Incarceration within American and Nordic prisons: Comparison of national and international policies

Abstract

Prison systems throughout the world exist to enforce societal rules, maintain the safety of the general population, provide punitive sentences to offenders, and rehabilitate prisoners. While the goals of global prison systems are relatively common, the United States incarcerates more citizens per capita when compared to other European countries. In addition to the high incarceration rate, the U.S. also maintains a relatively high rate of recidivism, suggesting the U.S. prison system does not effectively rehabilitate American prisoners. Therefore, it is critical to explore the successful components of other European prison systems in order to establish stronger and more effective programs in the U.S.. The present manuscript compares the general prison functioning of the U.S. prison system to Nordic prison systems. Given this comparison, Nordic prison systems appear to do a more efficient job at reducing recidivism, providing educational services, and rehabilitating prisoners. Therefore, U.S. policymakers should consider viable options for alternative services and punitive approaches for American offenders.

Full text

National Dropout Prevention Center
209 Martin Street
Clemson, SC 29631-1555
864-656-2599
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE ON
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
Vol. 1 No. 1
ISSN 2326-5590 (print)
ISSN 2326-5604 (online)
www.dropoutprevention.org/engage
ENGAGE

ENGAGE
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE ON
STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Volume 1, Number 1
The National Dropout Prevention Center sponsors ENGAGE: An International Journal on
Research and Practice in School Engagement. This journal is widely accessible and free
for a global audience online. ENGAGE raises awareness of issues related to school engage-
ment as it explores and shares strategies and solutions that work globally. School engagement
means that all constituencies need to be engaged in the school experience: students, teachers,
administrators, parents, and members of the community including, but not limited to, busi-
nesses and social service organizations. ENGAGE is internationally refereed. The journal is
published twice annually by the National Dropout Prevention Center and Clemson University
Digital Press.
Editor
Dr. Jane Clark Lindle, Clemson University
Editorial Assistants
Ms. Kenyae Reese, Clemson University
Dr. Amanda Werts, Appalachian State University
Production Editor
Mr. David Windham, Clemson University
Editorial Advisory Board
Dr. Sonia Bahri, United Nations Educational, Scientic & Cultural Organization, France
Dr. Steve Edwards, Edwards Educational Services, Inc., USA
Dr. Maurice Elias, Rutgers University, USA
Dr. Phillip Garner, University of Northhampton, UK
Dr. David Gillborn, University of London, UK
Dr. Carol Hayden, University of Portsmouth, UK
Dr. Leslie F. Hergert, Education Development Center, Inc., USA
Dr. Relebohile Molesane, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Dr. Kathleen O’Neill, Southern Regional Education Board, USA
Dr. Carl Parsons, University of Greenwich, UK
Dr. Beth P. Reynolds, National Dropout Prevention Center, USA
Mr. Franklin Schargel, Schargel Consulting Group, USA
Mr. Stu Silberman, Prichard Committee, USA
Dr. Robert Langley Smith, University College of Oslo and Akershus, Norway
Dr. Crain Soudien, University of Cape Town, South Africa
©2013, National Dropout Prevention Center, Clemson University
209 Martin Street, Clemson, SC 29631-1555 USA
ISSN: 000-0000 | www.dropoutprevention.org/engage

Contents
Practitioner’s Voice
School Dropouts: A Global Issue
Steven W. Edwards ............................................................................................... 1
Research Articles
AVIDizing a High-Poverty Middle School: The Case of Magnolia Grove
Hans W. Klar, Curtis Brewer, and Marissa L. Whitehouse ................................... 9
A Discursive Approach to Restorative Practice: Improving the Learning
Environment Through Professional Learning
Maria Kecskemeti ................................................................................................. 24
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons: Comparison of
National and International Policies
Katie Ward, Amy J. Longaker, Jessica Williams, Amber Naylor,
Chad A. Rose, and Cynthia G. Simpson ................................................................ 36
Youth Voice
Kindergarten Drawings of School
Rachel L. Lindle .................................................................................................... 48
Call for Manuscripts ................................................................................................ 55
ENGAGE: The International Journal of Research and Practice on Student Engagement

36
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons: Comparison
of National and International Policies
Katie Ward, Amy J. Longaker, Jessica Williams, Amber Naylor, Chad A Rose, and
Cynthia G. Simpson
Abstract
Prison systems throughout the world exist to enforce societal rules, maintain the safety of
the general population, provide punitive sentences to offenders, and rehabilitate prisoners.
While the goals of global prison systems are relatively common, the United States incar-
cerates more citizens per capita when compared to other European countries. In addition
to the high incarceration rate, the U.S. also maintains a relatively high rate of recidivism,
suggesting the U.S. prison system does not effectively rehabilitate American prisoners.
Therefore, it is critical to explore the successful components of other European prison
systems in order to establish stronger and more effective programs in the U.S.. The present
manuscript compares the general prison functioning of the U.S. prison system to Nordic
prison systems. Given this comparison, Nordic prison systems appear to do a more efcient
job at reducing recidivism, providing educational services, and rehabilitating prisoners.
Therefore, U.S. policymakers should consider viable options for alternative services and
punitive approaches for American offenders.
The United States incarcerates more people per capita than most western European
countries and Canada (Mauer, 2003), and many of those imprisoned within the
U.S. will be released and rearrested within three years (Langan & Levin, 2002). While
research has indicated that some prisons and programs are successful at educating and re-
habilitating inmates to reduce recidivism, the majority of prisons exist to protect the public
and punish the offender (French & Gendreau, 2006; Langan & Levin, 2002). Although
protecting the general public should be the primary function of prison systems, increased
attention should be placed on educating and rehabilitating inmates to prevent cyclic nature
of offence, arrest, release, and repeat.
Many prisons in the U.S. are privately operated on behalf of the public by such con-
glomerates as the Corrections Corporations of America and The GEO Group (Gran &
Henry, 2008). While these entities exist to serve the primary function of the prison system,
these companies are for prot, and are compensated for rehabilitation success. In fact, the
more incarcerates who remain in the system, the more lucrative the enterprise becomes.
Consequently, rehabilitation and educational services do not generally factor in to the bot-
tom line of these corporations when compared to construction fees, management salaries,
and employee wages (Gran & Henry, 2008).
In general, the U.S. prison system is often unsuccessful at rehabilitating inmates based
on the high rates of recidivism (Langan & Levin, 2002). Major impediments to rehabili-
tation within the U.S. prison system includes the lack of drug rehabilitation programs,
overall lack of funding for rehabilitation programs, and mandatory sentencing laws for
certain crimes which may force some into prisons who then learn criminal behavior from
ENGAGE: The International Journal of Research and Practice on Student Engagement

37
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons
their peers while incarcerated (Mauer, 2011). The purpose of this review is to discuss and
compare the success and methods of prisons in the U.S. and abroad to rehabilitate inmates
while applying general behavioral principles.
Predictors for Escalated Incarceration Rates in the U.S.
Research has demonstrated that the prison system functions, in many ways, as a re-
ceptacle for groups facing systematic challenges such as failed or inadequate educational
opportunities, unemployment, reliance upon public assistance, and involvement in crimi-
nal activity (Austin, Bruce, Carroll, McCall, & Richards, 2001). High school dropouts
represent the majority demographic among those on public assistance and/or incarcerated
(Stanard, 2003). Dropouts are more likely to be unemployed, dependent upon public as-
sistance, earn less in the workforce, and end up in the legal system. (Stanard, 2003). In fact,
early school failure and inadequate schooling (e.g., ineffective teaching methods, prob-
lematic disciplinary practices, lack of educational resources, lack of parental involvement)
serves as a predictor of increased dropout rates (Christie, Jolivette, & Nelson, 2005).
A series of studies have focused on behavioral patterns and disciplinary actions taken
toward students who eventually drop out of school and become entrenched in the legal
system. This body of literature suggests that students who consistently violate school rules
are more likely to be punished, and as these individuals progress in age, the rule violations
often increase in frequency and severity, which results in a steady escalation in the ap-
plied sanctions (Casella, 2001; Christle et al., 2005; Gottfredson, 2001). This escalation in
sanctions can lead to negative labels and exclusions from peer groups, which can create a
self-fullling prophecy and result in a cycle of antisocial behavior that can be difcult to
break (Casella, 2001; Gottfredson, 2001). Therefore, this cycle of punishment, which often
begins at school, could lead to a cycle of illegal activities, arrests, and incarceration.
Protability
In addition to educational predictors, the privatization of U.S. prisons may impede the
rehabilitation and education of the nation’s prisoners. Fundamentally, private prisons are
often quite protable for investors, while creating jobs and stimulating local economies.
As such, the political will to nance prisons is not driven by altruistic sentiment to reha-
bilitate (Coyle, 2003). Meanwhile, the U.S. prison population is rising over two million
with expenditures that eclipse $35 billion annually, resulting in both prison expansion and
new prison construction (Coyle, 2003). In addition to the cost associated with prison ex-
pansion, increased expenditures are necessary for the supervision of prisoners and, ideally,
the implementation of rehabilitative programs both within and outside of the prison walls
(Coyle, 2003). While programs within the prison itself are necessary, external rehabilita-
tive programs help reduce recidivism, which requires ongoing expenditures for the super-
vision of released offenders (Coyle, 2003). However, the initial link to reduce recidivism
may be entrenched within the educational system.

38 K. Ward, A. J. Longaker, J. Williams, A. Naylor, C. A. Rose, and C. G. Simpson
Examination of National and International Policies
The U.S. penal system is often portrayed among the American populace as being tough
on crime. To the rest of the western world, the penal system in the United States is viewed
as a broken system, where the U.S. policy of mass incarceration is the epitome of ineffec-
tive practice (Mallory, 2006). While this is a tough critique, the American incarceration rate
is the highest in the world at over 714 per 100,000 U.S. citizens (Walmsley, 2008). This
rate is strikingly higher than that of other southern and western European countries, whose
average incarceration rate is only 95 per 100,000 citizens (Stern, 2002; Walmsley, 2008).
America’s higher rate of incarceration might be acceptable if it resulted in a safer society.
However, it can be argued that the escalated rates of incarceration do not increase societal
safety based on the consistently high rates of overall crimes, violent crimes, and recidivism
rate. Consequently, one could reasonably conclude that the United States’ political agenda
for increasing punishment to decrease crime yields an ineffective result. Therefore, in the
current form, the U.S. prison system inadequately deters crimes and is ineffective at reha-
bilitating offenders. Ironically, the U.S. penal system inadvertently encourages antisocial
behavior (Mallory, 2006).
In contrast, when examining crime rates, the percent of population that is imprisoned,
and the recidivism rate in Nordic countries, the statistics demonstrate that Nordic penal
systems are more successful at deterring future criminal activity when compared to the
U.S. (Walmsley, 2008). The Nordic approach to punishment, the setup of their prisons,
and the public perception of the purpose of the penal system are fundamentally different
than the US. For example, when Norway implemented the prison model used in Denmark,
Finland, and Sweden, the prison population dropped from 200 per 100,000 people in 1950
to 65 per 100,000 people in 2004 (Von Hofer, 2007). Similarly, an experimental Dutch
prison was created to minimize costs and increase inmate success following release, where
inmate rights are of paramount concern and the ultimate goal is to teach offenders that their
choices have consequences, both good and bad (Kenis, Kruyen, Baaijens, & Barneveld,
2010). Though each Nordic country’s (i.e., Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) laws and
prison policies vary slightly, as a whole the Nordic penal system deviates from that of other
countries with higher rates of incarceration and recidivism, resulting in more favorable
outcomes for the rehabilitation and education of offenders.
Nordic Prison Overview
Conceivably, many Americans conceptualize their global understanding of prison
through their beliefs, experiences, and media portrayal of the national legal system. Conse-
quently, it may be difcult to conceive of a prison system that does not rely almost exclu-
sively on punitive measures, but rather attends to the rights and rehabilitation of inmates. In
contrast to the American Prison System, the framework of the Nordic Prison System serves
to rehabilitate inmates to directly address recidivism (Pratt, 2008). For example, while the
largest Nordic prison houses approximately 350 inmates, the majority of these prisons are
relatively small and house around 100 inmates (Pratt, 2008). The philosophy behind the
limited prison size is to maintain several active prisons in many different parts of the coun-
try, allowing prisoners to reside in closer proximity to their family and home environment

39
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons
(Pratt, 2008). Consequently, Nordic prisoners can maintain their roots in their communities
and family bonds, while receiving rehabilitation services within the prison walls.
Nordic prison facilities. Nordic prisons typically fall under one of two categories:
open prisons and closed prisons. These categories are generally stepwise in restrictiveness,
where the typical inmate will rst go to a closed, more restrictive, prison where they will
serve the majority of their sentence (Baer & Ravneberg, 2008; Pratt, 2008). Toward the end
of the prison sentence, the inmate will be transferred to an open prison, that serves as the
foundation for inmate rehabilitation; allowing the offenders more freedoms, more relaxed
surroundings, fewer security measures, and more programs aimed at societal reintegration
(Baer & Ravneberg, 2008; Pratt, 2008). For example, in one Dutch open prison, creative
cost-cutting measures led to increased socializing behavior by housing six inmates in a
spacious cell, that includes typical daily amenities, designed to promote positive social
interactions and independence (Kenis et al., 2010). The traditional Nordic cell, however, is
located on a wing off of the prison’s main corridor, where each wing has a central common
room that contains a television and a small kitchen (Pratt, 2008).
In addition to the cell accommodations, barriers such as fences and walls are elimi-
nated when possible (Pratt, 2008). While closed prisons maintain tight perimeters and se-
curity checks, most open prisons allow offenders to freely roam the grounds, lock their own
doors, and earn in town privileges (Pratt, 2008). Given this level of freedom, many open
prisons utilize technology as a means for accounting for and tracking the location of their
prisoners (Kenis et al., 2010). Consequently, this level of surveillance has produced both
a safer environment and increases in socializing behaviors as offenders seek to maximize
the reinforcement for acceptable behavior (Kenis et al., 2010). Overall, the goal of open
prisons is to shorten the physical and social distance between prison and the outside world;
however, the prisons also employ strict procedures, surveillance, mandatory chores, depri-
vations, and sanctions that the general public does not endure (Pratt, 2008).
Nordic prison staff. Attitudes of staff, especially prison guards, are thought to directly
inuence the success of correctional rehabilitation programs and the successful reintegra-
tion of prisoners after their release (Kjelsberg, Skoglund, & Rustad, 2007). The make up of
prison guards within a prison is carefully analyzed to maximize the success of the inmates,
where prisons employ guards who vary in gender, age, and level of education (Pratt, 2008).
Interestingly, working as a prison guard is a desirable vocation, which is very competitive
and selective in Nordic countries (Pratt, 2008). Training includes two years of mentoring
prior to independent supervision of inmates, where trainees establish an understanding of
punitive policies, political inuences, and public perception that serves as the foundation
for the connection between the structure of the system and reform (Pratt, 2008).
Punitive Policies, Political Inuences, and Public Perception
Some of our most important contributions to understanding the functionality prison
systems stemmed from ethnographic methods (Austin & Irwin, 2001; Irwin, 1970/1987,
1980, 1985; Jacobs, 1977; Owen, 1998; Richards, 1990, 1995; Sykes 1956, 1958; Sykes
& Messinger, 1960). Over the past few decades, a number of studies have questioned the

40 K. Ward, A. J. Longaker, J. Williams, A. Naylor, C. A. Rose, and C. G. Simpson
utility of incarceration as an effective means of reducing crime rates. For example, Blum-
stein, Cohen, and Nagin (1978) and Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, and Visher (1986) concluded
that there is no systematic evidence suggesting general incapacitation and selective inca-
pacitation has had or could have a major impact on crime rates. Similarly, Sherman and
colleagues (1998), suggested that while the incarceration of persons who will continue to
commit crimes would reduce crime rates, “the number of crimes prevented by locking up
each additional offender declines with diminishing returns as less active and less serious
offenders are incarcerated (p. 8).”
American policies. At the present time, American prison reform efforts face major
challenges due to the changing political landscape, public perception of the penal system,
and the continuing national recession. Specically, living conditions within the prisons
are often viewed as an additional means of punishment (Mauer, 2011). Warden Norton, a
character in The Shawshank Redemption (Marvin & Darabont, 1994) gives one of the most
famous, albeit ctional, accounts of prisons in American culture, “[as] [f]ar as [politicians]
are concerned, there’s only three ways to spend the taxpayer’s hard-earned money when it
come to prisons. More walls. More bars. More guards.” A high prison population has been
one of many constraints toward establishing effective rehabilitative programs, especially
in the face of limited budgets and the increasing recession.
Conceivably, prisons may also create a space for criminal networking that may further
facilitate criminal activity. Linsky and Strauss (1986) found that states with the highest
incarceration rates maintained the highest crime rates. Specically, some attribute the in-
crease in criminal activity to a lack of prison supervision (LaGrange & Silverman, 1999),
or exposure to misbehavior (Longshore & Turner, 1998). Given the high rates of incarcera-
tion in the U.S., and the predictive factors associated with the cyclic nature of incarceration
and recidivism, penal system reform must start to emerge as a legislative priority.
International policies. In Scandinavia, it is believed that the prison conditions should
parallel real-world conditions as closely as possible (Pratt, 2008). The Finnish Department
of Prison and Probation (2004) has suggested that punishment is not the elimination of ba-
sic needs; it is simply the loss of liberty, demonstrating that the Finnish believe in “gentle
justice” which focuses on decreased recidivism through rehabilitation of prisoners (Ekun-
we, Jones, & Mullin, 2010). Similarly, policy statements in the Netherlands are aimed at
the resocialization and reintegration of inmates (Schinkel, 2003). Overall, Nordic offenders
are not stripped of their basic rights; their independence is restricted while they receive
rehabilitation services to deter future criminal activity (Von Hofer & Marvin, 2001).
Education Programs
America. Fundamentally, there is an inverse relationship between rates of recidivism
and level of education, where the higher the level of education, the less likely the person
is to be rearrested or imprisoned (Coylewright, 2004). For example, Coylewright (2004)
suggested that:

41
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons
Every dollar spent on education yields more than two dollars in savings from avoiding
reincarceration alone. This is signicant in an era of state budget pressures when our
national (state and federal) corrections budget consumes more than $50 billion a year
(p. 403).
Yet, the mere implementation of these programs has been a challenge. According to Coyle-
wright (2004), only 33% of offenders receive educational training prior to release. How-
ever, critics suggest that only specic components or domains of education assist in reduc-
ing recidivism. For example, Adams and colleagues (1994) found that education within the
prison is only effective at reducing recidivism when the prison population has very little
education to begin with, and when this population receives at least 200 hours of educa-
tional services.
International. In direct contrast to American prison systems, education is a high pri-
ority within the Nordic prison system and is considered to be a right of the incarcerated
individual. Education is provided to the extent that the offender wishes to participate, and
guards are taught to encourage them to further their education. Prisoners have the option of
attending school full time, and the prisons offer all levels of education including university
degrees, which can be accessed via distance education (Pratt, 2008).
Occupational Programs
American occupational programs. Occupational programs in the United States seek
to develop offenders’ vocational skills in order to ensure their reintegration into society as
working and productive members. Like educational programs, occupational programs also
suffer from budgetary cutbacks and restraints associated with an increase in recidivism for
participating offenders (Petersilia, 1999). America’s overall decrease in the recidivism rate
may be due to some vocational programs requiring a diploma or GED to participate, thus
making it difcult to determine the extent to which vocational training was responsible for
the recidivism decrease (Lawrence, 2004). This education criterion excludes a large por-
tion of offenders from participating in the program. By the same token, occupational pro-
grams may be effectively implemented but prove fruitless because of little support nding
employment once released from prison (Lawrence, 2004). More specically, there needs to
be consistent treatment and a support network for offenders both inside and outside of the
prison walls, especially in vocational programs.
International occupational programs. Fundamentally, the success of the Nordic
model is contingent upon the country’s ability to secure potential employers. For example,
the Danish welfare state has effectively embedded policies that keep their prison model
functional within the surrounding community (Lacey, 2010). This program includes help-
ing offenders locate and secure jobs within the public sector that will maintain them fol-
lowing their release. Consequently, these work programs are instituted for individuals who
have demonstrated the ability to engage in gainful employment, while maintaining socially
appropriate behaviors.

42 K. Ward, A. J. Longaker, J. Williams, A. Naylor, C. A. Rose, and C. G. Simpson
In Finland, eligible inmates are sent to “labor camps” where they are compensated
with a normal wage for completed work. In turn, these earnings are used for them to pay
for their own expenses; including rent, utilities, food, and taxes. Additionally, these eligible
individuals are able to save money and provide for their families, or in some cases, send
nancial compensation to the families of their victims (Kenis et al., 2010; Pratt, 2008). For
example, Bastoy Prison, which is the model open prison in Norway, attempts to foster a
sense of responsibility among the inmates by providing employment opportunities based
on documented behavioral patterns and the development of trusting relationships between
the inmate and prison administration (Pratt, 2008).
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Programs
American mental health and substance abuse programs. The criminal justice sys-
tem has a duty to care for prisoners with physical disabilities; however, some argue that
treatment of psychological illnesses and drug addictions are not the responsibility of the
system (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976). However, the number of rehabilitative programs is dis-
proportionate to the number of inmates (Mumola, 1999; Mumola & Karberg, 2007), where
between 70-85% of those incarcerated are in need of alcohol or substance abuse treat-
ment, and only 13% of these inmates ever receive treatment (McCaffrey, 1998). While
most states reported having Therapeutic Communities (TC) or federally funded Residential
Substance Abuse Treatment centers, these programs are unable to service many prisoners
with substance abuse histories due to size limitations (Austin & Irwin, 2001). Similarly,
effective psychotherapy is essentially nonexistent for individual prisoners, because group
therapy is the most prevalent in the prison setting (Coylewright, 2004). Consequently,
group therapy is often ineffective due to the fear of being perceived as weak by revealing
too much personal information, or for being too cooperative with the prison administra-
tors (Coylewright, 2004). Therefore, effective reform requires a reassessment of the legal
system’s duty to provide psychological and substance abuse treatment.
International mental health and substance abuse programs. One common thread
between American and Nordic prison systems is that the majority of offenders are com-
monly substance abusers prior to incarceration (Friestad & Hansen, 2004; Mumola & Kar-
berg, 2007). However, the Nordic prison systems offer substance abuse and mental health
counseling to their inmates. For example, in the Netherlands, all healthcare, including
mental health, is viewed as a right for all individuals, including prisoners (Bulten, Vissers,
& Oei, 2008). According to Lobmaier, Kornor, Kunoe, and Bjorndal (2008), the most ef-
fective way to get a prisoner to accept treatment was through rapport development and the
urging of a trusted staff member. Unfortunately, when an offender with drug dependency
is released, it is reported that as many as 90% of them return to drugs (Butzin, Martin, &
Inciardi, 2005).

43
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons
Behavioral Programs
American behavioral programs. Community-based behavioral programs have tradi-
tionally focused on providing intensive behavioral support through services and communi-
ty involvement, where programs’ structures and service provisions are guided by research
on social learning conceptualizations of criminal behavior (Gendreau, 1996). Gendreau
(1996) explains that these programs incorporate theory, empirical data, and practice to cre-
ate a space for the inmates’ behavioral growth and development. Based on the responsiv-
ity principle, these programs last a few months and apply behavioral approaches toward
rehabilitating high-risk offenders, with a concrete aim of developing interpersonal skills.
Therapists train and supervise the offenders in real-life, interpersonal and constructive
projects, where contingencies are enforced by weighting reinforcers and punishers at a rate
of at least 4 to 1. According to Gendreau and Ross (1981), reductions in recidivism rou-
tinely ranged from 25% to 60%, with the greatest reductions found for community-based
programs.
International behavioral programs. In contrast to the typical U.S. model, the Dutch
DCL prison uses a systematic behavioral system to ensure that desired behaviors are re-
inforced and undesired behaviors are either punished or extinguished. For example, pris-
oners plan their own schedules and are given choices regarding their preferred activities,
where these choices serve as reinforcers and lead to increased independence (Kenis et
al., 2010). In addition to choice activities, prisoners can earn monetary compensation for
appropriate behaviors, which can earn increased privileges and access to social activities
(e.g., television, phone calls, visiting hours, different accommodations; Kenis et al., 2010).
Overall, policymakers selected this model to increase inmates’ behavioral responsibilities,
and this model was more cost effective for inmates who were incarcerated for more than
four months (Kenis et al., 2010).
Conclusion
The current view on the treatment of prisoners in the United States is that an increase
in punishment yields a decrease in crime rates (French & Gendreau, 2006; Langan & Levin
2002). In reality, the U.S. crime and recidivism rate is higher than that of any other country
(Langan & Levin, 2002; Mauer, 2003). Considering the relationship between individuals
who are undereducated and incarcerated (Stanard, 2003), there seems to be an obvious
need to reform the current education system. In contrast, other countries have models for
prison systems that seem to be more effective at reducing recidivism and crime; most no-
tably, Nordic prisons employ a philosophy of rehabilitation to decrease recidivism (Kjels-
berg, et al., 2007). Consequently, the United States may possibly benet from a decrease in
recidivism by widely adopting features from the Nordic prison systems.

44 K. Ward, A. J. Longaker, J. Williams, A. Naylor, C. A. Rose, and C. G. Simpson
References
Adams, K., Bennett, K. J., Flanagan, T. J., Marquart, J. W., Cuvelier, J. R., Fritsch, J. G.,
Longmire, D. R., & Burton, V. S. (1994). A large scale multidimensional test of the
effect of prison education programs on offenders’ behavior. The Prison Journal, 74,
433-451.
Austin, J., Bruce, M. A., Carroll, L., McCall, P. L., & Richards, S. C. (2001). The use of
incarceration in the United States: American Society of Criminology National Policy
Committee. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 10, 17-41.
Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2001). It’s about time: America’s imprisonment binge (3rd ed.). Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baer, L. D., & Ravneberg, B. (2008). The outside and inside in Norwegian and English pris-
ons. Geograska Annaler Series B: Human Geography, 90(2), 205-216. doi:10.1111/
j.1468-0467.2008.00287.x
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Nagin, D. (1978). Deterrence and incapacitation: Estimating
the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates. Washington, DC: National Academy
of Sciences.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C.A. (1986). Criminal careers and “career
criminals.” Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bulten, E., Vissers, A., & Oei, K. (2008). A theoretical framework for goal-directed care
within the prison system. Mental Health Review Journal, 13(3), 40-50.
Butzin, C., Martin, S., & Inciardi, J. (2005). Treatment during transition from prison to
community and subsequent illicit drug use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment,
28, 351–358.
Casella, R. (2001). “Being down”: Challenging violence in urban schools. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Christie, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison pipe-
line: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptional-
ity, 13, 69-88.
Coyle, A. (2003). Editorial: A human rights approach to prison management. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 13, 77-80.
Coylewright, J. (2004). New strategies for prisoner rehabilitation in the American criminal
justice system: Prisoner facilitated mediation. Journal of Healthcare Law & Policy, 7,
395-422.
Ekunwe, I., Jones, R. S., & Mullin, K. (2010). Public attitudes toward crime and incarcera-
tion in Finland. Researcher: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 1-21.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285 (1976).
Finnish Department of Prisons and Probation. (2004). Annual Report. Helsinki, Finland:
Finnish Department of Prisons and Probation.
French, S., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 185-211.
Friestad C., & Hansen I. L. (2004). Levekaar blant innsatte. [Norwegian] (Report 429).
Oslo, Norway: Fafo research foundation.

45
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Har-
land (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Dening the demand and evalu-
ating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. (1981). Correctional potency: Treatment and deterrence on trial.
In R. Roesch & R. Corrado (Eds.), Evaluation and criminal justice policy (pp. 29-57).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gottfredson, D. (2001). Schools and delinquency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gran, B., & Henry, W. (2008). Holding private prisons accountable: A socio-legal analysis
of “contracting out” prisons. Social Justice, 34, 173-194.
Irwin, J. (1970/1987). The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in Turmoil. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
Irwin, J. (1985). The Jail. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Jacobs, J. B. (1977). Statesville. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kenis, P., Kruyen, P. M., Baaijens, J., & Barneveld, P. (2010). The prison of the future? An
evaluation of an innovative prison design in the Netherlands. Prison Journal, 90(3),
313-330. doi:10.1177/0032885510373506
Kjelsberg, E., Skoglund, T., & Rustad, A. (2007). Attitudes towards prisoners, as reported
by prison inmates, prison employees and college students. BMC Public Health, 7, 771-
779. doi:10.1186/1471- 2458-7-71
Lacey, N. (2010). Differentiating among penal states. British Journal of Sociology, 61(4),
778-794. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01341.x
LaGrange, T., & Silverman, R. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the gen-
eral theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminol-
ogy, 37, 41-72.
Langan, P. & Levin, D. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Federal Sentenc-
ing Reporter, 15(1), 58-65.
Lawrence, R. (2004). Understanding fatal assault of children: A typology and explanatory
theory. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 837-852.
Linsky, A. S., & Straus, M. A. (1986). Social stress in the United States. Dover, MA: Au-
burn House.
Lobmaier P., Kornor, H., Kunoe N., & Bjorndal, A. (2008). Sustained-release naltrexone
for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2(CD006140).
DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD006140.pub 2.
Longshore, D., & Turner, S. (1998). Self-control and criminal opportunity: Cross sectional
test of the general theory of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25(1), 81-98.
Mallory, J. L. (2006). Globalization, prisons, and the philosophy of punishment. Women’s
Studies, 35(6), 529-543. doi:10.1080/00497870600809723
Marvin, N., & Darabont, F. (1994). Shawshank Redemption. United States of America:
Castle Rock Entertainment.
Mauer, M. (2003). Comparative international rates of incarceration: An examination of
causes and trends: Presented to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Washington,
DC: The Sentencing Project.

46
Mauer, M. (2011). The challenges of implementing research-based policies. Criminology
and Public Policy, 10, 69-76.
McCaffrey, B. (1998). Drug treatment in the criminal justice system. Washington, DC: Of-
ce of National Drug Control Policy.
Mumola, C. J. (1999). Bureau of Justice statistics special report: Substance abuse and
treatment, state and federal prisoners, 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice.
Mumola, C. J., & Karberg, J. C. (2007). Bureau of Justice statistics special report: Drug
use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice.
Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a woman’s prison. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Petersilia, J. (1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. In M. Tonry & J.
Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 479-529). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pratt, J. (2008). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. British Journal of
Criminology, 48(3), 275-292. doi:101093/bjc/azm073
Richards, S. C. (1990). Sociological penetration of the American gulag. Wisconsin Sociolo-
gist 4(27), 18–28.
Richards, S. C. (1995). The structure of prison release: An extended case study of prison
release, work release, and parole. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Schinkel, W. (2003). Discipline or punishment? The case of the Dutch pris-
on. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(3), 211-226.
doi:10.1080/1351161032000126026
Sherman, L. S., Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D. L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S.
D. (1998). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Series: NIJ
Research in Brief. Washington, DC: Ofce of Justice Programs, National Institute of
Justice.
Stanard, R. (2003). High school graduation rates in the United States: Implications for the
counseling profession. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(2), 217-21.
Stern, V. (2002). The international impact of U.S. policies. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-
Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment
(pp. 279-292). New York, NY: The New Press.
Sykes, G. M. (1956). Men, merchants, and toughs: A study of reactions to imprisonment.
Social Problems, 4,130–38.
Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Sykes, G. M., & Messinger, S. L. (1960). Inmate social system. In D. R. Cressey, G. H.
Grosser, R. H. McCleery, L. E., Ohlin, G. M. Sykes, & S. L. Messinger (Eds.), Theo-
retical studies in social organization of the prison (pp. 5-19). New York, NY: Social
Science Research Council.
Von Hofer, H. (2007). Current Swedish penal policy. In P. O. Traskman (Ed.), Rationality
and emotion in European penal policy: Nordic perspectives. Copenhagen, Denmark:
DJOF Publishing.
Von Hofer, H., & Marvin, R. (2001). Sweden. In D. van Zyl Smit & F. Dunkel (Eds.),
Imprisonment today and tomorrow: International perspectives (pp. 634–652). The
Hague, The Neatherlands: Kluwer Law International.
K. Ward, A. J. Longaker, J. Williams, A. Naylor, C. A. Rose, and C. G. Simpson

47
Walmsley, R. (2008). World prison population list (6th ed.). London, England: King’s Col-
lege London, School of Law, International Centre for Prison Studies.
About the Authors
Katie A. Ward, M.S.Ed, BCBA, is a recent graduate of Sam Houston State University
and Baylor University. She is currently Coordinator of Special Education Services for the
Brazosport Independent School District.
Amy J. Longaker, M. Ed., BCBA, is a recent graduate of Sam Houston State Univer-
sity in Huntsville, TX. She is currently a Behavior Analyst for Aldine Independent School
District.
Jessica L. Williams, M.S.Ed, is a recent graduate of the Sam Houston State University
in Huntsville, TX. She is currently a special education teacher in the Spring Independent
School.
Amber Naylor, M.Ed, BCBA, is a recent graduate of Sam Houston State University in
Huntsville, TX. She is currently a Board Certied Behavior Analyst at MHMRA of Harris
County’s ECI Program.
Chad A. Rose, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department
of Language, Literacy and Special Populations at Sam Houston State University. His re-
search focuses on the predictive and protective factors associated with the overrepresentation
of students with disabilities within the bullying dynamic.
Cynthia G. Simpson, Ph.D., is the Dean of the School of Education and Behavioral Sci-
ences at Houston Baptist University. Her research focuses on linking assessment to instruc-
tion within an inclusive classroom and gender discrepancies within the bullying dynamic.
Incarceration Within American and Nordic Prisons