Feature.TechnologyDesign

A consistent theme of discussions at the recent corrections tech conferences in Istanbul was ignore technology—especially AI—in the planning and design process at your own inevitable peril.

Featured Articles 

East-West and the Integration of Technology and Design

Correctional News 1545 Views , ,

By Stephen Carter

Perhaps the rarified air at 35,000 feet while returning from the TIC (Technology in Corrections) and IPIC (Innovative Prison Infrastructure Conference) in Istanbul will bring clarity to a complicated, but essential topic that has been and will continue to impact the planning, design, equipping, and maintaining of correctional facilities. The planning for these two long-awaited consecutive conferences began before the global pandemic and involved members from the Technology and Planning & Design Networks of the ICPA. So, this is being written over the Atlantic Ocean.  

The choice of Istanbul for the conferences was practically a metaphor for integration because the city of six plus million residents is the only recognized physical, theological, cultural, and architectural blending of the eastern and western worlds. Perhaps it was the recognition of the uniqueness of this historical blending that brought over 350 to the TIC and 250 to the IPIC. 

 We had delegates in hijabs; 3-piece business suits; fashionable casual attire; and Turkish military uniforms. Also in attendance were many academics, researchers, operators, heads of corrections, system engineers, planners, designers, and much-appreciated vendors of services and products. More than 25 countries were represented in the 85 separate presentations. The two topics were thoroughly addressed. 

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not new although we seem surprised at how quickly it has overtaken our activities of daily living. In many frightening ways the topic, if not the applications, has become politicized, weaponized, criticized, and demonized. And in some instances, all these are well-earned characterized.  

Just a few of the dark side examples: Jan Kleijssen, Committee on Artificial Intelligence for the Council of Europe (CoE) reported that in the Netherlands, over 32,000 cases were brought against (mostly minority) residents for child benefits fraud resulting in over 3,000 children being taken from their parents. A 2021 report by the CoE found that AI committed an “error” and ruined lives. In Belgium, a version of CHATGBT suggested a patient commit suicide; the patient took AI’s advice. Any of you watching the popular Masterpiece Theatre series, Mr. Bates and the Post Office, know that AI was at the core of that tragic manipulation of human lives (and the investigation continues in the UK). These are but a few examples from the dark side. 

But there is no stopping the rapid expansion of AI applications and the absolute power of machine learning. However, by 2026, we will have exhausted training AI with human-generated data (will have reached “singularity”) and then the machines will teach the machines. I believe our computer scientist colleagues call that generative AI. Already, according to Sean Hosman and Majorie Rist of the USA, 90 percent of all existing data was collected over that last two years and the amount will double over the next two. 

 Vast data centers are dotting the landscape (mostly urban landscapes) since AI consumes an almost unimaginable amount of energy. Google reported that 15 percent of its energy consumption was dedicated to AI training (Kleijssen). All the while, in the US and Europe, a major infrastructure focus has been on creating electric vehicles (you name them) and prisons (UK). A practical question surely is, will AI’s exponential expansion be slowed or stopped because the beast cannot be fed? I doubt it. 

With all of the mind-binding information about potential dangers, by a large measure, the TIC focused on positive, productive, and reliable applications of technology, especially AI. A consistent theme discussed by Victoria Knight,  Steven Van De Steene, and Pedro das Neves was “digital rehabilitation” which essentially represents just what the words mean: changing outcomes in corrections through the use of technology. Examples included using machine gathered, readily available, integrate able data to prepare inmate treatment plans based on individual profiles.  

 Custody levels and cell assignments can be made through a vast combination of data captured through intake forms, medical examinations, mental health evaluations, visitation records, and even motion sensors (past recorded examples of aberrant behavior).  And a potential use that has vast social, economic, and infrastructural implications – predicting the probability of reoffending. 

 The examples from the TIC could consume this entire issue of Correctional News but let me briefly transition over to the built environment by bringing the discussion out of the clouds (all be they real) to the everyday world that planners, designers, constructors, operators, and suppliers must trod. One of the last sessions of TIC was “Bridging the Divide Between IT and Prison Design” chaired by Pia Puolakka-Project Manager for the Finnish “Smart Prison”; Jacques Hensen-ICT Manager in the Luxembourg Prison System; Marl McGoldrick-Head of Estates of the Irish Prison Service; Kavan Applegate-Partner of Guymer Baily Architects of Melbourne Australia; and Helena Pombares-Prison Architecture Specialist for Pick Everard of the UK. 

 If there was a consistent theme of this discussion it was ignore technology (especially AI) in the planning and design process at your own inevitable peril. Through extensive examples, we were offered several cardinal rules, including: 

  • Be constantly aware of connectivity issues, especially in old prisons (an example was offered at the conference of using 39 precisely placed to enable the transmission of a wifi signal in an old prison);  
  • Expect and plan for an increase in the use of “edge devices” (tablets, smart TV’s, mobile phones, laptops) that will improve prison operations and expand access to greater digital treatment options; 
  • While at conferences like these and on many days prison operators feel as if they are drinking from a fire hose, proceed deliberately and slowly, but do not for a moment think that an integrated digital and design strategy is unnecessary; 
  • The age, social, and cultural profile of the inmate must be considered when integrating technology and design. For example, although the 20 and 30-somethings might readily adapt to edge devices, older inmates may be intimidated and resist treatment and services that rely upon digital rehabilitation; 
  • Normalization in design and technology can support each other if we first explore what the word means and simple applications as suggested through presentations by Sonia Bom and Jonas Monster-Alex Paulsen Architects, Denmark; Robert Boraks-Parkin Architects, Canada; Dave Redemske-HDR, USA; Alex Newman-XSquared Architects, Tasmania; Sarah Paddick, Grieve Gillette Architects, Australia; and Hugh Lester-STV, USA. 
  • Increased use of technology that isolates rather than offers spatial and environmental conditions for socialization between inmates will be self-defeating. As always, in the end it is the human interactions that change attitudes and behaviors. Balance is everything. 

Returning to the “east meets west” platform, I would be extremely remiss if I did not compliment our host, the Turkish Prison Service, for countless honest and inspiring examples of how they are blending the expertise of researchers, academics, operators, administrators, designers, advocates, and persons with lived experiences in the obvious transformation of their system. I first met with representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the TPS a decade ago and to now see the transformation that has occurred is a living example of imagination, determination, and careful application. 

Not a one of the two dozen countries represented at the TIC and IPIC is without social, economic, political, or cultural challenges in our countries and our prisons. And in some instances, our governments officially don’t like each other. But all of those differences were left in checked bags. This unique gathering reflected a shared belief that through well-researched and prepared discussions in a civil and incredibly historic setting, we will make certain that our primary mission of advancing corrections through the thoughtful integration of technology and design pilots our decisions. This is the mission of ICPA. 

I conclude with important news: in May 2024, 57 countries will sign a treaty on global standards for the use of AI. Representatives from many of those countries were in attendance at the TIC and IPIC conferences in Istanbul.   

Stephen Carter, AICP 

April 28, 2024 

Stephen Carter, AICP is the executive vice president and global strategic development officer at Miami-based CGL Companies. 

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared in the May/June 2024 issue of Correctional News.