I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the architecture of juvenile institutions, primarily because I’ve noticed that there seems to be a movement toward thinking more sensitively about the design of these institutions and the way that they may effect young people’s experience during their incarceration. This shift is also ideological. In Washington, DC, where Vincent Schiraldi, the new director of youth rehabilitation services, is working to make large-scale reforms of the system in favor of less-punitive, more community based options and the development of a strengths-based approach toward young people, Oak Hill, the youth prison, is being completely rebuilt and redesigned. The new design features smaller living units, the reintegration of staff into the communal life of the institution, and living spaces that feel more comfortable and are seen as conducive to respectful relationships between young people and staff.
In a recent article about the design of a juvenile justice center in Dayton, Ohio, the title of the article reflects a more conservative approach to the architecture of juvenile justice in Ohio: ‘Juvenile Justice center’s design reflects authority and security.’ The article details the ways in which spaces are built to maximize surveillance of young people and facilitate their entry into an ‘Intervention Center,’ a place where they can engage in a variety of programs to aid in their rehabilitation.
These new designs in part reflect the ideological tensions present in juvenile justice policies today, and the public pressures that impact public policies. Safety, authority, and security are the focus of the Ohio model, which perhaps sees the rehabilitation of young people as leading to reduced recidivism and the reduction of public fears about violent youth. The logic of the DC system may be that institutions for young people can act as incubators for the cycling of young people through the justice system, and the institutions themselves should be redesigned and reworked to focus on the safety of young people, not necessarily public safety, yet with the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism.
Whether design reflects the prevailing ideology about juvenile crime, or the ideology of juvenile crime fuels design, the spaces of juvenile justice seem to be valuable places to examine in assessing young people’s continuing relationship to deviance.
