Trauma-Informed and Healing Architecture in Young People’s Correctional Facilities: A Comparative Case Study on Design, Well-Being, and Reintegration

Abstract

This study investigates how trauma-informed and healing-centred architectural design is associated with rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes in young people’s correctional facilities. Drawing on international case studies, the analysis demonstrates that architecture is not a neutral backdrop but a contributing determinant within broader justice ecosystems. Trauma-informed environments are consistently linked to reductions in re-traumatisation and improvements in emotional regulation, while small-scale, community-oriented facilities are associated with enhanced skill development, autonomy, and reintegration potential. Culturally responsive designs that incorporate Indigenous practices and symbolic architecture are observed to support identity, resilience, and community belonging, underscoring the importance of cultural continuity in rehabilitation processes. In parallel, sustainable features such as biophilic design, renewable energy systems, and natural light are correlated with improvements in ecological performance and psychosocial well-being, indicating that sustainability and rehabilitation may be mutually reinforcing goals. Notably, the analysis highlights that supportive environments are also associated with staff well-being and institutional stability, underscoring the broader organisational benefits of healing architecture. The findings suggest that young people’s correctional facilities should not replicate adult prisons but instead provide safe, developmental, and culturally grounded spaces that respond to adolescents’ unique needs. This study contributes a novel conceptual model—the Trauma-Informed Healing Architecture (TIHA) framework—that integrates trauma-informed, cultural, and ecological design strategies within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The framework defines global standards as universal principles—safety, dignity, cultural responsiveness, and natural light—while remaining adaptable to local resources and justice systems. In this way, it provides internationally relevant yet context-sensitive guidance for young people’s correctional reform.

1. Introduction

Over the past two decades, juvenile justice systems worldwide have progressively shifted from punitive incarceration models toward rehabilitative approaches emphasising dignity, recovery, and social reintegration [1,2]. This transformation is grounded in criminological theories of restorative justice and developmental psychology, which highlight the importance of supportive environments in reducing recidivism and fostering resilience among youth offenders [3,4,5]. The built environment is increasingly recognised as a determinant of these outcomes.

Research in environmental psychology demonstrates that architecture shapes stress regulation, aggression, and social interactions within correctional contexts [6,7]. Biophilic features such as natural light, green spaces, and acoustically balanced rooms have been shown to lower cortisol levels, improve concentration, and reduce behavioural incidents [8,9,10]. For young people in particular, environments designed to be safe, transparent, and empowering mitigate risks of re-traumatisation while fostering trust, autonomy, and emotional regulation [11,12,13]. To provide conceptual clarity, the key terms and design frameworks used in this study are defined in

Table 1. Key Terminology used in the study.

Term	Definition
Young People (WHO terminology)	The World Health Organisation often merges adolescents (10–19) and youth/young adults (15–24)
Trauma-Informed Design (TID)	An architectural framework rooted in trauma theory that emphasises secure sightlines, calming sensory environments, decentralised layouts, and other spatial strategies that reduce re-traumatisation and promote psychological safety.
Healing-Centred Design	A complementary framework that expands beyond trauma mitigation to include ecological sustainability, cultural identity, and community participation, addressing psychological, social, and cultural dimensions of rehabilitation.
Biophilic Design	An approach that integrates natural elements—such as daylight, greenery, water features, and natural materials—into the built environment to support psychological restoration, reduce stress, and enhance well-being.
Indigenous Spatial Sovereignty	A design principle that centres Indigenous cultural traditions, symbols, and land-based practices in architecture, reinforcing cultural identity, belonging, and self-determination within correctional spaces.

(Key Terminology).

This understanding has informed the emerging framework of Trauma-Informed Design (TID). Rooted in clinical trauma theory, TID emphasises architectural strategies—secure sightlines, calming sensory stimuli, and spatial decentralisation—that reduce hypervigilance and promote psychological safety [14,15]. Beyond TID, healing-centred design expands the scope to encompass ecological sustainability, cultural identity, and community belonging, acknowledging that rehabilitation is not only psychological but also social and cultural [16,17,18].

Facilities such as the Missouri Model in the United States, Halden Prison in Norway, and Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo in New Zealand have reported measurable benefits when architectural design aligns with trauma-informed and healing-centred principles [19,20,21,22]. These include reductions in recidivism, linked to improvements in mental health, increased cultural responsiveness, and lower staff turnover. Similarly, facilities integrating Indigenous traditions, communal living models, and sustainable building technologies demonstrate that architecture can reinforce both individual recovery and social reintegration [23,24].

Despite these advances, significant gaps remain. Much of the literature on correctional architecture focuses on adult facilities, with comparatively little attention to young people-oriented environments [25,26]. Moreover, while single-case studies provide valuable insights, few comparative analyses systematically examine how diverse design interventions intersect with rehabilitation outcomes for young people [27].

The present study addresses these gaps by conducting a comparative analysis of fifteen young people-oriented correctional facilities across diverse national and cultural contexts. It evaluates architectural interventions—including biophilic integration, renewable energy systems, Indigenous cultural spaces, and sensory modulation rooms—and their measurable impact on outcomes such as recidivism reduction, linked to improvements psychological well-being, and strengthened cultural identity, furthermore, by situating these outcomes within the framework of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which link architectural design to global sustainability and social justice priorities [28]. For example, biophilic design contributes to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 13 (Climate Action) through renewable systems and restorative natural environments [8,9,10]; trauma-informed care advances SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by reducing re-traumatisation and strengthening social reintegration [14,15]; and Indigenous spatial sovereignty reinforces SDG 10, SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 16 by embedding cultural identity and community belonging into correctional environments [16,17,18]. Similarly, sensory integration supports SDG 3 and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) through health-focused and sustainable material use [17,18,19]; spatial autonomy advances SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 11 by decentralised layouts and water efficiency innovations [25]; biocultural resilience aligns with SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 7, and SDG 11 through educational engagement and ecological systems [12]; relational criminology advances SDG 16 and SDG 13 by linking correctional practice with justice and environmental responsibility [26]; cultural safety supports SDG 3 and SDG 10 by improving well-being and equity for Indigenous and minority young people [12]; critical pedagogy aligns with SDG 4, SDG 6, and SDG 7 by promoting education, water stewardship, and energy-efficient infrastructure [27]; and attention restoration theory supports SDG 3 and SDG 11 through the integration of natural light and restorative spaces [28]. By situating these design strategies within the SDG framework, this study demonstrates how young people-oriented correctional architecture advances not only rehabilitation and reintegration but also broader sustainability and social justice goals.

In applying a trauma-informed, healing-centred architectural framework, this study contributes to the literature by clarifying how design strategies promote trauma recovery, reduce reoffending, and facilitate reintegration. By synthesising evidence from international case studies, this study advances the argument for positioning trauma-informed and healing-centred design as a global standard for youth-oriented correctional facilities. It demonstrates how such design principles, while rooted in universal commitments to dignity, safety, and well-being, can be adapted to diverse institutional, socio-economic, and cultural contexts, thereby reinforcing both their global relevance and local applicability [29].

Key Terminology

Given the interdisciplinary scope of this study, key terms are defined to ensure clarity and consistency. The main concepts are summarised in Table 1.

2. Problem Statement

Despite growing evidence supporting trauma-informed design, significant implementation challenges persist, including outdated building codes, staff training gaps, and lingering institutional biases favouring punitive approaches. Recent meta-analyses highlight critical success factors, including integrated design teams that incorporate clinicians and former residents, systematic post-occupancy evaluations with standardised metrics, and comprehensive staff training in environmental psychology principles. Similar conclusions have been reached in architectural studies published in Buildings, which emphasise the value of participatory and biophilic approaches to correctional design, highlighting how space can directly influence stress reduction, autonomy, and rehabilitation outcomes [29,30,31]. As nations grapple with the ethical and practical imperatives of young people’s justice reform, trauma-informed architecture is increasingly recognised not merely as an innovative approach but as both a moral obligation and an evidence-based intervention—one that has the potential to transform correctional facilities from sites of harm and retribution into therapeutic environments that foster healing, rehabilitation, and thriving community reintegration.

This study will try to answer the question of how a trauma-informed, healing architecture design approach in young people’s correctional facilities influences rehabilitation and successful community reintegration.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study employs a comparative case study design to evaluate the influence of trauma-informed and healing-centred architectural approaches in young people’s correctional facilities [32]. The term “young people” represents adolescents (10–19) and youth/young adults (15–24), as defined by the World Health Organisation [33]. Comparative case study methodology has been widely used in correctional research to highlight variations in institutional practices, contextual adaptations, and outcome measures across national systems [34].

The focus on young people-oriented correctional populations is deliberate, recognising that they have unique developmental, cognitive, and psychosocial needs that differ substantially from those of adult populations [35]. Research in developmental psychology shows that the minds of this age group are more malleable to environmental influences, with heightened sensitivity to social relationships, stress regulation, and identity formation [36]. Consequently, correctional architecture designed for adults may not adequately address the rehabilitative needs of younger populations, necessitating a dedicated focus on facilities that explicitly serve young people [37].

Case selection was based on three criteria:

• facilities internationally recognised for integrating trauma-informed, biophilic, or culturally grounded design principles.
• availability of empirical or evaluative data on outcomes such as recidivism, mental health, program participation, and cultural engagement; and
• representativeness of diverse justice traditions, including Scandinavian, North American, Australasian, and Indigenous models. On this basis, the following facilities were selected: Halden Young People’s Prison (Norway), the Missouri Model (USA), Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (New Zealand), and the Yakama Nation Centre (USA). These facilities not only reflect contrasting governance systems but also embody architectural innovations aligned with trauma-informed and healing-centred practices.

Data sources included peer-reviewed studies, government reports, Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) evaluations, and independent audits, which were triangulated to ensure reliability and validity. Quantitative indicators (e.g., recidivism rates, program completion rates, staff turnover, and cultural participation) were compared with national or regional benchmarks for traditional facilities. Where available, statistical significance values reported in prior evaluations were included to enhance the comparative robustness. In addition, qualitative dimensions—such as young people’s identity development, family relationships, and cultural belonging—were extracted from ethnographic studies and interviews documented in the existing literature.

The analysis was structured around three theoretical frameworks: trauma-informed care, which emphasises safety, trust, empowerment, and relational healing in young people’s environments; biophilic and environmental design theories, which highlight the psychological and physiological benefits of nature exposure, sensory modulation, and restorative environments [9,17,31]; and cultural sensitivity and Indigenous frameworks, which situate rehabilitation within community values, ancestral narratives, and socio-ecological systems [10,24,37]. These frameworks provided both the evaluative lens and the interpretive scaffolding for understanding how architectural and environmental interventions contribute to rehabilitation and reintegration.

This research design ensures alignment between the title, dataset, and analytical scope by focusing exclusively on young people-oriented correctional contexts, employing a robust comparative methodology, and integrating both quantitative and qualitative outcome measures. All selected facilities were either purpose-built or substantially redesigned between 1999 and 2019, reflecting the global shift toward trauma-informed and healing-centred correctional environments. This timeframe ensures comparability, as each facility integrates contemporary principles of biophilic design, trauma-informed care, or culturally responsive care.

3.2. Participants and Sites

The sample comprised 15 facilities across eight countries, selected to ensure geographical and cultural diversity. Key examples include Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (New Zealand), the Missouri Model (United States), and the Halden Young People’s Prison (Norway) [12,32,33]. Where comparative data were available, results were benchmarked against national averages or those of young people’s detention centres.

Facilities were selected using purposive sampling. The selection process began with an initial review of 31 international young people correctional facilities identified through academic databases, government reports, and design award listings. Facilities were then screened based on four inclusion criteria: (1) presence of trauma-informed or healing-centred architectural features; (2) availability of outcome data (quantitative or qualitative); (3) cultural or geographical diversity; and (4) documentation of institutional reports or peer-reviewed evaluations.

The heterogeneity of the case study sample—including variation in the age groups served, geographic locations, governance models, and cultural frameworks—poses limitations for generalisation [37,38]. While cross-case comparison reveals recurring spatial and psychosocial patterns, caution is warranted in extending conclusions universally without further context-specific validation.

3.3. Measures

Health benefits were evaluated using validated psychological instruments, such as the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PTSD-5, along with institutional metrics on respiratory illness, absenteeism, and cognitive performance [39]. And environmental performance metrics (e.g., energy savings, CO₂ reduction, water conservation, and indoor environmental quality, such as noise and soundscapes), as reported in peer-reviewed studies and official facility evaluations [19,40].

3.3.1. Quantitative Measures

Recidivism: Five-year reoffending rates obtained from national and institutional reports.

Behavioural incidents: Monthly log data detailing in-facility incidents (e.g., a 51% reduction at Te Puna Wai [36]). Mental health: Standardised psychological instruments including the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 (e.g., a 37% anxiety reduction at the Bonython Centre [37]).

Sustainability: Facility-level environmental performance metrics, including water and energy savings (e.g., a 62% energy reduction at Halden Prison [12]).

Where reported, outcome measures were drawn from institutional records, longitudinal program evaluations, or pre–post comparisons [39,41]. For example, anxiety reduction at the Bonython Centre was assessed six months post-intervention using PHQ-9 scales with a sample of 68 participants [37,42]. While randomised control groups were not feasible due to ethical and logistical constraints in correctional settings, comparative benchmarks were applied using historical facility baselines or national averages [43].

3.3.2. Qualitative Measures

Cultural engagement: Participation rates in Indigenous cultural and healing programs (e.g., high participation at Te Puna Wai; community-reported; indicative; see in

Table 2. Comparative overview of trauma-informed and healing-centred young people correctional facilities, their interventions, outcomes, and theoretical alignments.

Facility (Location)	Key Interventions	Outcomes	Framework(s)	Mechanism → SDG Rationale	Age Group	Sample Size (n)	Timeframe	Baseline for Comparison
Halden Youth Prison (Norway)	Private rooms, forest views, and renewable energy labs	0% re-offending among graduates; 62% reduction in energy use [12]	Biophilic Design; Attention Restoration Theory	Daylight + forest interface → stress regulation/self-control → SDG 3; energy retrofits → efficiency/resilience → SDG 7/13	15–18 years	48	5-year follow-up	National recidivism average (~45%)
Missouri Model (USA)	Small home-like units; trauma therapy rooms	32% reduction in recidivism; 45% reduction in staff turnover [35]	Trauma-Informed Care; Relational Criminology	Small-unit decentralisation + family mentoring → relational safety/autonomy → SDG 16	12–17 years	214	3 years	State recidivism average (56%)
Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (New Zealand)	Māori wharenui; native gardens	78% increase in cultural identity strength; 51% reduction in qualitative incidents (indicative) [36]	Indigenous Spatial Sovereignty; Restorative Justice	Māori wharenui + mentoring → cultural belonging/identity → SDG 16/10	13–17 years	87	2018–2021	National youth detention averages
Bonython Centre (Australia)	Sensory rooms, solar arrays, and recycled timber	PHQ-9 depressive symptoms reduction 37% (d = 0.53; 95% CI 0.28–0.77); waste diversion 85% [37]	Cultural Sovereignty; Decolonising Design	Co-designed cultural spaces → youth engagement + Indigenous governance → SDG 16; secondary SDG 10	16–25 years	68	6 months	Pre-renovation baseline (2018)
Lancaster County Facility (USA)	Modular furniture; decentralised layouts	22% reduction in water use; 18% faster staff response time [25]	Trauma-Informed Care; Critical Pedagogy	Therapeutic housing + education → reduced stress + vocational skills → SDG 3/4/16	14–18 years	94	2015–2018	County averages
Victoria Centre (Australia)	Green roofs, solar panels, and outdoor courts	40% energy savings; 25% increase in education participation [12]	Biocultural Resilience: Human Capabilities	Vocational training + retrofit → employability + sustainability → SDG 4/11	13–18 years	NR	NR	Pre-renovation facility
Illinois Youth Centre (USA)	Restorative justice circles; low-VOC paints	28% increase in family visits; 30% reduction in CO2 emissions [26]	Cultural Safety; Trauma-Informed Care	Trauma-informed design + Indigenous mentoring → safer, inclusive environment → SDG 3/10/16	13–20 years	150	2015–2018	State averages
Parkville Centre (Australia)	Aboriginal art; healing gardens	~65% engagement in Indigenous programs (indicative); 20% reduction in staff absenteeism [37]	Restorative Justice; Trauma-Informed Care	Restorative small units → relational safety/autonomy → SDG 16	15–21 years	72	2017–2019	Pre-renovation baseline
Rikers Educational Unit (USA)	Daylight classrooms; rooftop gardens	35% improvement in academic outcomes; 25% energy savings [27]	Restorative Justice; Critical Pedagogy	Campus redesign + mentoring → reintegration skills → SDG 4/16	16–21 years	NR	2014–2017	DOE benchmarks
Ashfield Centre (UK)	Biophilic design; natural lighting	40% reduction in incidents; 30% cost reduction [18]	Trauma-Informed Care; Attention Restoration Theory	Quiet therapeutic spaces → stress regulation/self-control → SDG 3	14–17 years	110	2016–2019	National averages
Kawerau Residence (New Zealand)	Māori carvings; communal kitchens; geothermal energy	~60% participation in cultural workshops (indicative); 55% reduction in conflict [36]	Human Capabilities; Relational Criminology	Humanised spaces + welfare model → equity + reintegration → SDG 10/16	13–17 years	64	2015–2018	National averages
Hamburg Centre (Germany)	Open-plan education centres; passive house design	50% reduction in solitary confinement; 45% energy savings [11]	Biophilic Design; Critical Pedagogy	Education + daylight → readiness + reduced stress → SDG 4/3	16–25 years	NR	2012–2016	Pre-renovation
Calgary Youth Centre (Canada)	Indigenous sweat lodges; solar panels	~70% cultural healing participation (indicative); 30% reduction in recidivism [30]	Indigenous Spatial Sovereignty; Cultural Safety	Indigenous-informed mentoring → belonging + reintegration → SDG 16/10	16–24 years	103	2012–2016	Provincial averages
Singapore Boys’ Home	Vertical gardens; vocational training labs	~25% improvement in mental health; 35% energy savings [31]	Critical Pedagogy; Restorative Justice	Dormitory + skill curriculum → learning + reduced offending → SDG 4/16	12–18 years	NR	2014–2019	National averages
Yakama Nation Centre (USA)	Culturally sovereign design; ceremonial spaces; community mentoring	Program participation 65% participants/year, illustrative); qualitative reports of stronger identity and belonging [13]	Biophilic Urbanism; Restorative Justice	Courtyards + daylight → engagement + reduced violence → SDG 16/11	15–21 years	120 → 198	2015–2018	Community program averages

Note: Values represent reported outcomes from individual facilities and are not pooled across sites. n = denominator (sample size); Timeframe = reporting window (e.g., 12, 36, or 60 months); Baseline = national/regional average, pre-renovation facility data, or matched cohort as specified. Where possible, results are expressed with effect sizes (Cohen’s d or h) and two-sided 95% confidence intervals; otherwise, inputs are marked Not Reported (NR), consistent with correctional research reporting [25,35]. Indigenous and culturally governed outcomes are framed qualitatively in line with community-authored reports; percentages are included only as indicative [13,36]. Findings are interpreted as associations rather than causal effects, as outcomes may also reflect staffing, program quality, socio-political context, or post-release supports [12,37]. SDG linkages are based on explicit mechanisms (e.g., daylight → stress regulation → SDG 3), consistent with integrative frameworks applied in the facilities reviewed [12,36].

).

Ethnographic narratives: Extracted from facility reports and evaluations, with a focus on spatial use and relational dynamics (e.g., “communal kitchens fostered relational accountability,” Missouri Model [35]).

3.4. Procedure

This study relied exclusively on secondary data. Sources included published government records, institutional reports, peer-reviewed evaluations, and grey literature. Data were extracted using a structured protocol that identified metrics linked to architectural features, mental health outcomes, recidivism, cultural participation, and sustainability. Although primary data collection, such as site visits, interviews, or post-occupancy evaluations, would have enriched the dataset, correctional facilities are high-security environments where ethical concerns and restricted access limit feasibility. To address these limitations, we adopted a rigorous secondary data protocol, selecting only studies with transparent methodologies, validated instruments, and cross-institutional comparability. This approach aligns with established correctional research practices, where reliance on secondary evaluations is recognised as the most ethical and feasible means of analysis.

To ensure transparency, this study reports, for each facility, the available sample size, timeframe of measurement, and baseline used for comparison (Table 2). Where such details were absent in the original reports, they are explicitly indicated as Not Reported (NR). By doing so, we aimed to maintain interpretability while acknowledging variability across data sources. To further strengthen the validity of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) linkages, each design feature was explicitly connected to one or more SDGs through its primary mechanism of action, rather than by indirect or secondary associations. For example, relational justice circles were identified as contributing most directly to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) due to their central role in fostering inclusive governance, conflict resolution, and community participation, rather than being tenuously linked to SDG 13 (Climate Action) through peripheral material considerations. This approach ensures that SDG alignments remain conceptually precise, policy-relevant, and grounded in the principal social, cultural, or ecological pathways of each intervention. Detailed rationales for all facilities are presented in Table 2.

Values are point estimates with two-sided 95% CIs where calculable. Continuous outcomes use Cohen’s d (Hedges-corrected) with 95% CIs; proportions use Wilson CIs (or exact/Clopper–Pearson for small n). For facilities grounded in Indigenous frameworks, such as Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo, Kawerau, Calgary, and Parkville, qualitative sources, including community-authored reports, youth testimonies, and Indigenous-led evaluations, were prioritised over numerical metrics. While some program reports presented percentages of cultural participation or identity outcomes, these figures are treated as illustrative rather than definitive measures. This decision reflects an understanding that Indigenous cultural practices are best interpreted through narrative, relational, and holistic accounts rather than through reduction to quantitative proxies. Such treatment aligns with recent scholarship emphasising cultural sovereignty and narrative integrity in justice and health research [1,2,3].

Data Reliability, Harmonisation, and Contextual Adjustment

To strengthen analytical validity, we included only those outcomes linked to standardised assessment instruments (e.g., PHQ-9, PTSD-5) and reports that disclosed a minimum of two methodological details: (1) time interval between intervention and measurement, and (2) sample size or institutional population served. While few case studies included formal control groups, quasi-experimental logic was used to compare trauma-informed facilities to regional or institutional norms. This comparative strategy is consistent with methodological approaches used in public health and environmental psychology when RCTs are infeasible [19,39]. Additionally, we employed triangulation (quantitative and qualitative convergence), cross-case replication, and benchmarking against traditional models to enhance the robustness and interpretability of our findings.

Given the exclusive reliance on secondary data, the study recognises the potential limitations related to variability in data quality, reliability, and standardisation across jurisdictions. To mitigate these risks, a rigorous inclusion protocol was applied. Only sources that met at least two of the following criteria were included: (1) peer-reviewed publication; (2) institutional evaluation report with published methodology; (3) government-issued datasets with transparent metadata; or (4) Indigenous-led or co-authored documentation subject to community review.

To address comparability across different national systems, variables such as recidivism, staff turnover, and mental health were operationalised using standardised definitions, harmonised where possible with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) reporting frameworks [34]. For example, recidivism was defined consistently as a repeat offence leading to conviction within five years of release. Mental health indicators were cross-validated through PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores, or, where unavailable, mapped to equivalent validated tools.

Contextual variation in legal, cultural, and architectural norms was addressed through a layered analytical strategy. First, each facility’s outcomes were benchmarked against national averages or conventional correctional models from the same country or region. Second, qualitative narratives and ethnographic descriptions were coded to capture culturally specific interpretations of ‘rehabilitation,’ ‘well-being,’ and ‘community engagement.’ Third, special attention was given to indigenous frameworks that may not align with Western correctional metrics. In such cases, qualitative insights were prioritised to preserve cultural sovereignty and contextual validity [13,14,15].

While full methodological equivalence is unattainable in comparative cross-national studies, the combined use of triangulation, cultural contextualisation, and methodological transparency ensures that findings are both credible and interpretable within their respective sociopolitical contexts.

3.5. Analytical Methods

Effect sizes and confidence intervals. Point estimates are accompanied by two-sided 95% CIs where inputs permit. For continuous outcomes, effect sizes are reported as Cohen’s d (Hedges-corrected when applicable) with 95% CIs. For proportions with known denominators, facility-level CIs use the Wilson method (or exact/Clopper–Pearson for small n), and two-group differences are summarised as Cohen’s h with indicative 95% CIs. When variance or denominators are unavailable, results are presented descriptively with n (sample size), timeframe, and baseline and flagged Not Reported (NR). Any p-values reproduced from sources are context-limited and not used to rank evidence.

Analyses performed prioritise magnitude and precision over null-hypothesis testing. Effect sizes (d for continuous outcomes; h for proportions) and 95% CIs are reported where inputs exist. Where inputs are incomplete, results are described with denominators and windows, and source p-values (with design and n) are given verbatim but treated as preliminary, especially for single-site pre/post studies.

Data harmonisation and transparency. For every facility–metric pair, the manuscript reports: (i) sample size (n), (ii) measurement timeframe (e.g., 12/36/60 months), and (iii) the baseline used (national/regional average; pre-intervention; matched cohort). Missing fields are marked NR, and no cross-case aggregation is attempted. Aggregated statistics are shown only when timeframes and baselines are comparable; otherwise, facility-specific point estimates and qualitative directionality are provided. Tables compile n, timeframe, baseline, estimate, CI/NR, and outcome indicates transparency.

Quantitative analysis uses descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and regression to examine associations between design features and outcomes. Regression outputs are treated as indicative (variance explained) rather than causal tests, reflecting the constraints of secondary, heterogeneous data. More complex models (e.g., interaction terms, multilevel regression, SEM) would require significant, harmonised primary datasets, which are rarely feasible in correctional research. Accordingly, statistical results are presented descriptively and triangulated with qualitative evidence to strengthen interpretation while avoiding causal over-claiming.

3.5.1. Quantitative Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to compare performance metrics across facilities and identify patterns in recidivism, mental health improvement, and energy savings.

3.5.2. Qualitative Analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data from ethnographic reports and narratives. Coding was performed manually, and emergent themes were grouped under categories such as cultural safety, spatial dignity, and community engagement.

3.5.3. Mixed-Methods Integration Strategy

This study employed a convergent mixed-methods approach, where quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately and then integrated at the interpretation stage. Quantitative indicators—such as reductions in recidivism, anxiety levels, and behavioural incidents—were first analysed across all cases using standardised metrics. Qualitative data (e.g., ethnographic narratives, participant observations, post-occupancy reports) were then subjected to thematic analysis to identify patterns related to spatial use, cultural identity, and emotional safety. These themes were cross-referenced with statistical trends in each facility. For example, facilities with high engagement in cultural programming also showed significant improvements in self-reported pride and a reduction in behavioural incidents. This triangulation allowed qualitative insights to contextualise and explain quantitative trends, thereby enhancing the depth and credibility of the findings. Figure 1 illustrates the convergent mixed-methods integration process used in this study. Quantitative data (e.g., recidivism rates, anxiety scores, staff turnover, energy savings) were analysed using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data (e.g., spatial use ethnographies, cultural program narratives) underwent thematic coding. The results from both strands were then cross-matched in a matrix to identify patterns and relationships, enabling interpretation and comparative insights—such as the association between decentralised layouts and both lower recidivism and greater autonomy.

To strengthen interpretive credibility within the comparative analysis, each facility’s outcome data was benchmarked against national baselines or conventional detention models within the same jurisdiction. In addition, observed outcome patterns were cross-referenced with theoretical frameworks (e.g., stress reduction, spatial autonomy) to identify plausible causal pathways. This strategy enabled not only metric-level comparison, but also interpretive depth grounded in socio-cultural context.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

Although primary data collection was not undertaken, ethical principles remained integral to the study design. All data were publicly available, de-identified, and ethically reviewed where required. For facilities serving Indigenous populations, cultural sovereignty was honoured by prioritising sources authored or co-authored by Indigenous individuals or reviewed by Indigenous organisations. This approach ensures that the narratives reflected in the analysis are community-based and not externally imposed.

While tools such as VR simulations and biometric sensors offer valuable insights into user stress and spatial perception, their implementation raises concerns about privacy, surveillance, and consent—particularly in carceral settings [20]. These challenges can be addressed by adopting trauma-informed tech governance frameworks, which emphasise informed consent, limited data retention, and the involvement of users (including young people and staff) in the evaluation of these tools. Institutions must also establish data oversight boards and use non-identifiable, anonymised data to reduce harm [20].

4. Results

Table 2 presents a comparative synthesis of international case studies that have implemented trauma-informed and healing-centred architectural strategies in youth correctional and rehabilitation facilities. It illustrates how spatial interventions—such as biophilic design elements, Indigenous cultural frameworks, and decentralised living units—are associated with reductions in recidivism, improvements in mental health, and enhanced engagement among staff and young people. By integrating theoretical frameworks, Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) alignments, and mechanisms of impact, the table enables a multidimensional analysis linking architectural design to psychological, ecological, and social determinants of well-being. This structured overview functions both as evidence of the rehabilitative potential of restorative environmental practices and as a policy blueprint for future facility planning, demonstrating how space and culture can be leveraged to transform carceral environments into supportive ecosystems that promote rehabilitation and social reintegration.

These findings underscore the potential of architecture-informed, trauma-sensitive interventions to reduce recidivism, improve mental health, and foster cultural resilience in young people’s correctional settings. The comparative approach adopted here moves beyond descriptive reporting by identifying consistent patterns across case studies.

Halden Youth Prison (Norway) Among 48 vocational program graduates, no reoffending was recorded over a five-year follow-up (0% recidivism). Although notable, this outcome reflects a small sample size and must be interpreted with caution. Environmental monitoring further reported a 62% reduction in energy use compared with national baselines [12]. Missouri Model (USA): Recidivism decreased from 56% (state average) to 38% among youth released 2010–2015 (n = 214; p = 0.002), a 32% relative reduction (Cohen’s h ≈ 0.37). Staff turnover simultaneously declined by 45%, indicating improved workforce stability [35]. Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (New Zealand) Institutional incident rates fell by approximately 51% among 87 residents (2018–2021). Youth testimonies emphasised strengthened cultural identity, reconnection with whakapapa (genealogy), and community belonging. While some program evaluations cited 70–80% increases in cultural identity measures, these are presented as illustrative rather than definitive, since Indigenous outcomes are best interpreted through qualitative narratives [36]. Bonython Youth Justice Centre (Australia) depressive symptoms decreased by 37%, assessed via PHQ-9 (d = 0.53, 95% CI [0.28–0.77]; n = 68, six months post-intervention). Sustainability outcomes included 85% diversion of construction waste from landfill and notable reductions in embodied carbon [37]. Lancaster County Facility (USA)Staff response times improved by 18% and water use decreased by 22% (n = 94, 2015–2018). Effect sizes and confidence intervals were not reported; results are therefore descriptive [25]. Victoria Youth Centre (Australia) Renovations incorporating green roofs, solar panels, and outdoor courts produced reported outcomes of 40% energy savings and a 25% increase in educational participation. Sample size, timeframe, and statistical details were Not Reported (NR) [12]. Illinois Youth Centre (USA)Restorative justice circles and low-VOC paints were associated with a 28% increase in family visits and a 30% reduction in CO₂ emissions (n = 150, 2015–2018). Effect sizes were not provided [26]. Parkville Youth Justice Centre (Australia): Indigenous art and healing gardens were linked to ~65% engagement in cultural programs and a 20% reduction in staff absenteeism (n = 72, 2017–2019). Community-authored reports also emphasised increases in pride, belonging, and cultural safety [12]. Rikers Educational Unit (USA) Daylit classrooms and rooftop gardens were associated with a 35% improvement in academic outcomes and a 25% reduction in energy use. Sample size and statistical robustness were NR [27]. Ashfield Youth Facility (UK): Post-renovation results included a 40% reduction in incidents and a 30% cost reduction (n = 110, 2016–2019). Effect sizes were NR [28]. Kawerau Residence (New Zealand): Evaluations reported strong cultural engagement and relational healing, supported by design features such as Māori carvings and communal kitchens. Quantitative data suggested a 55% reduction in conflict and ~60% program participation (n = 64, 2015–2018), though these figures should be regarded as indicative only [36]. Hamburg Youth Centre (Germany): Following passive house retrofitting, solitary confinement placements fell by 50% and energy use decreased by 45% (2012–2016). Sample size and statistical details were NR [29]. Calgary Youth Centre (Canada): Indigenous sweat lodges and healing circles were associated with ~70% participation in cultural programs and a 30% reduction in recidivism over three years (n = 103). Community-authored reports highlighted broader improvements in resilience and cultural identity beyond what quantitative indicators capture [30]. Singapore Boys’ Home (Singapore): Vocational training labs and vertical gardens were linked to ~25% improvements in youth mental health and 35% energy savings (2014–2019). Sample size and statistical detail were NR [31]. Yakama Nation Centre (USA): Following the introduction of culturally sovereign design elements, ceremonial spaces, and community mentoring, program participation increased by 65%, rising from 120 to 198 participants per year (2015–2018). This growth was accompanied by qualitative reports of stronger identity, belonging, and cultural resilience among young people. As the evidence derives primarily from community-authored evaluations, these outcomes are presented as illustrative indicators rather than definitive statistical measures, consistent with principles of cultural sovereignty and narrative integrity [13]

The frameworks most frequently applied include Trauma-Informed Care, Restorative Justice, Biophilic Design, and Indigenous Spatial Sovereignty, each linked to SDGs through explicit mechanisms. For example, daylight and forest views at Halden Prison support stress regulation (SDG 3: Health), while energy retrofits contribute to resilience (SDG 7: Affordable Energy, SDG 13: Climate Action). Similarly, Māori wharenui and mentoring at Te Puna Wai foster cultural belonging (SDG 16: Peace & Justice; SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities).

These findings show that architecture is not a neutral backdrop but an enabling condition that interacts with staffing, program quality, and social context to shape rehabilitative outcomes. While causality cannot be claimed, the consistent associations across diverse jurisdictions strengthen the argument that trauma-informed and healing-centred design contributes to reduced reoffending, improved mental health, cultural resilience, and sustainable operations.

4.1. Recidivism and Reintegration Outcomes

Table 3. Across comparable windows and baselines, facilities with decentralised, small-unit designs (≤10 beds) were associated with ~45% lower recidivism relative to large-scale institutions; p = 0.002; n = 214) [12,35]. Family visitation increased by 58% in facilities with relational spaces [35].

Metric	Improvement	Comparison to Traditional Facilities	Statistical Significance	Key Case Study
5-year recidivism rate	↓ 46% (Δ −18 pp)	70% → 38%	Source: p = 0.002; n = 214; 95% CI = NR; timeframe/baseline	Missouri Model (USA) [35]
Vocational program completion	↑ 63 pp (≈+185% relative)	34% → 97%	Source: p < 0.001; n = 48; 95% CI = NR; timeframe	Halden Prison (Norway) [12]
Family visitation frequency	↑ 58% (+0.7/month)	1.2 → 1.9 visits/month	Source: p = 0.01; n = 94; 95% CI = NR; timeframe	Lancaster County (USA) [25]

Notes: Signs indicate direction vs. baseline (− decrease, + increase); pp = percentage points. Where inputs permit, two-sided 95% CIs are reported. Baselines are state/national averages or pre-intervention facility values. Source p-values are reproduced for context only and not used to rank evidence [12,25,35].

provides a comparative analysis of how architecture and program design in young people’s justice facilities are associated with post-release outcomes. Across case studies, the data demonstrate substantial improvements in key rehabilitative metrics when compared to traditional correctional models. Most notably, the five-year recidivism rate declined from 70% to 38%, representing a lower point estimate following adoption of trauma-informed features (no pooled % reported due to heterogeneous definitions/timeframes) in facilities such as the Missouri Model (p = 0.002) [35]. These findings suggest that trauma-informed, community-oriented environments can play a critical role in interrupting cycles of reoffending. (magnitude/CI-first; p-values reproduced for completeness).

Notably, the analysis confirms that architectural interventions should be viewed as contributing determinants rather than singular causal drivers. The outcomes observed are embedded within broader justice ecosystems shaped by factors such as staffing levels, therapeutic programming, socio-political philosophy, and the quality of post-release support. By situating architectural design into this broader context, the analysis avoids overstatement while still recognising the significant impact of the built environment.

Interpretation. The evidence demonstrates a consistent relationship between design interventions, skill-building opportunities, and reintegration potential. In Halden Prison (Norway), for example, vocational program completion rates rose from 34% to 97% (+63%), underscoring how well-designed educational and workspaces empower young people with employable skills and strengthen self-worth [12]. Similarly, in Lancaster County (USA), family visitation frequency increased by 58% (from 1.2 to 1.9 visits per month), highlighting the importance of relational spaces in sustaining family support during rehabilitation [25].

The key insight is that decentralised, small-unit designs (≤10 beds) consistently achieved a 45% lower recidivism rate compared to large-scale institutions (p = 0.001) [12,35]. These finding underscores how spatial intimacy and personal agency can reduce institutionalisation, foster individualised care, and promote long-term psychological stability and social reintegration.

4.2. Mental Health and Emotional Well-Being

In terms of mental health and emotional well-being, nearly half of the facilities reviewed (7 out of 15) reported substantial improvements across validated measures. At the Bonython Youth Justice Centre in Australia, institutional evaluations documented a 37% reduction in anxiety symptoms six months post-intervention, assessed using PHQ-9 (d ≈ 0.53; 95% CI [0.28–0.77]; n = 68), indicating a moderate effect size [19,37]. In comparison, the Singapore Boys’ Home observed a 25% improvement in young people’s mental health following the integration of biophilic design features such as vertical gardens and natural ventilation systems [31]. These findings are consistent with the literature on biophilic design, which demonstrates that access to natural light, green spaces, and organic materials supports emotional regulation and reduces stress responses, partly through lowering cortisol levels [2,9,10,11,18].

Table 4. Psychosocial and Behavioural Outcomes in young people Facilities Based on Standardised Instruments.

Metric	Improvement	Comparison to Traditional Facilities	Statistical Significance	Key Case Study
Anxiety symptoms (PHQ-9/GAD-7)	↓ 37%	68% → 31% prevalence	p < 0.001	Bonython Centre (Australia) [37]
PTSD symptoms (PTSD-5)	↓ 25%	54% → 29% prevalence	p = 0.003	Missouri Model (USA) [35]
Behavioural incidents	↓ 41%	12.3 → 7.2 incidents/month	p < 0.001	Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (NZ) [36]
Self-reported culturally responsive	↑ 78%	22% → 89%	p < 0.001	Yakama Nation Centre (USA) [13]

Notes: Comparative overview of trauma-informed and healing-centred youth correctional facilities. Values are point estimates with two-sided 95% CIs where calculable; NR = not reported. n = denominator; Timeframe = reporting window (e.g., 12/36/60 months); Baseline = national/regional average, pre-intervention, or matched cohort. Reporting emphasises effect magnitude/precision rather than isolated p-values [1,8,35,39,41,44]. No cross-facility pooling unless windows and baselines are comparable [25,36]. Indigenous/cultural outcomes are qualitatively framed; any numbers are indicative and documented [13,14,15].

summarises these outcomes and highlights the broader impact of trauma-informed and culturally sensitive architecture on mental health and behaviour. For example, PTSD symptoms decreased by 25% in trauma-informed facilities such as the Missouri Model (from 54% to 29%; p = 0.003; n = 214) [35], while behavioural incidents decreased by 41% at Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo in New Zealand (from 12.3 to 7.2 incidents/month; p < 0.001; n = 87) [36]. At the Yakama Nation Centre in the USA, program participation increased by 65% (120 → 198 participants/year, 2015–2018) and self-reported cultural responsiveness rose from 22% to 89% (p < 0.001), alongside qualitative evidence of strengthened identity and belonging [13].

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that well-designed environments—including small-unit layouts, biophilic features, sensory-calming spaces, and culturally sovereign design—are consistently associated with improvements in psychological and behavioural outcomes. Reductions in mental health symptoms typically fall within the small-to-medium effect size range, while behavioural and cultural outcomes show considerable practical improvements in context. Importantly, all outcomes are reported with methodological transparency, including sample sizes, timeframes, and baselines, and are interpreted as correlational rather than causal, consistent with best practice in correctional research. These patterns align with established frameworks in environmental and clinical psychology, including trauma-informed care models, Ulrich’s Stress Reduction Theory, and Attention Restoration Theory [2,12,18,19,35,36,37].

4.3. Environmental Sustainability and Staff Outcomes

From a sustainability perspective, over 70% of the facilities (11 out of 15) demonstrated improvements in energy and resource efficiency. These included Halden Prison’s 62% energy savings [12], a 30% reduction in utility costs at the Ashfield Centre in the UK [28], and a 45% reduction in energy consumption at the Hamburg Centre, which adopted passive house design standards [29]. Green-certified buildings have been shown to improve cognitive function and air quality [19].

Architecture also contributes to staff well-being and workforce retention. The Missouri Model reported a 45% decrease in staff turnover, attributed to decentralised layouts and the presence of trauma-informed therapeutic rooms [35]. At the Parkville Centre in Australia, a 20% decline in staff absenteeism was observed, linked to the incorporation of culturally safe spaces and healing gardens [12]. Table 2 (which already includes energy performance metrics), but avoid repeating all content from earlier if it is already discussed above. Environmental improvements were not only cost-effective but also supported psychosocial healing, aligning spatial efficiency with well-being.

4.4. Cultural Identity and Community Participation

Enhanced cultural identity and community integration emerged as a critical dimension of trauma-informed and healing-centred correctional facilities. As shown in

Table 5. Cultural and community outcomes in trauma-informed youth facilities. Indigenous co-designed facilities were associated with higher cultural program engagement (directionally consistent, e.g., 22% → 89% at Te Puna Wai; n/timeframe) [13,14,15]. Staff retention improved in healing-centred environments (e.g., 55% → 80% at Halden) [12,38] where calculable, two-sided 95% CIs are shown; otherwise, NR.

Metric	Improvement	Baseline → Follow-up	Statistical Note	Key Case Study
Indigenous youth—culturally responsive engagement	Higher engagement (directionally consistent)	22% → 89% (Δ +67 pp; ≈4.0×)	p < 0.001; 95% CI = NR; n/timeframe (Table 2)	Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (NZ) [36]
Community programme participation	↑ 65%	120 → 198 participants/year (Δ +78; +65%)	p = 0.004; 95% CI = NR; n/timeframe (Table 2)	Yakama Nation Centre (USA) [13]
Staff retention rates	↑ 45%	55% → 80% (Δ +25 pp; +45%)	p = 0.01; 95% CI = NR; n/timeframe (Table 2)	Halden Prison (Norway) [12]

Note: Results reflect associations within broader justice ecosystems (staffing, programmes, post-release supports)—precision & transparency. Where inputs permit, estimates would be shown with two-sided 95% CIs; most entries are NR due to missing denominators/variance in sources; detailed n, timeframe, and baseline are documented in (Table 2)—Indigenous outcomes. Percentages for Indigenous/cultural engagement are illustrative; primary evidence is qualitative (community-authored evaluations and youth testimonies) in line with cultural sovereignty and narrative integrity. No cross-facility pooling is allowed unless windows and baselines are comparable.

, Outcomes across Indigenous-led and community-partnered facilities consistently demonstrated substantial improvements in participation, identity, and staff cohesion. At Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (New Zealand), for example, institutional evaluations reported a 78% increase in cultural responsiveness, with young people strengthening their sense of whakapapa (genealogy) and belonging through Māori-led rituals, art, and architecture [36]. Similarly, at the Kawerau Residence (New Zealand), participation in cultural workshops increased by 60%, reflecting the effectiveness of Indigenous spatial frameworks in promoting community engagement [36]. While some program reports cited cultural identity gains as high as 70–80%, these figures are presented here as illustrative rather than definitive measures, since Indigenous outcomes are best understood through relational and narrative indicators rather than quantitative proxies.

Community-based interventions also showed measurable benefits. At the Yakama Nation Centre (USA), annual program participation increased by 65%, rising from 120 to 198 participants (2015–2018), accompanied by youth testimonies describing stronger identity and belonging [13]. These results suggest that fostering community participation and shared responsibility can significantly increase program uptake.

Staff-related outcomes further highlight the institutional benefits of culturally responsive environments. At Halden Prison (Norway), staff retention increased from 55% to 80% (+45%), linked to healing-centred layouts and the integration of culturally safe, small-unit environments [12]. This indicates that environments designed to respect both staff and residents’ cultural and psychosocial needs can foster greater workforce stability and organisational resilience.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that culturally grounded interventions are associated with deeper healing processes—reinforcing cultural memory, narrative belonging, and communal cohesion—while also coinciding with greater workforce stability, creating institutions that are both therapeutic and resilient. Across comparable cases, co-designed facilities show markedly higher engagement in cultural programs (e.g., 22% → 89% at Te Puna Wai; n/n/timeframe Table 2), with source reports often noting statistical significance; however, given heterogeneous denominators and reporting windows, estimates are treated as indicative and 95% CIs are NR [13,14,15]. These associations support the view that embedding cultural relevance and community participation within correctional architecture advances rehabilitation while upholding dignity, identity, and social reintegration.

4.5. Synthesis of Cross-Facility Improvements

The synthesis of 15 international facilities highlights directionally consistent improvements across key rehabilitative domains, even though reporting windows and baselines varied and could not be pooled.

Table 6. Empirical Validation: Average Improvements.

Domain	Representative Case	Baseline → Follow-Up	Statistical Note	Interpretation Anchor
Recidivism	Missouri Model (USA) [35]	45% → 13% (5-year rate)	Source: p = 0.002; 95% CI NR	Small-unit, therapeutic milieu is associated with lower reoffending
Behavioural incidents	Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo (NZ) [36]	120 → 71 incidents per 100 resident-days (36 months)	Source: p < 0.001; 95% CI NR	Indigenous design + mentoring is associated with fewer incidents
Cultural engagement	Yakama Nation Centre (USA) [13]	120 → 198/year	Source stats indicative; 95% CI NR	Co-designed cultural spaces associated with higher participation

Note: This synthesis summarises associations observed across 15 facilities without pooling across heterogeneous reporting windows or baselines. Representative cases illustrate the pattern; statistical values from source reports are reproduced for completeness, while precision is limited (95% CIs often NR).

presents representative cases that illustrate these patterns, three representative cases were selected based on methodological transparency, data completeness, and design diversity.

In the United States, the Missouri Model demonstrated a marked reduction in recidivism, with five-year reoffending rates declining from 45% to 13% (p = 0.002; 95% CI not reported) [35]. This outcome is closely linked to its small-unit, therapeutic environment, emphasising family involvement and relational safety.

At Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo in New Zealand, behavioural incidents decreased from 120 to 71 per 100 resident-days over 36 months (p < 0.001; 95% CI not reported) [36]. The trauma-informed redesign integrates Māori cultural features such as wharenui and gardens, alongside community mentoring, which together support both statistical reductions and qualitative accounts of enhanced belonging.

Finally, the Yakama Nation Centre in the United States reported increased cultural programme participation, rising from 120 to 198 youth per year (+65%). While confidence intervals were not available, community-led evaluations emphasise how co-designed cultural and spiritual spaces foster engagement and continuity in rehabilitative activities [13].

These cases illustrate how trauma-informed and healing-centred architecture is consistently associated with lower reoffending, fewer behavioural incidents, and stronger cultural engagement. Although causality cannot be inferred, the convergence of evidence across diverse jurisdictions reinforces the interpretation that correctional environments actively shape youth outcomes.

4.6. Theoretical Alignments

The findings of this study can be interpreted through several established theoretical frameworks. Ulrich’s Stress Reduction Theory (1984) suggests that access to natural light and greenery reduces stress levels; in this study, such features were associated with a 21% reduction in cortisol (p = 0.002) [2]. Similarly, Werner’s Environmental Psychology of Control (2020) highlights how spatial configurations influence perceived autonomy; decentralised layouts in youth facilities were found to lower institutional helplessness (p = 0.01) [1]. Finally, Bloom’s Sanctuary Model [38] emphasises the role of safe and trauma-informed environments, which aligned with this study’s observation of a 37% reduction in PTSD symptoms (p = 0.003) [38].

Collectively, these theoretical perspectives provide explanatory support for the statistical associations observed, reinforcing the link between architectural design and rehabilitative outcomes.

5. Discussion

This study demonstrates that Architecture functions as an enabling condition within broader rehabilitative ecosystems, interacting with staffing, program quality, and socio-political context rather than operating as a singular causal driver. Across international case studies, trauma-informed and healing-centred environments consistently outperformed traditional models, showing reductions in recidivism, behavioural incidents, and psychological distress, alongside gains in cultural identity and community engagement. These findings reflect longstanding insights from environmental psychology that space influences behaviour, cognition, and social interaction [2,12,35]. The consistent convergence of outcomes across culturally diverse jurisdictions suggests that design principles such as decentralisation, biophilic integration, and culturally sovereign frameworks carry universal rehabilitative relevance, even while their application must remain context-sensitive [13,36]. It is important to note that while effect sizes and confidence intervals were reported wherever possible, several facilities (e.g., Lancaster, Victoria) provided only descriptive outcomes. These cases are presented transparently, as noted, with NR (Not Reported) markers used in tables. Such variation underscores the need for more standardised evaluation frameworks in future primary research.

The heterogeneity of reporting standards across facilities presents a limitation for cross-case comparison. Recidivism, for instance, was measured over 3-year or 5-year intervals depending on the jurisdiction, and sample sizes were not consistently reported. By presenting available sample sizes, timeframes, and baseline definitions in Table 2, we aim to provide transparency while recognising that future research must establish harmonised reporting standards.

One of the most striking results is the association between decentralised layouts and lower recidivism. Facilities with small-unit designs (≤10 beds) demonstrated approximately 45% lower reoffending rates compared to large institutions [12,35], highlighting how spatial intimacy, privacy, and agency reduce institutionalisation. The Missouri Model reported recidivism reductions from 56% to 38% (p = 0.002) [35], while Halden Youth Prison achieved a 0% reoffending rate among program graduates over five years [12]. Although the latter reflects a small sample and should be interpreted cautiously, these findings collectively illustrate how architectural and programmatic interventions can interrupt reoffending trajectories by reinforcing vocational skills, fostering relationships, and supporting self-efficacy. It is crucial to interpret architecture as an enabling condition rather than a singular causal driver; outcomes are embedded within justice ecosystems shaped by staff practices, therapeutic programming, and post-release support [25,36].

Evidence also underscores the role of design in mitigating trauma and promoting well-being. Facilities that introduced biophilic features, sensory rooms, or trauma-responsive layouts reported measurable improvements. At Bonython Centre (Australia), depressive symptoms decreased by 37% within six months (PHQ-9, d = 0.53) [37]. Similarly, PTSD prevalence at the Missouri Model declined by 25% (from 54% to 29%) [35], and behavioural incidents at Te Puna Wai ō Tuhinapo fell by 41% [36]. These outcomes are consistent with Attention Restoration Theory [18] and trauma-informed care frameworks [38], both of which highlight how restorative, calming spaces regulate affect and reduce stress reactivity. Importantly, these mental health gains are moderate in statistical effect size but substantial in practical terms, as they underpin reductions in violence, self-harm, and disengagement [19,35,36,37].

The results can be interpreted through several theoretical lenses. Ulrich’s Stress Reduction Theory [2] explains why natural views and greenery reduce physiological stress; Werner’s Environmental Psychology of Control [1] supports the observed benefits of decentralised layouts in enhancing autonomy; and Bloom’s Sanctuary Model [38] aligns with reductions in PTSD symptoms observed in trauma-informed environments. These frameworks reinforce that architecture contributes to rehabilitation by mediating psychological safety, agency, and cultural meaning. At a policy level, the findings provide a blueprint for aligning justice reform with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDGs 3, 10, 11, and 16 [12,25,36]. Embedding design innovation into correctional policy thus has potential not only to improve outcomes for young people but also to advance broader societal commitments to equity and sustainability.

Indigenous- and community-led interventions proved particularly effective in strengthening cultural belonging and program engagement. At Kawerau Residence (New Zealand), communal kitchens and Māori carvings were associated with a 55% reduction in conflict and 60% participation in cultural workshops [36]. The Yakama Nation Centre (USA) reported a 65% increase in participation, with youth testimonies emphasising identity reconstruction and social belonging [13]. These findings highlight that cultural sovereignty is not an “add-on” but a central pathway to healing. Furthermore, staff outcomes also improved: at Halden [12] and Parkville [12], culturally safe spaces coincided with higher staff retention and lower absenteeism, suggesting that these environments foster resilience not only for residents but also for the workforce.

Environmental performance emerged as a consistent secondary outcome, linking ecological sustainability to psychosocial rehabilitation. Facilities such as Hamburg Youth Centre achieved a 45% reduction in energy consumption through passive house standards [29], while Ashfield Centre (UK) reported a 30% cost reduction after integrating biophilic and energy-efficient features [28]. These improvements not only align with SDG targets (7, 11, 13) but also reinforce psychosocial well-being, as sustainable environments provide healthier air quality, natural light, and cognitive benefits [19]. The convergence of cost-effectiveness, environmental responsibility, and therapeutic value suggests that sustainability and rehabilitation are mutually reinforcing goals rather than competing priorities [12,29].

Taken together, these results provide strong evidence that trauma-informed and healing-centred architecture plays an enabling role in rehabilitation. While architecture alone cannot dismantle structural inequalities or guarantee reintegration, it functions as a critical determinant within justice ecosystems. Facilities that embed small-unit layouts, biophilic and sensory features, and culturally sovereign frameworks consistently demonstrate lower recidivism, improved mental health, enhanced cultural participation, and measurable sustainability gains [12,25,29,35,36,37]. The convergence of empirical results, theoretical insights, and policy alignments supports the recognition of architecture as a cornerstone of youth justice reform. By shifting from punitive infrastructures to supportive ecosystems of care, correctional facilities can uphold dignity, foster identity reconstruction, and create meaningful pathways to social reintegration [13,36,38].

On the other hand, establishing trauma-informed and healing-centred architecture as a global standard requires explicit recognition and systematic accommodation of the wide variation in institutional, socio-economic, and cultural conditions across regions. A context-sensitive policy framework must therefore differentiate between two levels: (1) minimum universal principles—including safety, transparency, cultural dignity, and access to natural light—that represent the non-negotiable baseline of humane design; and (2) scalable contextual adaptations, which may range from advanced biophilic technologies, renewable energy systems, or specialised therapeutic spaces in resource-rich settings, to low-cost yet effective measures such as natural ventilation, shaded outdoor courtyards, and community co-design in resource-constrained environments.

Equally important is participatory governance: standards should be co-developed with local stakeholders—including Indigenous communities, NGOs, and government agencies—to ensure cultural responsiveness and political legitimacy. In this way, global frameworks operate as guiding principles rather than rigid prescriptions, enabling flexibility to align with diverse justice systems and economic realities. Such a tiered and scalable model strengthens both the practicality and credibility of trauma-informed design, ensuring that the pursuit of a global standard remains not only aspirational but also achievable across contexts.

6. Conclusions

In response to the original research question—how a trauma-informed, healing architecture design approach in young people-oriented correctional facilities influences rehabilitation and community reintegration—This study examined how a trauma-informed, healing-centred, and culturally anchored architectural approach in young people’s correctional facilities influences rehabilitation and community reintegration. Across diverse jurisdictions, such environments are consistently associated with safer, more supportive conditions that foster rehabilitation and reintegration. These patterns are interpreted as associations rather than direct causal effects: architecture operates as core enabling infrastructure within broader ecosystems of staffing, programme quality, justice philosophy, funding, and aftercare.

This comparative synthesis demonstrates that trauma-informed and healing-centred architectural strategies can play a pivotal role in transforming youth correctional facilities into environments that promote rehabilitation, resilience, and reintegration. The evidence across fifteen international case studies shows consistent associations between architectural interventions—such as decentralised living units, biophilic and sensory design features, and culturally sovereign frameworks—and measurable improvements in recidivism, mental health, staff outcomes, and cultural participation. These findings reinforce the proposition that architecture is not merely a passive container but an active determinant of psychosocial and institutional outcomes.

This study extends existing theoretical contributions by integrating trauma-informed design, healing-centred design, and Indigenous spatial sovereignty within a sustainability-oriented architectural lens. While prior studies have applied frameworks such as Stress Reduction Theory or the Sanctuary Model to correctional environments, these have generally remained discipline-specific. The comparative analysis presented here demonstrates that rehabilitation outcomes are most strongly associated with environments that simultaneously address psychological safety, cultural identity, ecological sustainability, and social inclusion. By aligning architectural strategies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this paper advances a novel conceptual contribution: the Trauma-Informed Healing Architecture (TIHA) framework. This framework positions architecture as an active determinant of justice outcomes, expanding criminological and psychological theories by foregrounding the built environment as a co-therapeutic agent. The TIHA framework thus provides a new theoretical model for examining how spatial, cultural, and ecological interventions converge to shape long-term rehabilitation and reintegration.

Practical implications are clear: decentralised small-unit layouts reduce institutionalisation and reoffending; biophilic and sensory design features mitigate trauma and improve mental health; and Indigenous-led, culturally responsive environments strengthen identity and belonging. Moreover, environmentally sustainable strategies, such as renewable energy and passive design, reduce operational costs while enhancing air quality and cognitive outcomes. Collectively, these findings provide policymakers, architects, and correctional administrators with a blueprint for designing institutions that are therapeutic, sustainable, and socially just.

Despite consistent patterns, limitations must be acknowledged. Several facilities reported descriptive data without effect sizes or confidence intervals, while sample sizes varied widely. Indigenous outcomes, though compelling, are often best captured through qualitative testimony rather than quantitative proxies, raising challenges for comparison [13,36]. Moreover, long-term outcomes beyond immediate post-release reintegration are underreported.

Future research should prioritise mixed-methods designs, combining validated psychological measures with community-authored testimonies, and longitudinal tracking of life-course trajectories [14,15,41]. Such approaches would generate more robust evidence on the sustained impact of architectural interventions.

In conclusion, the study affirms that the built environment can serve as an enabling condition for rehabilitation in youth correctional contexts. By embedding trauma-informed and healing-centred principles into spatial design, facilities can shift away from punitive legacies toward ecosystems of care that uphold dignity, empower young people, and foster pathways to successful reintegration. Recognising architecture as a cornerstone of youth justice reform offers a practical, evidence-informed route for aligning institutional practice with international policy commitments to health, equity, sustainability, and peace.