Rethinking the Prison Environment

An increasing number of American correctional policymakers, practitioners and advocates have looked abroad to transform their systems. Given the paradoxical coexistence of relatively low imprisonment rates, humane prison conditions and low recidivism rates, the Scandinavian countries have been a particular source of inspiration. Can Scandinavia offer a realistic and achievable alternative to the failing American model? Or are the differences in culture, governance and financing so different that the approach is a pipe dream in the U.S. context? 

Barriers to export-import to the U.S. 

There are myriad, fundamental differences between the Scandinavian countries and the United States — even beyond those related to their prison systems. These differences encompass factors ranging from geographic size and demographics to culture and social cohesion — factors that may be both directly or indirectly intertwined with the premises and practices of crime control and punishment. 

At the same time, previous and ongoing efforts suggest that there are ample opportunities for bilateral learning and growth within international comparisons — especially if the goal is to identify principles, policies and practices that can be “transplanted” rather than “exported” into a new, local context. This exercise is particularly fruitful when the goal is to either challenge fundamental philosophies about the purpose of punishment or to identify concrete policies that have relevance in another setting. Although logistical and ideological hurdles abound, programs across the U.S. have shown that prison climate reform centered on aspects of humanity and normality, although complicated, are increasingly viable policies that need not undermine security and may, in turn, be effective in reducing recidivism.

Scandinavian Prison Project as a case study 

The Scandinavian Prison Project (SPP) is an ongoing research and reform project that focuses on Scandinavia-inspired prison reform in Pennsylvania. This effort is based on partnerships between the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the prison services in Sweden (Kriminalvården) and Norway (Kriminalomsorgen). 

Broadly speaking, the Scandinavian correctional systems emphasize rehabilitation and reentry to a greater extent than the more retribution and deterrence-focused approach that is typically taken in the United States. Sentences are shorter, living standards are typically higher, and efforts to assess individual-level criminogenic needs and prepare for release permeate the time people spend in prison. Importantly, correction officers are seen as instrumental in pursuing the goals of rehabilitation and reentry, in addition to security, and officers receive extensive training that enables them to undertake tasks and responsibilities that are stereotypical of both guards and social workers. In Norway, the direct involvement of staff is visible in the “contact officer” model, in which each officer serves as the main official connection and resource person for a small group of incarcerated people. 

During the first phase of the Scandinavian Prison Project (2018-2022), correction officers and leaders from Pennsylvania visited and, importantly, worked in Scandinavian prisons before returning home. The officers took the lead in proposing the nature of a new unit at the State Correctional Institution (SCI) Chester, located just outside of Philadelphia. The unit, which was named “Little Scandinavia,” opened in May of 2022 and has undergone both structural and cultural changes. Physical changes to the unit, developed and proposed by the frontline officers after working in the Scandinavian prisons, include single cells with specially built furniture, a full commercial kitchen (which is supported by a grocery program where residents can order fresh food from an outside supermarket), live plants and fish, sound-dampening infrastructure, a dedicated laundry space and common areas, with Nordic-style furniture, intended to facilitate conversation.

Less visibly, but essentially, there has been a substantial increase in the maximum ratio of staff-to-incarcerated people (roughly from 1-to-128 to 3-to-64). This has allowed for a focus on increased and innovative staff training in Sweden and Pennsylvania, and the development of revised unit policies, including fraternization (how staff and residents are permitted to interact), daily scheduling and the adapted version of the “contact officer” role.

The second phase of SPP, currently ongoing, concentrates on evaluating the unit. Leveraging a research design where incarcerated people are selected to move to the unit based on a lottery process, we, as researchers, are trying to understand whether there is a causal connection between the new unit and prison climate, misconduct and isolation. In the longer term, the project seeks to understand whether the unit affects the success of community reintegration and reductions in recidivism. The project staff returns to Sweden regularly for bilateral trainings to ensure fidelity to the Scandinavian model, especially as the project continues to evolve. 

Centering prison climate

Understanding and improving the prison context, for the people who both live and work there, lies at the conceptual heart of the project. Within this broad agenda lie two key domains: first, the nature of the built environment, and second, the relationships between and within groups of correction staff and incarcerated people. Though the former is more apparent when walking into the unit, the latter is paramount in sustaining meaningful engagement and change. 

The revised role of the staff, inspired by the “contact officers” in Scandinavia, is less observable but perhaps even more fundamental. Facilitated by the decreased ratio of residents on the unit, each officer receives specialized training, both in Pennsylvania and abroad, and is responsible for being the primary resource for a small group of residents. Additionally, the officers propose and lead the development of new, on-unit programming and activities. The interaction between people and place is exemplified when officers and residents sit down at a computer to place a grocery order after planning out a menu and a budget — and may even work together to cook the resulting meal. 

Preliminary results from the research project show that residents perceive the prison climate in Little Scandinavia to be calmer and less unfair. Importantly, the rates of serious, adjudicated misconduct are meaningfully lower when the unit is compared to other general population housing units at the facility. Conflict and violence are also exceedingly rare. Given the lottery process that was used to select residents for the unit, these differences cannot be attributed to preexisting differences between the groups when it comes to, for instance, criminal history, motivation or previous good behavior. In qualitative interviews, the residents stress the value of privacy and agency that comes with having their own cell, and both residents and staff emphasize that the more active and engaged forms of communication between the two groups contribute positively to the prison environment. Staff, in speaking about the project, also acknowledge the impact that the unit climate has had on their perceived well-being. 

Considering policy implications 

The Scandinavian Prison Project is an ongoing effort, but important lessons can still be gleaned from the development and implementation phases for those who are interested in pursuing small- or large-scale policy reforms for prisons and jails. 

First, SPP is — along with other ongoing reform efforts — a concrete proof of concept that climate reform efforts are viable. Scandinavian ideals can indeed be adapted to fit the American prison environment, and preliminary results from both this and other projects suggest they can be put into practice without sacrificing the security and structure that characterize many prisons. 

Second, an improved prison climate can be both a means to an end and a goal in itself. While reducing recidivism and promoting successful reentry remain key goals, the prison environment is, in itself, an important piece of the carceral puzzle that directly and indirectly impacts the people who work and live there. Recent research has provided quantifiable insight into the nature of a prison’s environment, connecting this to both in-prison outcomes such as misconduct and staff perceptions of safety, as well as post-release outcomes such as recidivism. 

Third, prison reform that emphasizes both the built and social environment could hold the key to solving the challenges of low recruitment and retention rates of officers currently observed in American corrections. Prison work is dangerous relative to most occupations, and correction officers in the United States disproportionately experience both physical and mental health challenges. The experiences of incarcerated people and those working in prison are intrinsically linked — reforms that target one group will inevitably affect the other. 

Fourth, the successful development and implementation of the Little Scandinavia unit is a testament to the potential held in starting small and developing reforms working from the bottom up. Rather than starting with system- or facility-level change developed and implemented by management, the smaller pilot has uniquely enabled the involved staff to develop, adapt and refine their approaches over time — and take ownership of their work. “Transplanted” ideas from the Scandinavian exchanges have been given ample opportunity to grow (and sometimes wither away), and the fact that the reform has been developed by the officers uniquely equips them to find new solutions when challenges inevitably arise. An invested leadership is, of course, also needed to overcome limitations, guide ideas and secure the needed resources and support. 

Finally, the lifespan of the project has demonstrated that good intentions and a belief in change are not enough and that reform needs to be accompanied by rigorous and independent evaluations of the effects on staff and incarcerated people. Scandinavian-style humanity can serve as an inspiration, but local data are needed to support sustained and evidence-based reforms — and to answer questions from both supporters and critics alike. The value of the randomized experiment cannot be exaggerated; randomized controlled trials are increasingly seen as the “gold standard” for evidence-based policy. In SPP, a lottery design provides an opportunity for causal research and supports fairness and equity, unlike a more conventional process allocating privileges by background or preferences. Thus, this project rests on a solid, mutually beneficial, foundational collaboration between practitioners and researchers.

Conclusion 

Little Scandinavia is distinct from every other prison housing unit in Pennsylvania, with preliminary data suggesting a range of positive impacts on staff and incarcerated people. Perhaps as importantly, it serves as a “sandbox,” allowing for the identification and development of ways to find humanity in the often challenging prison environment. It concretely demonstrates that implementing Scandinavian-style reforms in an American context does not guarantee a devolution into chaos and can be an opportunity for meaningful change.