"Fear-suffused environments" or potential to rehabilitate? Prison architecture, design and technology and the lived experience of carceral spaces

This research investigates developments in the design of prisons, exploring the propositions that punishment is manifested architecturally, that 'good' prison design need not cost any more than 'bad' design, that architecture, design and technology (ADT) may impact on prisoners' emotional and psychological reactions to incarceration, including their behaviour, their willingness to engage with regimes and their capacity to build positive relations with other prisoners and staff, and that ADT may significantly influence prisoners' prospects of rehabilitation and reintegration into society on release. One 'lifer' notes that many of the crises facing penal systems in the developed world (including overcrowding, violence, mental and physical illness, drug use, high levels of suicide, self-harm etc.) are intrinsically related to the 'fear-suffused environments' created by prison architects (Hassine, 2008: 8). This research critically interrogates this statement.

Against that backdrop, a few new penal experiments in parts of northern and western Europe might be welcomed as 'humane' alternatives to the traditional architecture of incarceration. Equipped with state-of-the-art lighting imitating natural daylight, extensive use of glass, no bars on windows, different colour palettes creating varied atmospheres in each 'zone', displays of artwork, curved lines, rounded walls and uneven horizons, the design features being incorporated into some new prisons might be assumed to mitigate against the harms caused by imprisonment. But can aesthetic considerations make a difference to behaviour? If, as 19th century prison commissioners and designers believed, architecture can be used as a means of inflicting punishment, is it equally true that architecture can deliver rehabilitation? Should the briefs issued to those who design and plan new prisons include a requirement to build into their construction features that normalize carceral space and have potential to ease offenders' reintegration back into society? Or is it simply that 'a prison is a prison', regardless of the enlightened humanism that may underpin its design? Could it even be that these prisons have unintended outcomes and perverse consequences, or represent an extension of power and control orientated towards docile compliance and bring their own distinctive pains of imprisonment? Moreover, if the general public are as punitive in their attitudes to offenders, as is commonly thought, how do communities feel when prisons are built in their midst? How do architects of prisons balance the requirements that prisons should pass the 'public acceptability' test (which may include an expectation that they should 'look' and 'feel' like places of punishment) with the 'NIMBYism' which frequently greets the announcement of a new prison?

This project will empirically investigate these issues and inform future debates about how prisons might be designed differently in order to fulfill the goal of rehabilitation as well as those of security, deterrence, retribution and punishment. Challenging conventional wisdom and taken-for-granted assumptions concerning the purposes and 'effectiveness' of prisons, the proposed project is innovative, significant and timely. No research currently exists on the impact and effects - on prison staff as well as on inmates - of penal architecture, spatial design and the implementation of advanced monitoring, surveillance and communication technologies. The study's intent is to move beyond the traditional, historical focus on penal architecture e.g. the legacy of Bentham's Panopticon and the 19th century 'separate' and 'silent' systems (in which the goals of discipline and reform were built in to the fabric of the carceral environment), and to inform knowledge and debates from a contemporary and future-oriented perspective. In doing this, the proposed project promises to deliver significant advances on previous research and extant knowledge.

Who will benefit from research?
Home Office, NOMS, Ministry of Justice
Ministers, correctional personnel etc. outside UK; particularly in Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Belgium, Austria
Private sector partners awarded DCMF contracts
Architects, planners
Local Authorities
Criminal justice charities; prison reform groups; third sector organizations, e.g. NACRO, PRT, Howard League, Rideout, the Wates Foundation
The Prisons Inspectorate
Prison managers, staff
Prisoners; their families; prison visitors
Residents of neighbourhoods in which prisons are located/planned
How?
At a macro level, the project's main aim is to generate new data that has the capacity to inform policy and practice regarding prison ADT in the UK. In addition, and given the interest already generated in discussions about the proposed project with colleagues in the correctional services in Norway, Denmark and Belgium, we anticipate that the study can have a significant impact on prison policy and planning in these and other countries in Europe. The research seeks answers to questions such as: how can the possibilities provided by good architecture, design and technology be harnessed within the penal environment? Might some ground-breaking initiatives in north-west Europe be successfully incorporated into new prisons in the UK and elsewhere? Could individual prisons, the Prison Service and society at large benefit from designing and building prisons that normalize the carceral experience? Addressing such questions will enable architects, planners, policymakers and other professional practitioners to develop responses to ADT based on the actual experience of the individuals who live and work in prisons, rather than on assumptions made about end users and their needs.
At a meso level, via a grant-linked PhD, the project will take account of the views of residents and business owners in areas where prisons are situated/planned. The public are commonly believed to hold negative, stereotypical views about offenders (although empirical evidence is limited) and the recent return to siting prisons in urban, densely populated areas may generate local fears about escapes, visitors to prisoners, ex-offenders settling into the community on release, diminished public safety, low civic pride, plummeting property values etc. Do these factors influence architects and planners? Are new prisons designed to blend into their environment? To what extent are communities consulted when a new prison is planned? Would a greater say in the planning/design process give residents' a greater sense of involvement, improve long-term prison-community relations and alleviate NIMBY attitudes?
At a micro level, key beneficiaries are prison managers, Inspectors, staff and prisoners. How do different forms of architecture and design shape social adaptation? What impact is the introduction of monitoring, surveillance and communication technology having on prisoners and prison staff? Have experimental approaches to ADT in prisons outside the UK universally been successful or have some elements had unforeseen, unintentional or detrimental effects and outcomes? How might the views and experiences of prisoners and staff be incorporated into prison design?
In addressing these questions it is hoped that the research will make a significant impact on the health, humanity, purpose and effectiveness of prisons, and to the quality of life, welfare and wellbeing of prisoners and staff working within a variety of prison settings. While the notion of a healthy prison may be considered an oxymoron, it is unlikely that academic disquiet will lead to a diminishing use of imprisonment in the foreseeable future and this study rests on the premise that it may be more realistic to seek to advance understanding of the dimensions critical to providing humane, productive, safe prison environments that help to achieve the Prison Service's humanitarian, rehabilitative and custodial goals.