Top Architecture Firm Refuses New ICE Detention Designs After Revolt

This article analyzes a dispute at the architecture and engineering firm DLR Group over work tied to immigration detention facilities. It follows the company’s Justice+Civic initiative, worker reactions, and leadership decisions after the firm subcontracted the renovation of CoreCivic’s Diamondback Correctional Facility to become an ICE detention center in Watonga, Oklahoma.

The piece situates the controversy within a broader debate about whether design can reform or sustain a carceral system. It also explores what this means for ethics, governance, and project selection in the AEC industry.

Context: Architecture, Detention Design, and Ethics

Within architecture and engineering, the line between reform-minded design and complicity in a punitive system is increasingly scrutinized. Proponents of humane detention design argue that thoughtful environments can reduce stress, improve safety, and support due process.

Critics counter that any association with private-prison operations or ICE detention projects normalizes incarceration and profits from it. This tension shapes how firms approach Justice+Civic initiatives and influences how stakeholders weigh public ethics against client demands.

The Diamondback Subcontract: What Happened

For three years, DLR Group public relations staff and leadership promoted the idea that humane design could humanize prisons. In October, the firm signed a subcontract to renovate CoreCivic’s Diamondback Correctional Facility into an ICE detention center.

On February 4, employees learned of the contract, triggering immediate outcry and several resignations. Management initially framed the deal as primarily with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections and defended past justice-sector projects as reform-oriented.

Later, CEO Steven McKay announced that DLR would stop taking on future ICE detainment or deportation work but would not cancel existing contracts. The firm pledged to donate an estimated $300,000 in profits from the Oklahoma project to immigration causes.

DLR stopped short of promising an end to all private-prison work. Some employees remained skeptical and demanded more transparency in Justice+Civic project selection.

Employee Response and Governance Demands

The controversy amplified workplace dissent, with resignations signaling discomfort with profiting from detention work. Staff questioned the firm’s ethics policies, internal oversight, and the adequacy of public disclosures about project-selection criteria.

Critics argued that if an architecture and engineering firm profits from private-prison contracts or ICE detention facilities, it undermines the ethical foundations of design practice. Proponents within the firm who supported reform-minded justice work believed that meaningful engagement could improve inequitable systems.

There was a clear demand for greater transparency and governance around Justice+Civic initiatives.

Industry Implications for the AEC Sector

The DLR episode is part of a broader wave of employee activism over corporate ties to immigration enforcement. While activism has been more prominent in tech and hospitality, architecture and engineering firms are now facing scrutiny over public-private partnerships in the carceral space.

The debate centers on whether architecture can improve conditions or must avoid detainment facilities altogether. CoreCivic’s position is that operators focus on care and due process, while critics contend that facility design inherently supports a carceral framework.

For firms, the episode raises questions about risk management and client screening. It also challenges firms to articulate a design philosophy that aligns with evolving public ethics expectations.

Practical Takeaways for Firms

• Establish explicit policies on engagement with private-prison and ICE-related projects to guide decision-making at all levels.
• Increase transparency in project selection, client vetting, and governance mechanisms for Justice+Civic initiatives.
• Engage stakeholders—employees, communities, and subject-matter experts—in shaping design intent and ethical boundaries.
• Document design objectives around humane conditions, safety, and due process to show a commitment beyond profit motives.

The Debate: Can Design Reform Detention or Endorse It?

Proponents argue that architecture can improve conditions, reduce harm, and influence policy through humane environments, training, and advocacy. Critics counter that any design work tied to detention facilities supports a punitive system and normalizes its operation.

This debate will likely shape how AEC firms address ethics, governance, and social responsibility in future strategies.

Conclusion: Charting a Path Forward for Justice-Civic Initiatives

DLR Group’s decision to halt future ICE detainment work signals a shift in governance. Existing contracts remain in place, and profits are directed to immigration causes.

This moment highlights a key challenge for architecture and engineering firms. They must balance the desire to reform systemic inequities with the need to avoid endorsing incarceration.

As firms refine Justice+Civic programs, transparent governance is essential. Engaging stakeholders and establishing a clear ethical framework will help sustain trust and advance responsible design.

 
Here is the source article for this story: Top architecture firm won’t design more ICE prisons after employees revolt