A Pennsylvania prison gets a Scandinavian-style makeover — and shows how the US penal system could become more humane
Synøve Nygaard Andersen, Postdoctoral Fellow in Sociology, University of Oslo;
Jordan Hyatt, Associate Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, Drexel University
Posted:
Updated:
The United States has the largest number of people incarcerated in the world – about 25% of all people imprisoned worldwide are in American prisons and jails.
Overcrowding, violence and long sentences are common in U.S. prisons, often creating a climate of hopelessness for incarcerated people, as well as people who work there.
But reform efforts could also extend to changing the prison environment itself.
We are American and Norwegian criminologists. While trying to better understand our countries’ justice systems, we have spent significant time in correctional facilities across Scandinavia and the U.S. There, we often try to identify overlooked similarities within these very different places – and ways they could learn from each other.
A recent collaboration between correctional services in Pennsylvania and several Scandinavian countries presents an opportunity to test these ideas. One Pennsylvania prison unit we are researching adapts elements from Scandinavian prisons, and offers a window into what drawing from other penal systems might look like in the U.S.
Correctional systems throughout much of Scandinavia are guided by a general set of philosophical principles. In Sweden, these standards emphasize rehabilitation and encourage meaningful change, so incarcerated people can lead a better life.
Adhering to these principles means that, in some cases, incarcerated people can wear their own clothes, work in jobs that prepare them for employment and cook their own meals.
Prisons in Scandinavia are also small, with some housing roughly a dozen people – which is possible, given relatively low incarceration rates in the region.
Many prisons, especially in Norway, are designed in a fundamentally different way than in the U.S. Proximity to nature is often considered, for example. Cells in Norway are also for a single person – not multiple people, as in most cases in the U.S. Norway, perhaps unsurprisingly, has attractedmany international visitors who come to observe their prison system.
Importantly, correctional officers have at least a two-year, university-level education and are directly involved in rehabilitation and planning for the incarcerated person’s re-entry into the world outside of prison. In the U.S., most officers receive just a few weeks of training, and their work focuses mostly on maintaining safety and security.
It is also worth noting that recidivism rates in Scandinavia are low. In Norway, it has been reported that less than half of people released from prison are rearrested after three years. In Pennsylvania, that figure is closer to 70%. The implications for correctional systems are profound.
Norway and the US
There are, of course, other fundamental differences between the Scandinavian countries and the U.S.
In Norway, the longest prison sentence in most cases is 21 years – with most people serving less than a year. In Pennsylvania, life sentences are not uncommon, and many crimes – including nonviolent ones – can results in decades of imprisonment.
Despite this, the two systems may not be completely incompatible, at least not when the goal is to reform the prison environment.
The Scandinavian Prison Project
In State Correctional Institution Chester, known as SCI Chester, a medium-security prison located just outside of Philadelphia, a correctional officer-guided team has worked since 2018 to incorporate Scandinavian penal principles into its own institution. Based on their direct experiences, the correctional officers and facility leaders sought to reconsider what incarceration could look like at SCI Chester. This initiative has uniquely focused on developing a single housing unit within the prison.
In 2019, the group, which also included outside researchers and correctional leaders, spent weeks visiting a range of facilities across Scandinavia, and the officers worked in Norwegian prisons alongside peer mentors.
In March 2020, six men in SCI Chester – each sentenced to life in prison – were selected to participate in the project as mentors. They then moved on to the new housing unit, which had come to be known as “Little Scandinavia.”
In early 2022, the researchers and correctional leaders returned for a follow-up visit to several prisons in Sweden. Though delayed by the pandemic, 29 more residents of SCI Chester were selected from the prison’s general population to join the Scandinavian-inspired housing unit that May.
With single cells, a communal kitchen, Nordic-like furnishings and a landscaped, outdoor green space, Little Scandinavia looks unlike any other U.S. prison. Plants grow throughout the common areas. A large fish tank, maintained by staff and residents, is the centerpiece of an area designed to encourage people to gather.
Prisoners and staff share responsibility for taking care of the fish tank at the ‘Little Scandinavia’ housing unit in a Pennsylvania prison.Commonwealth Media Services
A grocery program allows all of the residents to purchase fresh foods – a rarity in prison – and work directly with staff to send orders to a local store.
Each day, residents are expected to go to work, treatment or school, all within the prison.
Importantly, the correctional officers overseeing Little Scandinavia have received a range of training to facilitate communication with their assigned residents.
Drawing from Norway’s model, there is also a uniquely low ratio of trained staff to incarcerated men – one officer for eight residents, compared with the typical average of one staff member for 128 residents.
Although the community is still evolving, there have been no acts of violence, as some speculated would happen – even with access to kitchen equipment.
Little Scandinavia has other features, like couches and a shared kitchen, that are designed to give prisoners a sense of autonomy over their space.Creative Commonwealth Media
Learning from Little Scandinavia
As part of our research, we are examining correctional staff’s first-hand experiences with this international project.
Some analyses have shown that a Scandinavian approach, focused on normality and reintegration, can be potentially good for correctional officers, boosting their morale, independence and well-being.
Incarcerated people have also reported feeling safer and having more positive relationships with staff and other people living in the prisons. They also indicated greater satisfaction with their access to food and the reintegration support available to them.
SCI Chester shows that it is, in fact, possible to adapt Scandinavian-style penal philosophies and incorporate them into a Pennsylvania prison. This effort is a pilot, however, with significant costs, foundational support from committed leaders, and in partnership with many outside experts.
It remains to be seen how these efforts will play out in the long term. Data from this project, and rigorous research on other efforts, can inform conversations about what the future of prison reform in the U.S. could look like.
After all, as they say in Norway, a prison is responsible for enabling the people who are incarcerated to return to society as good neighbors – a fact that, in most cases, is as true in Philadelphia as it is in Stockholm or Oslo.
___
Jordan M. Hyatt and Synøve N. Andersen have received funding from Arnold Ventures, The Scandinavian-American Foundation, and the Nordic Research Council for Criminology (NsFK).
Synøve Nygaard Andersen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
___
SETH HERALD/AFP via Getty Images
One of the most pressing issues in America today is the increase in hate crimes — those that are motivated by prejudice against someone's race, sexual orientation, religion, gender, national origin, or other factors. In 2020, there were more than 8,000 hate crimes committed in the U.S., up from just over 7,000 the year before. The greatest percentage of hate crimes were motivated by race, ethnicity, and ancestry, according to the FBI. Stigmatizing rhetoric around the COVID-19 pandemic and the monkeypox outbreak have only fueled the violence.
Legislators have been trying to curtail these types of crimes since at least as far back as 1968, when the first federal hate crime legislation was passed with Title I of the Civil Rights Act. Some states have also enacted their own, often more stringent, hate crime legislation. In fact, there are currently 46 states with some type of hate crime law on the books. But those laws differ, sometimes substantially, by state.
Law enforcement plays an essential role in preventing hate crimes. The police and other relevant law enforcement bodies are expected to protect the lives and property of all members of society regardless of their ethnicity, social status, or sexuality. In many states, law enforcement bodies have taken steps toward curtailing the incidence rate of hate crimes.
According to the MAP report, 18 states have made it a requirement for law enforcement officers to receive basic training on the identification of hate crimes, the proper response to them, and data collection and reporting. To properly combat hate crimes, law enforcement officers and others working to protect people from hate crimes need accurate data that can be used to understand and allocate resources effectively.
However, the report also notes that some members of vulnerable communities (people of color, LGBTQ+ folks, etc.) who survive hate crimes may be hesitant to report them to the police due to biases in the criminal justice system.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: All states with hate crime laws (46 states plus Washington D.C.)
Another practical approach to hate crime prevention is through criminal punishment—one tool that is at the heart of each state's hate crime prevention laws. By making prison sentences longer, states hope to deter people from committing these crimes.
All states with hate crime laws have adopted some form of enhanced sentencing as a supporting measure to ensure that such crimes are discouraged in every possible way; however, there is not sufficient evidence to prove that criminal punishment significantly reduces crime. Even so, sentence enhancements may show lawmakers' commitment to preventing hate crimes.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: 36 (plus D.C.) with distinct crime, 6 with general sentencing, 4 with both
Enhanced penalties are enacted in two primary ways: by treating hate crimes as separate, distinct crimes (on top of the regular criminal charges filed in a case), and through general sentencing statutes that identify the underlying, hate-related characteristics of a crime. When treated as a distinct crime, the crime is defined, protected classes are specifically listed, and penalties are established. In cases of general sentencing, statutes require that selecting a target from protected classes should be considered an aggravating factor, which in turn leads to harsher punishment during sentencing.
For example, a person residing in a state that treats hate crimes as distinct could face two charges for one assault—one for the assault itself, and one for a hate crime; however, under general sentencing statutes, a person would be charged for assault only but receive a harsher punishment if eventually convicted. Currently, there are 36 states that treat hate crimes as distinct crimes, six states with general sentencing statutes, and four states with both.
CHOONGKY // Shutterstock
- Number of states with provisions: All states with hate crime laws, but specifics vary
Hate Crime laws are established to protect certain classes of people. To effectively achieve that goal, these laws usually list certain classes of people with specific traits or identities (disability, gender, or race, for example) as people that are protected by the law.
The categories of people protected by these laws usually mirror the categories listed in the federal civil rights law; however, in some states, the classes of protected people can vary. So overall, all states with hate crime statutes have some protected classes, but those classes can vary and generally help define what is considered a hate crime in a particular state.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: 35 and Washington D.C.
In some instances, hate crimes are not targeted against individuals alone. Sometimes they're committed against the property owned by people within a protected class, which is known as institutional vandalism. These might include Black-owned businesses, LGBTQ+ spaces such as a community center, or a religious institution such as a church or synagogue. The need for protections against such acts is where institutional vandalism statutes come into play.
These statutes consider the businesses and gathering spaces of people in protected classes as assets to be protected. So far, 35 states and Washington D.C. have institutional vandalism statutes in some form or other. In some states, institutional vandalism is included under the hate crimes umbrella and can be punishable as a hate crime under the law.
While most states use incarceration as punishment for hate crimes, some states employ additional consequences as well. These additional consequences are included alongside incarceration. For instance, in three states, people convicted of a hate crime are prohibited from owning a firearm. In four states, a hate crime conviction can result in disqualification from some forms of employment.
These additional consequences allow a controlled level of discretion in the sentencing of people convicted of hate crimes. The provisions do not replace existing laws, but can increase their effectiveness.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: 12
As an alternative to enhanced penalties, some states allow courts to exercise their discretion in choosing from available sentencing options. A few states' hate crime laws explicitly allow courts to recommend or require those convicted of hate crimes to complete community service or anti-bias education instead of or in addition to a prison sentence.
Laws like this allow some states to explore alternative punishments, rather than relying solely on traditional ones like incarceration. Alternative consequences may include completing community service or working with victim support services which can help bridge the gap in understanding that could lead to a hate crime in the first place.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: 31 and Washington D.C.
There are 31 states so far that allow civil action to be brought against people who commit hate crimes—separate from criminal proceedings. In these states, victims of hate crimes can sue for damages, financial compensation, or injunctive relief such as orders of protection. In at least 12 states, the attorney general may also pursue civil cases for survivors of hate crimes. Some states also retain the right to pursue criminal charges without the consent of the victim or survivor. Notably, in Arkansas, which has no hate crime laws on the books, survivors of certain hate-motivated crimes can still pursue civil action.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: 9
Hate crimes can change victims' lives in an instant. Out of the states with existing hate crime laws, only nine states offer statutory protections for victims. These protections usually include restraining orders granted, even before the suspected individual is convicted. Two states even go as far as establishing statutes that direct victims to community support services where they can receive additional support and remain safe. Some states also have provisions that protect a hate crime survivor or witness from being detained by law enforcement for a potential immigration violation.
Matt Albasi // Stacker
- Number of states with provisions: 30 and Washington D.C.
A considerable number of hate crimes go unpunished because of a lack of proper reporting standards. As it stands, 26 states have laws requiring law enforcement to report hate crimes to a central state repository, while another four states and D.C. require states to collect data but only through voluntary law enforcement reporting.
These states also publish annual reports on patterns and the nature of crimes committed. Only New Mexico has laws requiring law enforcement to report hate crimes to the FBI directly, though the state has no other requirement to collect hate crime data. With 20 states not requiring data collection, many hate crimes are never documented.