Inmates’ perceptions and experiences of how they were prepared for release from a Norwegian open prison

ABSTRACT

Re-entry to society is challenging and inmates often feel unprepared for release. Insufficient human and social capital makes it difficult to cope with the challenges of everyday life outside prison. In Norway the aim of prisoner rehabilitation is to counteract new criminal acts, and make it possible for the convicted person to change his or her criminal patterns. This qualitative study aimed to explore and describe inmates’ perceptions and experiences of how they were prepared for release from a Norwegian open prison. Three focus group interviews with inmates were conducted. A thematic content analysis of the data resulted in three categories: 1) life outside, 2) working as a community and 3) useful learning for the future. Our findings indicate that inmates were prepared in several ways to return to the society. One aspect was the social climate where inmates were treated with humanity by staff. Inmates received training in local democracy, and developed hope for the future, self-reliance and personal agency, which strengthened their process of preparing for release. Inhibiting factors seemed to be an emotional vulnerability, inadequate preparation for modern working life and poorly planned release preparation. This study indicates the importance of maintaining open prisons with humanistic values.

KEYWORDS:

• Open prison
• release
• experience-based knowledge
• incarceration
• inmates

Introduction

This is a qualitative study aiming to explore and describe inmates’ perceptions and experiences of how they were prepared for release from a Norwegian open prison. In 2019 several open prisons were closed down (Kriminalomsorgen, 2019). Many prisoners feel unprepared for release, emotionally, practically and financially (Revold, 2015; Woodall et al., 2013). Insufficient human and social capital makes it difficult to cope with the challenges of everyday life outside prison. Poor social support is often a major barrier to successful re-entry into society (Connolly & Granfield, 2017; Denney et al., 2014). The task of the Correctional Service in Norway is to ensure that the sentence is executed in a way that takes into account the purpose of the punishment, which counteracts new criminal acts, which is reassuring for society and which within these frameworks ensures the prisoners satisfactory conditions (Government White Paper No. 37, 2007–2008). The Correctional Service shall also facilitate co-operation with other agencies, and make it possible for the convicted person to make an effort to change his or her criminal pattern. The Correctional Service holds the purpose and potential to support inmates’ desistance processes and post-release integration. In line with Maguire and Raynor (2017), we would claim that the process of rehabilitation encompasses the entire sentence and that it continues after release.

Ward and Brown’s model of offender rehabilitation, the Good Lives Model (GLM), postulates that rehabilitation should be centred on promoting human goods (Ward & Brown, 2004). GLM scholars argue that promoting human goods, which includes helping offenders to acquire knowledge and skills to enjoy a better life, will motivate offenders to achieve desistance. Nee and Vernham (2017) highlight the GLM model in rehabilitation, focusing on identifying and stimulating inmates’ strengths and human agency by building capabilities to encourage the desistance process. They stress the importance of ‘protective factors’ in rehabilitation in line with Day (2020), who advocates a broad psychosocial approach rather than highlighting risk factors at the individual level. McNeill and Schinkel (2016) criticize rehabilitation interventions and programmes with a focus on individual change. They claim that such rehabilitation interventions have led to the neglect of more social aspects of rehabilitation. In line with this, Schalast et al. (2008) draw attention to three aspects of correctional settings that they claim have rehabilitative potential: (a) perceived inmate safety, (b) support provided by correctional staff and inmates, and (c) the inmate’s perception of the prison climate as conducive to therapeutic change. They describe a positive prison climate as one that is supportive, safe and favourable for prisoner personal growth and development. Liebling et al. (2012) present four key dimensions of a supportive prison climate: harmony (respect, staff-prisoner relationships, humanity), professionalism (staff professionalism, bureaucratic legitimacy, fairness), security (policing and security), and well-being and development (addressing offending behaviour and preparation for release). Day (2020) also highlights the importance of the prison social climate in rehabilitation, where inmates may develop human, social and psychological capital. Auty and Liebling (2020) explored the relationship between prison social climate and reoffending, and concluded that decent and well-organized prisons increased well-being and personal development and led to better outcomes on release. Prisons with a safe, helpful and well-policed social climate, which treated prisoners with humanity, were described as decent and well organized.

Knowledge of inmates’ desistance processes requires an understanding of their re-entry into society after release (Connolly & Granfield, 2017; Maruna & Mann, 2019). Even if this research on desistance is drawn from community settings, we find these insights relevant to our study in an open prison setting. Maruna (2001) and McNeill and Weaver (2010) argue that desistance can be understood as a series of decisions and actions that gradually move an individual away from committing criminal acts. Learning a new way of living is how a person ‘does desistance’ (Maruna, 2001; McNeill & Weaver, 2010; Seaman & Lynch, 2016). McNeill and Schinkel (2016) understood desistance as a process involving changes to behaviour and identity, efforts to re-establish one’s place in a moral community, and other aspects of human development in a social context. McNeill and Schinkel (2016) and Maruna and Mann (2019) emphasize that desistance is relational, and that interventions need to work on, with and through professional and social relationships. They argue that developing social capital, or networks of reciprocal relationships, is vital in supporting desistance. In prison, the staff-prisoner relationship may stimulate the desistance process and is crucial in constituting a ‘good prison’ (Maguire & Raynor, 2017). Through daily interaction with prisoners, prison staff can either undermine or support their attitudes towards, and engagement with, rehabilitation (Blagden et al., 2016; Järveläinen & Rantanen, 2019; Maguire & Raynor, 2017). Doekhie et al. (2017) reported a strong connection between inmates’ pre-release criminal expectations and post-release criminal behaviour. They identified possible selves, agency, social capital and supervision as underlying mechanisms to explain the results. Van Ginneken (2016) and Vignansky et al. (2018) reported that prisoners who were able to create meaning in imprisonment would formulate future goals, experience hope for a better future, and have greater opportunities for identity change. Hope builds motivation for change, and is seen as a key element to achieve desistance (Liebling et al., 2019; Maruna, 2001; Maruna & Mann, 2019).

The Norwegian penal system: ‘Scandinavian exceptionalism’?

Norwegian prisons aim to support inmates’ rehabilitation and release preparation, to diminish criminal relapse and strengthen the capability of inmates to live law-abiding lives after release. In Government White Paper No. 37, 2007–2008 rehabilitation is described as consisting of three factors: 1) improvement of the prisoner’s living situation, 2) treatment and 3) evidence-based interventions to exert a positive influence. The principle of normality is linked to the idea of rehabilitation and emphasizes that prison life should resemble life outside as closely as possible (Government White Paper No. 37, 2007–2008). Progression towards normality is sought by moving prisoners gradually from high-security prisons to open prisons or units in preparation for release. Norwegian open prisons are characterized as prisons with lower security. In this article, we use the concept ‘open prison’.

Norwegian prisons are often praised for their enhanced social services, material conditions and allegedly humane treatment of prisoners, compared to prisons in most other countries. This approach to incarceration is part of the ‘Scandinavian exceptionalism’ (Pratt & Eriksson, 2014; Shammas, 2018). However, in the past few years, this approach has begun to unravel. According to Shammas (2018), politicians are now enacting legislative changes that raise sentencing levels and introduce harsher penal sanctions. Some major changes have taken place in the Norwegian penal system since 2018. An increasing proportion of shorter sentences are served in the community. In 2018 more than half of the convicted offenders started their sentence outside prison, mainly due to the increasing use of electronic monitoring (Øster & Rokkan, 2018). This has resulted in a declining number of inmates in Norwegian prisons, and inmates serving in prison have longer sentences (Kriminalomsorgen, 2019). In 2019, six open prison units, with a total capacity of 262 inmates, were closed down (Kriminalomsorgen, 2019). The Ombudsman recently pointed out severe concerns about considerable isolation and lack of human contact in Norwegian prisons (Sivilombudsmannen, 2018/19). Despite these changes, some recent research indicates that Norwegian prisons remain relatively exceptional. This is reflected in some Norwegian prisoners’ experiences of safety, autonomy, care, fair and human treatment and relationship to staff, compared to prisoner experiences in England and Wales (Crewe et al., 2020).

Open prisons in Norway are described as characterized by openness and humanism. They are often highlighted as an alternative to other more traditional prison practices (Berger, 2016; Smith & Ugelvik, 2017). The research-based fieldwork of Shammas (2014) on a Norwegian open prison shows that the inmates reported considerable individual responsibility during imprisonment. They also described anxiety and unclear boundaries and were ambivalent towards prison conditions. Open prisons with humanistic practices are found outside Norway and Scandinavia. Examples from the UK are Grendon and Warren Hill, which are described as therapeutic communities with supportive social climates focusing on offender rehabilitation (Bennett & Shuker, 2018; Liebling et al., 2019; Williams & Winship, 2018). There is still a need of research-based knowledge on how inmates in open prisons are prepared for release related to aspects such as having a job, a place to live, financial and social support etc.

The study

Aim

This qualitative study aimed to explore and describe inmates’ perceptions and experiences of how they were prepared for release from Prison Island, a Norwegian open prison. The following research question will be answered: Which aspects of incarceration at Prison Island may enhance or inhibit the inmates’ preparation for release?

The study context

Prison Island is Scandinavia’s largest open prison. The prison is organized as a small community and is located on an island in Norway. The prison community has 80 buildings, which include residential houses, a shop, an information office, health services, government social services, a library, a house for playing music, ferry services, a church, workshops and farm buildings. Inmates in high-security prisons may apply to be transferred to Prison Island. Most Prison Island inmates have committed serious crimes and spent a certain amount of time in a high-security prison. A committee at Prison Island discusses each application individually to decide whether an inmate in another prison can move to Prison Island or not. The committee consists of representatives from the correctional service and other employees. The Prison Island staff are qualified prison officers or especially selected artisans and farmers. The prison operates on the values and practices of human ecology. The inmates are viewed from a resource and strength perspective and not as lacking in resources. The prison runs organic farming, self-sufficient waste management, and focuses on minimizing CO₂ emissions. By taking responsibility for the natural environment, inmates are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves, their actions and their future.

Inmates live in residential houses, with four to eight residents per house. Each residence has its own ‘housefather’, whose responsibility is to organize domestic chores. Each inmate is either studying or placed in a work group. Prisoners in the work groups are required to work or learn a trade while in prison. The work groups have skilled professional staff, called work supervisors. The inmates who study take high school, college or university courses. Some inmates find employment off the island. Each work group is given full responsibility for tasks assigned to it, be it agriculture, woodland conservation, carpentry, food preparation, ferry operation or shopkeeping. Inmates elect representatives to the Island Council and have a say on various aspects of prison life. The use of dialogue meetings allows inmates and employees to discuss relevant topics such as prison values, operation of the prison and sentencing conditions. Prison Island encourages and facilitates social contact with society outside the island, through different forms of leave and visiting arrangements.

Study design

The study had a qualitative and exploratory design, probing for new insights into phenomena and relationships about which there is little previous knowledge (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2015). Three focus group interviews with inmates were conducted. According to Lerdal and Karlsson (2008), this method is suitable to learn about experiences, attitudes and viewpoints in an environment where several persons interact and work together. The strength of focus group interviews is that they provide data on group dynamics and contexts in a way that enables analysis of the topics and statements that people agree and disagree on, while the data also reveal how participants correct, elaborate and nuance each other’s opinions and experiences (Andvig, 2014; Lerdal & Karlsson, 2008). Three work supervisors from Prison Island recruited participants to the study. Inclusion criteria included consenting inmates 18 years and above with adequate language skills to cope with a focus group interview in Norwegian. Twenty-seven men from three different work groups participated in three focus groups. Four of the participants had a non-Norwegian background. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 60 years. At the time of the interviews, the participants had served from a few weeks up to four years at Prison Island. The length of their sentences and the types of offences varied considerably. The composition of the groups was random; inmates were not selected based on age, type of offence or length of sentence. A further reason for choosing focus groups was that a large number of inmates wanted to participate in the study. We wished to include all those interested and show appreciation of their courage and eagerness to share their experiences. The most convenient and time-efficient way to accommodate such a large number of inmates was by using focus groups.

The interviews took place in three different buildings at Prison Island. Two interviews lasted for about 90 minutes, while the third lasted for 60 minutes. A thematic interview guide relating to participants’ subjective experiences with prison life was used. They were asked to talk about their everyday life on the island, focusing on different aspects of their preparation for release. As the interview guide was loosely formulated, we tried to probe different themes relevant to release preparation, elaborating and nuancing the participants’ different statements. The participants provided a broad range of opinions. They were active, engaged and willingly shared their views and experiences with the interviewers. We also obtained data on how participants corrected, elaborated on and nuanced each other’s opinions and experiences. The use of focus group interviews thus provided rich data. The focus groups were quite large, with an average of nine participants in each group. The group dynamics were challenging in the sense that some prisoners talked a great deal, and others rarely at all. We tried to work on the power dynamics in the group by inviting everyone to speak and encouraging different participant experiences to be heard (Borg et al., 2012).

The focus group interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. The transcribed text consisted of 75 pages of textual material. The thematic analysis was based in Braun and Clarke (2006). Through an inductive approach, the analysis process retrieves themes directly from the data material itself. In this context, the themes are seen as a recurring pattern that captures the essentials of the participants’ views and experiences. The themes did not direct the questions in the interview guide. The first and third authors read the transcripts to familiarize themselves with the data, noting initial thoughts, ideas, and emerging themes. Subsequently, the data were coded using the research questions as guidelines. Initial ideas and emerging themes were then condensed, interpreted, labelled, categorized and subsequently compressed into a coherent text and consolidated with the preliminary themes from the first reading. Quotes and descriptions of emerging themes were identified, listed, collated and sorted into 25 tentative meaningful categories. The data were scrutinized several times to compile categories into overarching themes. The preliminary analysis was sent to the participants for an informant check. They were requested to comment on and revise our understanding of the data. Unfortunately, we did not receive any feedback.

Ethical reflections

The study was approved by the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (No. 54167) and by the Regional Director of the Correctional Services. Participants received oral and written information on the study from the director of Prison Island. Emphasis was placed on voluntary participation and the right to withdraw from the study at any time, without citing the reason and without any consequences. Confidential treatment of the data was highlighted, and the results were to be presented anonymously. Written, informed consent was received from all the participants.

Findings

The content analysis resulted in three themes: 1) Life outside, 2) Working as a community and 3) Useful learning for the future.

Life outside

Upon arriving at Prison Island, the inmates experienced benefits and challenges when faced with increased freedom. The experiences of feeling increased freedom were also connected to strong feelings of loss and longing for family, children and friends. Many inmates found making independent decisions an enormous switch from the passivity they experienced in a closed prison. They were not accustomed to make personal choices: ‘You’re not used to thinking on your own, using your head and fixing practical matters yourself’. They had to learn to take the initiative and find solutions in their daily life on the island:

You have to do everything yourself here. You have to call your family and ask ‘would you like to come and visit me?’ You have to book the visiting room. You have to shop for food. You have to manage on your own, in a way. Live as normally as possible with the framework you’re given.

One inmate stated that after a year on Prison Island he could still find himself waiting for someone to unlock a door. The autonomy and leeway experienced at Prison Island were in clear contrast to the authoritarian system normally found in a closed prison. In one group, three participants discussed the rehabilitative aspects of the ‘normal life’ on the island:

A: This is a more normal setting than in the closed unit. Here you have a life that looks like life outside. So when you’re out of here, the transition is not that huge.

B: You feel you’re almost free, but it also gives you a responsibility. Because you have to take care of things yourself and that makes you feel more acknowledged and valued.

C: Well, this is what rehabilitation actually is, right, because you to learn to cope with things here.

A: Yes, here you get a lot of personal responsibility for your own life. That responsibility makes you more ready to function in the community. Here you can enjoy everyday life with normal daily routines, rather like the outside world. Here you can get up, go to work. It helps you sleep well, and live like normal.

Participants found the transition between a closed prison and the openness at Prison Island to be emotionally demanding. In all the focus group interviews, participants brought up the paradox of close proximity to and yet a certain distance from freedom. The prison encouraged them to keep in touch with family and friends, through home leave, visits or phone calls. This supposed proximity to society aroused a variety of emotions. Such emotions were easier to disengage from in a closed facility, but seemed more challenging to deal with at Prison Island. One participant stated:

Now I can get leave and be in touch with family and friends in the usual way. When I go back to the island, that’s when my feelings get going. That’s tough. It makes me not want to be a prisoner ever again. I never had those kinds of feelings in a closed prison.

Another inmate expressed this even more strongly: ‘Being on leave is the worst punishment’. For him it was painful to meet his loved ones at home, only to return to prison life after a short while. To him this was the first recognition of telling himself that he would not go back to prison after finishing his sentence. It was apparent that the deprivation of freedom felt more intense and tough at Prison Island than in a closed facility, as contact with the outside world made it difficult to shut out challenging emotions.

Working as a community

Participants described the island as a micro society: ‘This is a society where all the parts depend on each other to be able to function’. They emphasized that the running of the prison depended upon the work performance of inmates. Inmates had responsibilities for the care of livestock and farming, food management, woodworking and carpentry, shop management and operation of the ferryboat. To some, taking care of animals was a key reason to get up in the morning. Inmates who ferried people to and from the island experienced feeling responsible for others’ lives and health. Those responsible for running the shop ordered goods and were in charge of food logistics.

Recreational activities were another aspect of the community spirit highlighted by inmates. They pointed out that they themselves took the initiative and had responsibility for running recreational activities. This gave them a sense of control and preference regarding a significant aspect of activities at Prison Island:

We’re the ones initiating the activities. We run the football. We run the tennis. We run the music activities. We run the chess matches … We’re responsible for keeping all those activities going.

Several participants stated that they had developed responsibility, learned how to cope with difficulties and master new challenges, and begun to cultivate a community spirit while serving at Prison Island. The development of these values and traits appeared to be closely tied to the compassion that inmates encountered from prison management and employees on the island. Participants in one of the group discussions pointed out that being treated as human beings by staff gave them their humanity back:

A: Their (management’s) view of humanity shows in their behaviour.

B: When officers act as fellow human beings towards us, it’s easier for us to do the same towards them.

C: Yes, after being trampled on in the closed unit, here you meet respect and you become human again. The officers greet you and listen to you. They want the best for you. That view of people is well rooted in the management. They aren’t working against us, but with us.

Several participants pointed out that staff in general were more helpful, caring and personal than they were accustomed to in closed facilities. There were also officers that they described as distant, indifferent and just occupied with ‘ensuring security’. However, they felt they were ‘on an equal footing’ with their work supervisors, who offered them recognition for their work. Participants stated that they reported to and learnt from them in the same way as a ‘foreman’ in industry.

Participants also underlined that there could be a great deal to ‘sort out’ at the home front before release, such as finances, housing and employment. They appreciated receiving assistance from staff in contacting public offices about such matters. One said: ‘Your hatred for society decreases when you get help for things like that’. Another member of his group followed up:

The closed prison is the opposite. Being there destroys your connection to society. It stirs up hatred towards society. Because if the only plant that is watered and nourished is hatred towards community and suspicion, that plant becomes very big when you’re released.

To be working together as a community also included managing to live together. Between four and eight inmates live together in each house, with a kitchen and dining room in common. Participants pointed out that they experienced better domestic harmony with routines for cleanliness and tidiness. One inmate who served as ‘housefather’ for a house emphasized how everyone needed to learn to clean up after themselves: ‘Here we wash our glasses as soon as we’ve used them! That makes a good atmosphere and a good house!’

Participants reported that the majority of inmates were involved in the community and shared responsibility for maintaining the positive island culture. One vital reason for this is that they had all applied to move to Prison Island from another prison. The majority had no desire to return. Participants indicated that the threat of being sent back to a closed prison makes many Prison Island inmates ‘mind their p’s and q’s’. Despite this, some inmates avoided their duties and withdrew from the rest of the community.

We had the impression that some foreign-born inmates with poor Norwegian language skills could be at risk of being excluded from the community and isolating themselves. In one of the groups, there were strong opinions whether that they should be allowed to serve their sentences in Norwegian prisons or not:

A: “I am Norwegian. I am tired of the way foreigners are taken in account in Norwegian prisons. Especially those from Eastern Europe who work as criminals in Norway. Why should they get the same rights and opportunities as us, who wish to return to the Norwegian society?”

B. “Yes, why should they be allowed to be rehabilitated in the same way as the Norwegians? Due to this fact, many Norwegians do not get into the open prisons. They have to return directly to society from a closed prison. I know many employees also react to this fact”.

Conflicts arose between those who made an important contribution to community well-being and those who did not. The ‘stowaways’ irritated the former. However, participants stressed that they avoided violent confrontations. They found it best to resolve conflicts without violence and without involving prison officers. One inmate stated: ‘You learn to tolerate more that you would in a closed prison. You don’t get annoyed so easily.’ They reported that episodes of physical violence very rarely occurred. In such instances, the involved parties were dispatched to a closed prison immediately.

Several participants had participated in discussions in the Island Council and at dialogue meetings. They felt that dialogue meetings encouraged discussions on matters of prison conditions and organization. Participants shared examples of having discussed new ideas on organization, such as opening a grocery on the island. In addition, participants had ideas on improving the organization of Prison Island, regarding cost and work efficiency: ‘It’s necessary to have more jobs to increase productivity and income’. They requested additional realistic work tasks that would prepare them for post-prison employment. They pointed out the difficulty of finding employment in organic agriculture. They also believed that a lack of internet skills was a hindrance in obtaining work in the outside community.

Useful learning for the future

For some participants, serving time at Prison Island allowed them to reflect upon future aspects of their lives. Several of them explained that the detention conditions had given them opportunities to change their life situation, so that they had something to look forward to after release. One of them stated:

In fact, everyone needs a light to look for. Because if you blow out that light, what is there to look for? It’s so important to realize that you’re an individual who can take responsibility - wherever you are.

Some of the inmates went to work or studied outside the prison on a daily basis. Others gained formal qualifications, skills and practical experience through their work on the island, all of which could improve their post-prison employment prospects. Three participants in one of the groups discussed it this way:

A: I do carpentry here on the island, at the same time as I go to school. Eventually, when I finish school, I’m thinking of starting an apprenticeship in the outside community, on temporary release.

B: That’s smart. You have a unique chance to get something that can be useful in the future, by getting formal trade qualifications. That gives you a platform to build on in society afterwards. I’ve had work practice outside prison for two years now. It was important for me to get oriented to reality as soon as possible, and start getting used to the hectic life outside.

C: Even if you don’t have an apprenticeship, I think that because you’re given responsibility to take part in and run things on the island, that means you get used to going back to society in a different way than if you come from a closed prison. When you get out of here, you have a much better chance of succeeding.

Others emphasized how cultivating hobbies and spare time interests strengthened their contact with society. One participant, who was soon to be released, reported that he practised singing in a choir in a nearby neighbourhood while he was serving his sentence:

That choir has been the most important thing for me when I was serving my sentence. I’ve got a job in the municipality now. I’ve been working constantly to prepare for everyday life outside, so that I can face reality outside.

At the same time, some pointed out that the preparations for release were inadequately planned and arranged. They were too arbitrary and too often left to the individual inmate. One participant called for staff to talk with the inmates about their plans in life, where they could reflect on opportunities and challenges after release:

It’s not that easy when you get out. The preparations are too bad, they aren’t planned well enough. The staff should sit down and ask: Who are you? What would your life look like if you were released tomorrow? What opportunities do you have to contribute to society? Then you could have looked at your life, at what was missing, and what the challenges are, and then work on the biggest problem.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore and describe inmates’ perceptions and experiences of how they were prepared for release from Prison Island. The following research question was posed: Which aspects of incarceration at Prison Island may enhance or inhibit the inmates’ preparation for release? We will divide this question into two parts for discussion: 1) Which aspects of incarceration can enhance inmates’ preparation for release? 2) Which aspects of incarceration can inhibit inmates’ preparation for release?

Which aspects of incarceration can enhance inmates’ preparation for release?

One positive aspect of incarceration at Prison Island is the social climate where inmates are treated with humanity. Several authors highlight the rehabilitative aspect of being treated with humanity in prisons (Auty & Liebling, 2020; Bennett & Shuker, 2018; Liebling et al., 2012). To meet humanity through acknowledgement from staff and work supervisors seems to be rehabilitative in itself. Reciprocal relationships with staff seem to strengthen inmates’ feeling of equality, respect and trust (Blagden et al., 2016; Maguire & Raynor, 2017). This may help them strengthen their identity as valuable human beings, rather than viewing themselves as ‘criminals’ or ‘crooks’. It may establish a foundation for positive growth and development (Schalast et al., 2008). Positive attitudes and beliefs about change in prison by staff and prisoners are vital for fostering offender rehabilitation and promoting change in offending behaviour (Blagden et al., 2016). In our study, inmates emphasized receiving practical help with cases concerning their life outside prison. This is in line with Liebling et al. (2012), who found that prisoners highlighted practical support from staff to ‘get things done’. It was important that their requests for assistance were met. McNeill and Whyte (2007) also point out the importance of staff offering practical help, demonstrating concern for the inmates and treating them as ‘people’ to encourage a positive change of behaviour.

In this connection, we wish to highlight the importance of several participants’ statements on their feeling that their hatred towards society had dissolved because of receiving assistance with practical issues. This was in contrast to their experiences from closed prisons, which had often led to increased alienation and hatred of society. Influencing one’s own life by putting in order central aspects of it offered an empowering experience, which may have strengthened self-respect and the experience of personal agency. It may be that as hatred dissipates, inmates become more amiable towards society, which may help them develop a feeling of belonging to society after release, and a desire to develop relationships and roles within it (Rowe et al., 2009).

The prison community at Prison Island can be understood as a training ground for developing capabilities that may be useful after release. This training ground seems in many ways to resemble life outside prison. Ugelvik (2011) points out that a prison life that imitates life outside is an important rehabilitative tool and is in line with the principle of normality.

Our findings show that inmates at Prison Island had the possibility to enhance their knowledge and skills and develop self-reliance relevant to life after release. Having responsibility for several activities and participating in formal education assisted the inmates to develop self-reliance and personal agency. Agency can be understood as ‘feelings of being in control and making your own choices’ (Doekhie et al., 2017, p. 485) and is related to the capacity to govern one’s life. Theories of desistance (e.g. Maruna, 2001) stress the role of offenders’ agency, and highlight the need to promote self-reliance and personal capacity in order to make the choices needed to engender change. In many ways, inmates at Prison Island had responsibility for their own rehabilitation. This responsibility may help them ‘find a source of agency and communion in non-criminal activities’ through which they find meaning and purpose outside of crime (Maruna & Farrall, 2004, p. 27). Bullock and Bunche (2020) point out that ‘empowering’ inmates to take responsibility for their own rehabilitation is in line with the core features of desistance theory and research.

One important aspect of the ‘training ground’ at Prison Island was the relations between inmates and staff and between inmates, where they learnt to collaborate and socialize. Feedback and correction from others enabled the development of social capital and training in conflict management and anger control (Evans et al., 2018). Inmates at Prison Island were given the opportunity to express themselves on topical matters that could influence daily life in the prison community. Prisoners who are given the possibility to suggest ideas for projects and receive institutional support to implement them create an environment that promotes imagination and encourages them to find and follow their own paths (Liebling et al., 2019, p. 118). Discussing a variety of topics gave inmates at Prison Island training in citizenship with rights and duties, as well as practice in participating in local democracy within the framework of the prison (Costelloe, 2014). They also had the possibility to develop resources in new social networks through frequent contact with the outside world, such as the inmate who got a job through his new network of choir singers, and through home leave and visits from family. Developing social capital in networks of reciprocal relationships is crucial for successful re-entry (Bennett & Shuker, 2018; Seaman & Lynch, 2016) and in supporting desistance (McNeill & Schinkel, 2016).

McNeill and Schinkel (2016) highlight the connection between developing a sense of agency and hope. They argue that a prison climate that seeks to identify and mobilize inmates’ personal strengths and self-determination, and encourages their sense of agency, may create hope for the future. This is also in line with Williams and Winship (2018, p. 8), who understand hope as an active and participatory event, rather than as an emotional state. In this perspective, the Prison Island training ground could be understood as a hope-enhancing setting where inmates participate in rehabilitative activities.

Several participants in our study conveyed a belief in the prospect of employment after completing their sentence. They envisioned the opportunity for another type of life following release, which can be understood as hope for the future. Evans et al. (2018) found that inmates receiving education during incarceration believed they would manage to desist from crime upon release, as they hoped education would lead to employment. Hope is linked to a motivation for change and the key element in achieving successful re-entry (Van Ginneken, 2016; Vignansky et al., 2018). The hope of succeeding after prison is closely attached to how inmates actually succeed after the moment of release (Doekhie et al., 2017; Maruna, 2001).

Which aspects of incarceration can inhibit inmates’ preparation for release?

Our findings indicate that several aspects of freedom at Prison Island may make some inmates rather vulnerable emotionally. Some suffered from emotional pain and despondency. Several participants in our study had not worked through difficult emotions and experiences and they seemed to lack support in coping with the paradoxes and tensions connected with the relative freedom at the island. This finding concurs with that of Shammas (2014), who reports that several inmates in an open prison experienced freedom as causing anxiety and found that serving a sentence there was harder than in closed prisons. This vulnerability may increase the feeling of powerlessness and inhibit the feeling of agency and the process of preparing for release (Shammas, 2014). Day (2009) suggests that assisting inmates to regulate their emotions more effectively may have an important role to play in offender rehabilitation. Receiving counselling in prison may strengthen inmates’ sense of personal awareness, help develop cognitive and problem-solving skills and promote the ability to reflect on one’s own choices (Seaman & Lynch, 2016). One example from Prison Island is the father whose longing for his children made him reflect upon a life of crime and the potential to live in a different way. Our impression was that he had not previously spoken to anyone else about these thoughts; they only emerged during the focus group interview. An opportunity to reflect over his new awareness with a councillor or another conversation partner could have been the first step of starting a desistance process (Doekhie et al., 2017). At the same time, many prison officers might be unfamiliar with being close to inmates and practising emotional counselling. For them, it might be contradictory to implement security and punishment together with rehabilitative work (Helgesen, 2018; Smith & Ugelvik, 2017). This finding illustrates that prisoners express a need for an individualized intervention not being emphasized or offered in the open prison estate.

Our study indicates that not all inmates participated in different daily activities on the island; some isolated themselves from the prison community. Engaging in activities seemed to depend on the initiative of the individual inmate. The rehabilitative aspects of Prison Island seem to presuppose inmates’ active participation in the prison community and actively taking responsibility for their own rehabilitation. In this rehabilitation approach, an indirect control mechanism might be embedded where inmates are expected to follow the rules, control themselves and behave as law-abiding persons (Ugelvik, 2011). In our study, the inmates had a continuous threat of being sent back to a closed, high-security prison at any time, if they failed to behave according to the rules. Smith and Ugelvik (2017) state that this threat is often experienced as punitive and illustrates how power is expressed in soft prison regimes. Crewe (2011) also highlights the use of soft power in prisons, exerted directly through staff-prisoner relationships and indirectly through prison policies. Even though the use of soft power at Prison Island may encourage prisoners to regulate their behaviour, engage positively with the regime and accept the responsibility they are given, we cannot ignore the fact that they are in prison against their will. Even though they are encouraged to live as autonomously as possible within the limits of the prison, they are dependent on the regime (Bullock & Bunche, 2020; Crewe, 2011).

Another limiting aspect of the Prison Island community, are the non-Norwegian citizens who seem to be excluded. It could be argued that what Barker (2018, p. 8) calls ‘penal nationalism’ has some support in the prisoner community. According to Barker penal nationalism seeks to preserve precious goods, such as serving in open prisons for those with the right set of citizenship. In this way keeping the welfare state solvent – for members. Another obstacle at Prison Island is that systematic and planned release preparation seems to be inadequate. Although the prison service and partners are obliged to develop joint plans that provide prisoners with individualized help during imprisonment and upon release, the programme often fails (Fridhov & Langelid, 2017). Maguire and Raynor (2017) highlight the importance of planning the sentence and its implementation in collaboration with inmates and involving them in decisions about how best to further their rehabilitation, as suggested by one inmate in our study. Often there is a gap between the prison and the municipal services that are meant to provide follow-up assistance to the ex-prisoner (Andvig & Karlsson, 2020; Fridhov & Langelid, 2017). After leaving prison, released persons may find that their hopes and aspirations for the future result in unmet expectations and lack of support (Doekhie et al., 2017). Our study indicates that there appears to be poor preparation for modern working life. Ferry work, forest tending and ecological agriculture are probably not readily available in today’s job market. Lack of digital skills, as also seen in our findings, may be an important hindrance in applying for jobs and navigating in the world outside (Fridhov & Langelid, 2017; Liebling et al., 2019). Poor digital skills may also make it difficult to establish and maintain contact with public services (Andvig & Karlsson, 2020).

Methodological reflections

One strength of focus groups is the possibility of eliciting different views and experiences, while a weakness is that some participants are brought to silence (Borg et al., 2012). Individual interviews could have provided other kind of data on the explored topic. There are also limitations to the validity of the findings of this study. The sample was small, limited to a specific so-called exceptional prison in a particular location. However, the analyses presented may be relevant to our understanding of other Norwegian open prisons. The work supervisors might have requested participation from inmates with a positive attitude towards serving their sentences at Prison Island, and those with a negative view of the prison may have refused to participate. It might be that participants underreported less desirable aspects of Prison Island or that those with positive attitudes were giving more socially desirable answers and may have felt the need to paint a rosy picture of their prison situation.

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that the practices at Prison Island in several ways seemed to prepare inmates for their return to society. An important enhancing aspect was the prison’s social climate where inmates reported that they were treated with humanity. Reciprocal relationships with staff seemed to strengthen inmates’ feeling of equality, respect and trust. The social climate was also a training ground for developing self-reliance and personal agency. Inmates learnt to collaborate, socialize and develop social capital. Our study also indicates that the prison conditions allowed inmates to take on responsibility and make choices, which afforded them some control over their everyday lives in prison. Training in citizenship and local democracy within the framework of the prison was also important. Encouraging inmates’ sense of agency may create hope for the future. Prison Island can in many ways be seen as a hope-enhancing setting, in line with the understanding of the Norwegian Correctional Service of rehabilitation, release preparation and desistance support.

This study also revealed some inhibiting factors. The emotional vulnerability may increase the feeling of powerlessness and diminish the feeling of agency, thus constraining the process of preparing for release. Inmates were indirectly controlled through soft power relations with staff and through the threat of being sent back to high-security prisons if they did not follow the rules. In this way the prison regime will be experienced as punitive. Systematic and planned release preparation at Prison Island also seemed to be inadequate. The request for collaborative planning, better preparation for modern working life and improved digital skills was highlighted.

This study indicates the importance of maintaining open prisons for inmates coming from high-security prisons and for those who cannot serve sentences with the use of electronic monitoring. It is important for inmates to experience human values and practices during incarceration that variously prepare them for a return to society. Humanistic practices must also encompass a view of inmates as fellow citizens with rights and duties, who receive training in local democracy within the framework of the prison. Our study indicates that open prisons may be of great importance in rehabilitation for life after prison. As inmates in Norwegian prisons today have less access to open prisons, they might experience greater challenges to facilitate a desired return from prison to society. In this perspective, the political aim to diminish criminal relapse and strengthen the capability of inmates to live law-abiding lives after release, may be more difficult to reach.

The prison practices typical of Prison Island were developed in a period of social democracy with a belief in humanism and solidarity (Shammas, 2018). However, the Norwegian welfare state is changing. Different political ideologies now reign and humanistic prison practices are declining. The reduction of state funding for the Norwegian Correctional Services creates challenges in maintaining individualized release preparation. Increased pressure towards greater state control threatens and will continue to threaten the existence of small, autonomous prison facilities such as Prison Island.

Further research should focus on how ex-inmates from Prison Island cope with the transition to society and how the conditions at Prison Island have influenced their life after release and their possible desistance from crime.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.