Time to Make a Shift: Make Inmates Better Neighbors, Not Reoffenders

America has an abrasive approach to prison, with the mindset being it serve as a form of punishment first and foremost, despite appeals to shift to a more rehabilitative course of action. While certain crimes deserve punishment, the truth is a large majority of inmates are in for “petty crimes” such as drug offenses or theft that outside factors largely influence why they even committed the crime in the first place. Factors ranging from unhealthy social lives, lack of community, and substance use, but with outside aid are all fixable situations. While it’s true there are consequences to your actions, shouldn’t we as a society want to help improve the lives of inmates so they can be better in society rather than simply “do their time?” The answer should be yes, which is why the state of California has in place rehabilitation programs to reduce the level of recidivism — the number of inmates that reoffend after release. However, it’s not only programs that need to be in place, but also a shift in culture. How inmates and guards socialize play a huge role in creating healthy environments. The shortcomings of rehabilitation program accessibility impact LA inmates’ future, and current guard and inmate dynamics harmfully impact the chances of inmates willing to change. Therefore, ensuring accessibility to inmates in critical need of the programs and a shift in guard dynamics based European models could mean LA inmates are released with better odds of becoming good neighbors.

The state of California has rehabilitation programs ranging from employment preparation, academic education, and substance abuse treatment. This sounds fantastic, but it is not solely on having them available that will make the program a success. According to the “Legislative Analyst’s Office” of California’s 2017–2018 report, effectiveness is based on three key principles — being modeled after a proven effective program, evaluations for cost-effectiveness, and including a focus on high need inmates. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has its shortcomings as it falls to reach is goal of reducing recidivism, ineffectively uses space within the programs, and the measurement of success is flawed. For example, “In 2015‑16, almost half of inmates were released without receiving rehabilitation programs for which they have an assessed need” (LAO) and in the following year, “In 2015‑16, almost half of inmates were released without receiving rehabilitation programs for which they have an assessed need.” (Ulloa, Jazmine) The repercussions of such shortcomings can be seen in the rate of recidivism which has averaged to about fifty percent for the past decade. In order to combat these shortcomings, the CDRC should have independent research done to measure the current cost-effectiveness of programs, resources required, and improve their criteria of “highest-risk.” By doing so they will have data on how to improve the actual availability of programs. So, we know that a lack of effective programs does nothing to help recidivism, but how do we know that having them will actually help in the long run? We take a look at our European neighbor Norway. America has the highest recidivism rate worldwide at a 76%, Norway offers a stark contrast with the lowest rate of 20% according to the HuffPost, while rehabilitation programs are not the sole reason as to why, they do play a vital role. Instead of being confined every day, Norwegian prisoners are offered educational programs and daily training. For the majority of their day, they are outside their cells, with the goal of maintaining normality for their release and ability to get hired has qualified chefs, mechanics, and carpenters. Although Norway itself has an advantage over the US being able to meet the needs of their inmates as they incarcerate fewer people on average than the US, meaning there are fewer people trying to fill the same open spot, it does not negate the fact that having these programs are a contributing factor to preparing inmates to be better than when they arrived.

While the rehabilitation programs are a big aspect in preparing inmates to leave with more skillsets and opportunities, Norway doesn’t just have rehabilitation programs, they’ve also changed what a prison guard role means, and it’s called “dynamic security.” Instead of title of “prison guard,” their title is of “prison officer” the title may not seem to have a big difference at first, but Norway has proved that it does through its philosophy. A philosophy that makes prison officers main goal to keep everyone safe, and that means creating a healthy sociable environment. Let’s first take a look at a “prison guard.” Americans either through TV and Media, or what little they know of the prison system, when called to picture a prison guard, likely would think of a heavily armed officer (typically male) who shouts at inmates and views inmates behind the safety of bared doors, cameras, and clear view mirrors. A typical example being a hit American show called “60 Days in” where ordinary people agree to live a week behind bars to learn what it’s like. Certainly, it portrays what a large portion of Americans’ view prison, and the treatment of inmates. There is distrust, violence, and heavily armed guards ready to bark orders at the inmates. And while it is a TV show and there is some level of dramatization, it does not mean there aren’t instances of this treatment and American prisons at large run as a hierarchy system which can be left to be abused. While some may argue this harsh treatment and attitude is necessary to keep the inmates in line, it begs the question of “why?” when Norway has changed it meaning of a guard and seems to be better off for it. In Norway, the title is different, not because of a language barrier or mistranslation, but because the values and practices itself are different. Their shift from “guards” to “prison officers” stems from their main goal of both having the sentences served and making the inmates a better person. They are not only encouraged to speak with the inmates and have a relationship with them, but more so demanded. Their smaller prison population also means it’s easier for their inmates to have an assigned officer be a “point of contact” for any complaints they may have and assist them. Additionally, their education to become a prison officer is different as well. In America, specifically California, their title has shifted over the year to that of title correctional officer, and while their efforts towards rehabilitation and shifting of prison culture may be more progressive than other states in the US, it still falls short to their Norwegian counterparts. To become a Correctional Officer in the California Department of Corrections, basic training only lasts 13 weeks in order to prepare for a lifelong career. It’s a stark contrast to Norway’s requirements, where it takes full two to three years. During that time Norwegian applicants will learn law, and criminology, but also ethics, reintegration, and social work. They have huge focus on social work and reintegration that is missing both in American prisons at large and down to the training of its employees. While America’s larger population of inmates (due to deeper rooted issues in the prison system) may make a more “personalized” prison sentence difficult, change can start by the training of its officers and implanting a more Norwegian approach of emphasizing social work and close connections. And it is without say that not all inmates may take well to this approach, even Norwegian inmates don’t like to interact at times, but it is better to create an environment where they can feel like it’s rehabilitation first, punishment second, rather than the American focus of punishment first, rehabilitation second in order for them to go back to society better than they came in.

Norway had a complete shift of their view on the prison system during the 1990s with an emphasis on keeping prisons in their “reformed” state rather than what Americans expect a prison to be like, therefore with both a smaller inmate population and a government backing of this shift (future neighbors in their philosophy) it’s easy to see why America’s problems are not the same as Norwegians. At the heart of the Norwegian way of prison is rehabilitation, yes, they still have to serve time for their crimes, but the emphasis is for them to go back to society better than how they came in. From relationship with the officers, treatment of inmates, to the architecture of the prison, everything is designed to improve the lives of inmates. While America has a long way to go to completely accomplish any prison reform, we have to take a long and hard look at how we currently run the prison system because Norway has paved the way to giving inmates a way to be better community members. It’s a good start to improve how effectively the rehabilitation programs run and shifting to “dynamic security”, but ultimately, it’s up to us to choose to follow suite and give our community a chance to change for the better because as Fedrik states, an inmate at Norway’s maximum security Halden Prison shares in a BBC interview, “If you don’t have opportunities and you are just locked in a cage, you don’t become a good citizen.”