that if staff can be used more effectively, perhaps through proper incorporation of technology, the potential to save money is quite likely (S. Higgins, personal communication, Oct. 4).

With the increase in mandatory-- minimum sentences, it is no surprise that prison and jail populations continue to rise at an alarming rate. Currently, a major building initiative is planned for a number of new local, state and federal facilities. Also, because the majority of these facilities will serve the penal system for many years (Higgins, 1996), design and construction efforts should yield structures resistant to everyday abuses and deterioration. More important, these facilities should function as a blend of correctional goals and philosophies. Nevertheless, as correctional facilities continue to be called upon to support a variety of functions, diverse forms and corresponding regimes should be available to meet the challenge.

The diverse array of facility designs is reflective of the diverse population of offenders that characterize federal, state and local correctional systems. Architects execute the directives of administrators who consider offender needs when designing facilities. In addition, the personal ideology and experiences of correctional administrators and staff come into play when ideas are proposed to architects. However, the facility design will, first and foremost, be influenced by the security needs of the offender population of focus. As a general rule, facility design gravitates to the highest security level needed for the most difficult inmates. More differentiation is employed with minimum-security environments, whereas there is not much distinction between mediumand maximum-security facilities. The rationale behind such design similarity rests in the idea of escape prevention in medium-security facilities because many states may house violent populations in medium-security facilities due to resource constraints (J. Kessler, personal communication, Oct. 3).

Although alternatives to incarceration have been advocated, especially throughout the latter part of the 20th century, prisons will no doubt continue to be a mainstay of the criminal justice system. Yet, it is virtually impossible for construction to keep up with the demand for correctional facility space. Older institutions will need to be remodeled or appended (Higgins, 1996). Such changes should incorporate the preliminary feedback that is being collected from facilities, as well as reflect concepts and principles of the direct-supervision design.

Currently, unused military facilities and state psychiatric hospitals are being converted with increased frequency to minimum-security correctional facilities, e.g., BOP uses them for minimum-security camps. It is important to note, however, that these structures are being used strictly because of their immediate availability and cost-efficiency; officials rarely consider the architectural value of the acquired facility (S. Higgins, personal communication, Oct. 4).

If it becomes necessary to house multiple classes of offenders at one site, these facilities can be appended with direct-supervision pods. Administrators are finding less need to amend the environmental hardware when a change in correctional policy occurs (i.e., redirect from the punitive model to a treatment focus) due to available existing space (S. Higgins, personal communication, Oct. 4). However, when necessary, telephone-pole and radial facilities, still prominent in American corrections, could be remodeled with separate wings evolving into separate, semiautonomous institutions. Preand post-occupancy evaluations should be performed with the aid of computer simulation to test the potential of such developments.

As technology guides the world into the 21st century, it also should inform penal policy. Rather than replacing staffs duties, technology is regarded as an aid to corrections personnel. With regard to inmate management, touch-screen computers can aid staff in facility operation, especially with identifying inmates and coordinating facility activities. Computers should continue to be incorporated into the daily routine of correctional staff via computer programs that will aid in security, classification and risk assessment. Specifically, computers have increasingly been used to reduce invasive and costly procedures in the realm of intake and medical screening (R. Atlas, personal communication, Oct. 7). In fact, telemedicine - a medical approach that uses electronic communication for information transfer and off-site consultation - is used to facilitate timely treatment of inmates in need of medical attention in both the federal and state systems. Such a method reduces medical specialist travel costs and places the focus and resources on offender treatment.

Increasingly, computers are used to evaluate the design merit of correctional facilities. Developments in the Netherlands, for example, allow pre- and post-occupancy evaluations to be computer-generated. Floor layouts and distances between specific correctional areas can be analyzed to make recommendations for new architectural designs (Justitie, 1998).

Ideally, technology should reduce staff costs without unnecessarily increasing artificial control within the facility. Ultimately, technology should aid the direct-supervision philosophy through reduction of stress and the loss of time and energy needed to compensate for poor design. Thus, correctional officers can devote more time to interactive inmate supervision (L. Arrington, personal communication, Oct. 5). Nevertheless, officers must be properly trained in technological techniques and practices. Often, such training is cursory and in some cases, it is nonexistent. Technological developments can be of value only when they are explicated fully and evaluated properly, while those engaging in the new developments are completely and appropriately trained (R. Atlas, personal communication, Oct. 7).

Architects, criminal justice practitioners and correctional researchers should work together to build models that highlight the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of past and current facility designs. Cooperation exists between correctional staff and architects - architects execute the will of the correctional department for whom they are designing and building. For example, BOP considers recommendations made internally by BOP psychologists and program managers (S. Higgins, personal communication, Oct. 4). On the other hand, state systems are influenced by political agendas, when construction is concerned, more so than the federal system, in which decisions are made internally. Nevertheless, limited cooperation continues to exist between correctional administrators and legislative policymakers. Continuing constraints include budgets and public ideology about correctional goals. Often, these do not reconcile with what administrators observe as foremost issues related to the custody, care and control of inmates (Kessler, personal communication, Oct. 3).

Some argue that communication among the political, correctional and architectural factions can be improved through increased use of resources such as NIC, the American Correctional Association and the American Jail Association. Such professional organizations provide a medium among the academic, technical and political entities that combine to create the correctional world evident today (R. Atlas, personal communication, Oct. 7). Professional conferences and peer-edited publications can curb the filtering and misrepresentation of information, such as formal solutions that are documented in detail when complex problems are solved (Kessler, personal communication, Oct. 3).

The physical environment of a correctional facility can be a useful tool in the reform and custody of inmates. Past and current plans can be modifled as goals and philosophies evolve. Today's growing and diverse prison populations will continue to challenge correctional designers and planners. These challenges will require both technological and behavioral sophistication in addressing the multiple goals of correctional systems.

REFERENCE

REFERENCES

REFERENCE

Atlas, R. 1982. Violence in prisons: Architectural determinism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla.

Baron, R.A. and D. Byrne. 1997. Social psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bayens, G.J. 1995. The effect of the new generation philosophy on reducing negative behav

REFERENCE

for at the Shawnee County Adult Detention Center. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Brown, S.E., F. Esbensen and G. Geis. 1998. Criminology: Explaining crime in its context. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.

Clements, C.B. 1979. Crowded prisons: A review of psychological and environmental effects. Law and Human Behavior, 3(3):217-225. Clements, C.B. 1982. The relationship of offender classification to the problems of prison overcrowding. Crime and Delinquency, 28:72-81.

REFERENCE

Clements, C.B. 1998. London conference focuses on prison design-behavior relations. The American Psychology-Law Society News, Vol. 18. Dunbar, 1. and L. Fairweather. 1998. Penal ideas and prison design. Paper presented at the Symposium on Penal Ideas and Prison Architecture in London.

Earley, P. 1992. The hot house: Life inside Leavenworth Prison. New York: Bantam Books.

Evans, R. 1982. The fabrication of virtue: English prison architecture, 1750-1840. London: Cambridge University Press.

Fairweather, L. 1994. Prison design in the 20th century. In Architecture of incarceration, ed. 1. Spens, 24-37. New York: Saint Martin's Press.

Farbstein, J. 1986, Correctional facility planning and design, second edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.

Federal Bureau of Prisons. 1949. Correctional institution design and construction. Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

George, R.S. 1999. Prison architecture. In Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory, eds. P.M. Carlson and J.S. Garrett, 337345. Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Publishers.

Higgins, S. 1996. The BOP's response to population growth. Corrections Today, 58(2):110-113.

Johnson, R. 1996. Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Johnston, N. 1973. The human cage: A brief history of prison architecture. New York: Walker and Co.

REFERENCE

Johnston, N. 1994. Eastern State Penitentiary: Crucible of good intentions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Justitie. 1998. Recent developments in prison-- building in the Netherlands. Justitie. The Netherlands: Justitie.

Kerle, K. 1998. American jails: Looking to the future. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Kessler, J. 1998. An American perspective: Cost, quality and community in correctional design.

REFERENCE

Paper presented at the Symposium on Penal Ideas and Prison Architecture, London.

Krasnow, P. 1997. Correctional facility design and detailing. New York: McGraw-Hill Co.

Linn, C. 1993. Correctional facilities in the United States. Architectural Record, 181(5):9495.

REFERENCE

Markus, T.A. 1994. Can history be a guide to the design of prisons? In Architecture of incarceration, ed. I. Spens, 13-19. New York: Saint Martin's Press.

Mays, G.L. and L.T. Winfree. 1998. Contemporary corrections. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Paulus, P.B., G. McCain and V.C. Cox. 1985. The effects of crowding in prisons and jails. In Reactions to crime: The public, the police, courts and prisons, eds. D.P. Farrington and J. Gunn, 113-134. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Rison, R.H. and P.M. Wittenberg. 1994. Disaster theory: Avoiding crisis in a prison environment. Federal Probation, 58(3):45-50.

Rusche, G. and D. Kirchheimer. 1939. Punishment and social structure. New York: Columbia University Press.

Sechrest, D.K., N. Pappas and S.J. Price. 1987. Building prisons: Premanufactured, prefabricate and prototype. Federal Probation, 51(1):35-41.

REFERENCE

Spens, 1. 1994. Introduction: A simple idea in architecture. In Architecture of incarceration, ed. I. Spens, 8-11. New York: Saint Martin's Press. Sutton, L.P. and D. Ellis. 1990. Doing time: Ten years later [Videotape]. Ellis Productions Inc.

Travisono, A.P. (Ed.) 1978. The American prison: From the beginning ... a pictorial history. College Park, Md.: American Correctional Association.

Wayne, P. 1994. The landlocked fleet. In Architecture of incarceration, ed. I. Spens, 2023. New York: Saint Martin's Press.

Wener, R., J. Farbstein and C. Knapel. 1993. Improving correctional facility design. Corrections Today, 55(6):96-102.

Wener, R., W. Frazier and J. Farbstein. 1987. Building better jails. Psychology Today, (June):40-49.

Zupan, L.L. 1991. Jails: Reform and the new generation philosophy. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co.

AUTHOR_AFFILIATION

Courtney A. Waid, MSCJ, is a doctoral student in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Carl B. Clements, Ph.D., is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Alabama.