Can’t we design better prisons?
Submitted by GlimmerGuy on 03/03/2010 – 6:46 pm5 Comments
We’ve been running a poll on the GlimmerSite asking what people would most like to see redesigned, and one of the leading vote-getters has been “prisons.” While I was researching Glimmer, I did discuss the subject of prison design with Hilary Cottam, one of the book’s featured designers. Cottam offered up some interesting thoughts which, unfortunately, never made it into the book—but I’ll share a few of them here.To start with, Cottam believes that designers working on prison really need to first ask the most basic “stupid question” of all: What do we want prisons to do? What is the desired outcome that prison design should be striving toward?
The answer, in a word, is rehabilitation. If a prison doesn’t accomplish that goal—if it’s seen as just a place to “warehouse” people while they serve out their sentences—then the prison can end up creating as many problems as it solves. And that seems to be the case with current overburdened, dysfunctional prison systems: They don’t do an adequate job of preparing people for life after their prison stint, and consequently many who are released end up re-offending and back inside. When Cottam ventured inside British prisons some years back to study the existing design, she found that many prisoners were “sitting around doing nothing other than learning to be better criminals.” Her conclusion: “Our prisons don’t rehabilitate.”
What might she do differently? As part of her study, Cottam drew up plans for the redesign of British prisons. She approached it like a complex design project, which it is. Her design research group employed a lot of empathic research, talking to prisoners about needs, desires, what motivates them. This was combined with an exhaustive study of best practices around the world, looking at the kinds of prison systems that seem to do the best job of lowering the levels of recidivism.
What became clear, Cottam says, is that while prison design tends to focus on the bricks and the bars, it’s the “soft stuff” that matters—the educational programs, the daily routines, the culture that is created and fostered. Among other things, Cottam’s proposed redesign called for shared houses within prisons, where two to three dozen inmates might have free run over a multi-level space, complete with meeting area, workshop, a library, and opening out onto a garden. In Cottam’s design, about 80 percent of an inmate’s time would be devoted to learning, with heavy use of computer education programs: The idea is to design an online prison learning system so that every prisoner in the country can download and have access to personalized versions of it. This wouldn’t require a lot of on-premises teachers and classes, just some upfront design and ongoing facilitation.
The British government initially embraced Cottam’s plans, but the plans have yet to be enacted. However, a prison built about five years ago in the Austrian town of Leoben features a design that has some similar shared-housing characteristics. The New York Times Magazine published a recent feature on this particular prison, admiring its glass walls, which let in lots of sunlight. The prisoners there live in groups of about 15, sharing a single “pod” that includes private bathrooms, balconies, a shared kitchen. They also wear their own clothes, instead of prison uniforms. “The more normal a life you give them here, the less necessary it is to resocialize them when they leave,” the prison’s designer, Josef Hohensinn, told the Times.
One problem with designing prisons like Leoben is that the public tends to balk—because many people see it as a waste of public money to provide nicer facilities to prisoners. However, Hohensinn notes that Leoben did not cost much more to build than a typical prison. Indeed, the shared housing or “pod” design in prisons can create certain efficiencies, because it cuts down on the costs and security needs associated with herding people throughout the far-flung areas of a big warehouse-style prison. As Cottam points out, “good design doesn’t have to cost more”—particularly if it can find ways to make the best use of existing space and manpower in prisons.
On a separate front, I came across a paper recently published by the RSA (Royal Society for Arts) in the UK, which presented ideas developed by British design students working with prison staff, family support organizations, and prisoners’ families to try to come up with new ideas for improving prison visits. This is a critical aspect of prison redesign because studies have shown that prisoners who maintain strong family relationships while inside are less likely to re-offend when they leave. (Cottam has pointed out that this is one reason why it’s a bad idea to build so many prisons in remote, middle-of-nowhere locations; it makes it much harder for family members and other visitors to get there.)
In any case, here are a few ideas students came up with:
- create and encourage the use of shared journals for prisoners and their visiting children
- use technology to allow for more frequent “virtual visits” with family
- allow prisoners and families to use on-premise gardens to grow produce together and then cook meals together
More on the study can be found at http://www.thersa.org/about-us/media/press-releases/design-students-redesign-prison-visits
Would love to hear any ideas that readers might want to add to the discussion: How would you go about rebooting prisons?
No related posts, but check around GlimmerSite for lots of other interesting articles.
Loading ...
I really like this idea! It makes a lot of good points! Why doesn't the U.S. try something like this? I think that this could work really well!
As a relative of a recently incarcerated person who tried desperately to obtain some rehabilitation in the prison system (one of the people who took "one small turn") in the U.S. (and received None), I see the need for this first hand. The current system is setup for inmates to fail upon release, and be in a worse position that they were previously to contribute to society. Changes must be made so inmates will succeed, and that will cost society less in the long run. I applaud these thoughtful ideas to help this forgotten but high risk population. Former prisoners can be more motivated than the average person–they have learned a lot from from mistakes and can be eager to learn and contribute.
I probably would not have contemplated this was valuable two or 3 months back, yet it is interesting how age evolves the way you react to things, thanks for the weblog article it really is pleasing to see something smart now as opposed to the usual rubbish disguised as blogs and forums on the internet. Cheers
The idea of pod, self-contained housing is not a new one, and in fact, history proves it to be quite effective for rehabilitation. Case in point, the original Alderson Federal women's prison included cottages with shared kitchen and dining spaces. I wrote a piece about it for the college newspaper at Bucknell University. It was a fun piece of Bucknell trivia, because Alderson was actually modeled after Bucknell University. A prison modeled after a school of higher education. What a brilliant idea! Unfortunately, the model was abandoned. You can read more from my article here: http://www.edreilly.com/alderson.pdf
Prisons would be an ideal place to research renewable energy applications.
Real transformation could occur if we could bring out the creative talent of the inmates in helping them make the prison into a self sustaining entity.
Every action of the inmates could be transformed into energy to run the prison. The inmates would get to see how their efforts are helping the planet.
A percentage of the inmates are really like all of us. It was probably one small wrong turn which took them to a correctional facility.
In fact getting each prisoner an iPad and letting them be part of the governing and managing process should be our ultimate aim.