Download the PDF-file-->
We have interpreted the commission to be a question of whether the increased delegation of tasks has consequences for the relations between correctional officers and inmates in prison everyday-life. This includes qualitative as well as quantitative changes. Six prisons all together with the same level of security, but differing in size and geographical location, has been the empirical ground for this survey. 75 persons in total partook in conversations with us, all of which have the “long experience with the correctional services (prison services)” required and necessary to fulfil our intention of a historical perspective in the investigation.
Through conversations with (deputy) governors, correctional staff and inmates we have investigated if changes in assigned tasks as well as delegation of authority have taken place during the time our partners in conversation have been in the Norwegian correctional services. Both are seen in light of how changes in the relationship between correctional staff and inmates are experience by the involved. The manner of conduct of our investigation has also enabled the partakers to emphasize what they find important in the descriptions of their experiences with the Norwegian correctional services through the last 20 years. Hence this report contains both current and retrospective descriptions, developed through a qualitative investigating approach in combination with literature and documents studies.
It is important to stress that the experience of relations and closeness is dependent on working and serving conditions such as access to resources (especially with regards to time and workforce situation, and the continuity thereof), adequate competence and local material conditions such as architecture, interior and size. Both correctional officers and inmates emphasize the structural conditions and limitations thereof (material, organisational wise and with regards to the framework of the law and regulations). These conditions influence the quality of interaction between correctional officers and inmates.
The survey gives special attention to “the contact-officer arrangement” (Norwegian: ‘Kontaktbetjentordningen’), in which every inmate has his assigned correctional officer to turn to for assistance. Emphasized by all the participants, this arrangement is seen on an analytical level as a prism of the correctional services’ balancing between care and control and between ideals and reality - and the practical and ethical dilemmas that follows thereof.
Most of the participants, inmates and correctional officers alike, claim that more tasks have been delegated to the correctional officers in the last years, especially in relation to the contact-officer arrangement. The arrangement has entailed an expansion of the correctional officer function towards social work and care – functions that necessitate more resources and relevant competence. The negative points that where made by the participants where precisely related to the lack of resources and organisation needed to fulfil the role and work demands of the contact-officer arrangement in a good way. A large part of the participants stated that the delegation of new tasks has taken place without the correctional staff being provided with the qualifications necessary. Some made a point of the need for follow-up competence wise to be able to work as a contactofficer in the most adequate way. In connection with this topic, it was also pointed out
that there are educational differences between the “new” and “old” correctional officers – the new having a more relevant education for many of the tasks of today. The inmates and some of the “old” officers also stated that the “new” officers could be more rigid and less flexible in their conduct of work. Other participants stated that the contactofficer arrangement was a new thing only in the name, and that they always have functioned as “contact-officers”.
From the correctional officers perspective the attitudes towards and the perception of the inmates seems to have improved. The moral demands and demands of closeness to the single inmate seem to have strengthened the moral in the work. In contrast to the past, the inmates are treated with greater respect now, according to the officers. Some of them also regarded themselves as role-models for the inmates. Yet some officers felt that they now put more of their personality into their work. Communication and the officers’ formal responsibilities where also perceived to be strengthened. It was emphasized by a couple of officers that they have become cleverer, especially with regards to release.
Almost all of the inmates stressed that the contact-officer arrangement could be of practical benefit, and that it is this part of the arrangement that is the most important. Interaction beyond the practical seems to be problematic for many of the inmates, and the inmates were especially sceptical towards the practise of control and systematic registration under development. From the inmates’ point of view, and several of the officers’, there is a contradiction between control and care which is difficult to surpass.
With the increased amount of control present and under development, problems of trust and safety in the relations between inmates and officers arise – a point many inmates and officers agree upon. The role of the correctional officer seem to have become more ”complete” with the new
tasks. What is demanded of the inmate is now set forth in a different manner. At the same time
the inmate makes demands to the officer as well, especially regarding practical and caring activity. In comparison with just a few years ago, the role of the correctional officer and his working tasks is perceived to be more clearly defined in certain areas nowadays. More power, more authority and more respect are associated with the contact-officer of today, but along with this upgraded status more paper work and more bureaucracy follows: this takes time and resources from other tasks. Moreover, it has become easier to meet “fussing” from the inmates; one can on such occasions refer the inmates to his/her assigned contact-officer. Some of the inmates claim that the relation with the correctional officers has become closer in a professional-practical sense, and that the perception of the inmates has become better than it used to be. Several of the inmates make a point of lacking resources, disenabling the correctional officers in fulfilment of their many tasks. On the other hand, strong criticism is expressed towards correctional officers that do not involve themselves enough.
Most of the inmates’ experience of the new law of serving sentence (of 2001) with thereto regulations is, in sum, that the structures of authority, practice and communication have become more cumbersome and limiting. The inmates claim that the serving conditions have become harder and heavier, the future more uncertain and unpredictable, the serving-plans have worsened and the contact one has with the officers – as a consequence of lacking resources and strict regulations – has been weakened. What we have discovered in this survey is that
when the regulations become more strict and unpredictable, the trust between the inmates and correctional officers is influenced in a negative way, and consequently also the dynamic security.
The survey shows that it is in the interest of all that the correctional officers are given the possibility to be caring and helping. In fact, we have seen from the conversations that most of the correctional officers have a great wish to be “nice”, and many are frustrated about not having time to care for the weak and weary of the inmates or not having time to conduct their contact-officers’ tasks properly. It is pointed out by many of the officers that the conditions are not set for them to fulfil their role properly. At the same time, we have gather descriptions of concrete situations in which the correctional officers have succeeded in making qualitatively significant contact and doing their job reasonably satisfactory. We have moreover seen that small prisons and closely knitted wards produce something that large, panoptical-resembling wards can not – but we have also seen that there are limitations here when the distance between the involved parties is too far.
The survey has uncovered problems in the system concerning: information and communication, the relationship between ideals and realities, lack of time and conflict of roles in the institutional organisation, structural problems in relation to meditiation and power as well as problems connected with the contact-officer arrangment of today.
Several of the officers and inmates experience a great distance to both the local and regional administration. These problems are elaborated in Part III of this report, where we also give recommendations related to these. On a general level, the survey have uncovered grave problems connected to inmates suffering from mental illness on the one hand, and on the other what we have calleded “the problem of historical ignorance” – which are also elaborated and followed up by recommendations.